4 ms·

>I only saw harmless videos of kids having fun when I looked at his own examples. Have you seen this -- https://youtu.be/M78rlxEMBxk?t=364 https://youtu.be/M78

>I only saw harmless videos of kids having fun when I looked at his own examples. Have you seen this -- https://youtu.be/M78rlxEMBxk?t=364 https://youtu.be/M78rlxEMBxk?t=364 ?

hombre_fatal 8y ago
My issue is that whenever the topic of "child exploitation" comes up, there's always a lack of specifics. Both the specifics of what we're actually referring to and the specifics of an actual solution. Instead, everyone (like every media outlet and internet comment) casts a vote against "child exploitation". Who wouldn't? And the discussion stops there. "Whatever they're doing, it needs to stop!" For example, I bet most people aren't thinking "whispering girl" or "family video of daughters playing in the pool" when they hear the phrase "child exploitation". And maybe most people think Youtube is no place for those videos, fair enough. But the taboo subject and the lack of specifics creates an incredibly charged and blind environment that makes it hard to have a real discussion. So let's be specific here: what kind of action should be taken against this whispering girl's video and what kind of policy does Youtube need to have at scale?
- nopriorarrests 8y ago
  Lets be specific. My first question -- so, 12 y.o. girl being dressed in police uniform and acting like in an opening of a cheesy porn movie is your definition of "just kids having fun"?
  - 1024core 8y ago
    But are you sure that no one on this planet would consider it as "kids having fun"? YT is a global medium. Just because you (or even the majority of people) are offended, it doesn't mean that everyone should be.
    - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
      A 12 year old girl, whispering in a sexual manner, wearing a stripper style police outfit, saying things like "I need to leave for my tinder date tonight" and "this is never happening" while pointing at the camera and herself. (and that's just the first 30 seconds) I'm sorry If you think that's "kids having fun" you belong on a cross. Edit (more details on exactly why this is wrong): It's shot in the style of POV porn videos that are popular today, the driver is male (why not female if the purpose is not sexual), his name is used infrequently as possible (don't want to ruin the immersion of the viewers), she holds up handcuffs and suggests that she "might have to use them on you", the outfit either doesn't fit or is purposefully open in her chest area, she is wearing exaggerated makeup and has press on nails in a manner fitting of a central casting prostitute. It's about as extreme as you can get without the FBI coming knocking on your door. I'm a atheist and I'm praying that someone, somewhere in law enforcement is keeping a close eye on her. Poor girl.
      - Yntec 8y ago
        Sorry, but none of that is sexual, let's get to it point by point: -Police costumes aren't sexual -Whispering isn't sexual -Date jokes aren't sexual -Point Of View camera angles aren't sexual -Being male is not sexual (if it was a female, you could flip the argument and claim it's for lesbians) -Omitting name isn't sexual -Arresting people with handcuff isn't sexual -Makeup and press on nails aren't sexual -Finally, keeping immersion that it's the viewer isn't sexual, because this would require something else to be. What I think is happening, and I could be wrong, but, perhaps you've watched porn with a similar setup about some policegirl fetish? Your brain can't but associate the two and see them as the same? You've seen setups like this that the only way you can imagine for the video to continue is of the sexual kind? Nothing alarming is actually happening. And I didn't notice her chest area was open until you pointed it out, so the video isn't the problem.
  - hombre_fatal 8y ago
    I haven't suggested a definition of where to draw the line, it's exactly what I'm asking. Is that video sexual content? And how would you suggest encoding it in a policy change? Obviously, "I'll know it when I see it" doesn't scale.
    - nopriorarrests 8y ago
      I don't have an answer. But what I can tell is that video I linked above... I'll give 99% probability easily, that this video was made for purpose, with sexual context in mind, most probably by some adult person, not another kid, and it is not "just kid having fun", and it's not "family video". This is softcore erotica with 12-14 y.o. girl, and it was made to be a softcore erotica. There is literally zero other reasons to shoot video like this.
      - hackinthebochs 8y ago
        If you don't know anything about ASMR you might think that. But that's pretty standard content in the ASMR-sphere. The only difference is that it's being made by a preteen.
        fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
        >If you don't know anything about porn you might think that. But that's pretty standard content in the porn-sphere. The only difference is that it's being made by a preteen. is also true.
        hackinthebochs 8y ago
        Some loose similarities does not establish the sexual nature of these kind of videos.
        fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
        >loose similarities Without sex or nudity, how do you purpose you'd make it more similar?
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    So is the girl in this video .. deciding to make this herself? Like she saw other examples of this, with adults, and then decided to do this as a child, was somehow a good idea? In that linked video the guy reacting points out the terrible Tinder joke. So therefore, she's aware to some extend how fucked up this is right? ... I realize some of these kids make tons from ads on these videos .. but at some point ... that's just bad parenting. Like what are you teaching your child?

>I only saw harmless videos of kids having fun when I looked at his own examples. Have you seen this -- https://youtu.be/M78rlxEMBxk?t=364 https://youtu.be/M78rlxEMBxk?t=364 ?

hombre_fatal 8y ago

My issue is that whenever the topic of "child exploitation" comes up, there's always a lack of specifics. Both the specifics of what we're actually referring to and the specifics of an actual solution. Instead, everyone (like every media outlet and internet comment) casts a vote against "child exploitation". Who wouldn't? And the discussion stops there. "Whatever they're doing, it needs to stop!" For example, I bet most people aren't thinking "whispering girl" or "family video of daughters playing in the pool" when they hear the phrase "child exploitation". And maybe most people think Youtube is no place for those videos, fair enough. But the taboo subject and the lack of specifics creates an incredibly charged and blind environment that makes it hard to have a real discussion. So let's be specific here: what kind of action should be taken against this whispering girl's video and what kind of policy does Youtube need to have at scale?

nopriorarrests 8y ago
Lets be specific. My first question -- so, 12 y.o. girl being dressed in police uniform and acting like in an opening of a cheesy porn movie is your definition of "just kids having fun"?
- 1024core 8y ago
  But are you sure that no one on this planet would consider it as "kids having fun"? YT is a global medium. Just because you (or even the majority of people) are offended, it doesn't mean that everyone should be.
  - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
    A 12 year old girl, whispering in a sexual manner, wearing a stripper style police outfit, saying things like "I need to leave for my tinder date tonight" and "this is never happening" while pointing at the camera and herself. (and that's just the first 30 seconds) I'm sorry If you think that's "kids having fun" you belong on a cross. Edit (more details on exactly why this is wrong): It's shot in the style of POV porn videos that are popular today, the driver is male (why not female if the purpose is not sexual), his name is used infrequently as possible (don't want to ruin the immersion of the viewers), she holds up handcuffs and suggests that she "might have to use them on you", the outfit either doesn't fit or is purposefully open in her chest area, she is wearing exaggerated makeup and has press on nails in a manner fitting of a central casting prostitute. It's about as extreme as you can get without the FBI coming knocking on your door. I'm a atheist and I'm praying that someone, somewhere in law enforcement is keeping a close eye on her. Poor girl.
    - Yntec 8y ago
      Sorry, but none of that is sexual, let's get to it point by point: -Police costumes aren't sexual -Whispering isn't sexual -Date jokes aren't sexual -Point Of View camera angles aren't sexual -Being male is not sexual (if it was a female, you could flip the argument and claim it's for lesbians) -Omitting name isn't sexual -Arresting people with handcuff isn't sexual -Makeup and press on nails aren't sexual -Finally, keeping immersion that it's the viewer isn't sexual, because this would require something else to be. What I think is happening, and I could be wrong, but, perhaps you've watched porn with a similar setup about some policegirl fetish? Your brain can't but associate the two and see them as the same? You've seen setups like this that the only way you can imagine for the video to continue is of the sexual kind? Nothing alarming is actually happening. And I didn't notice her chest area was open until you pointed it out, so the video isn't the problem.
- hombre_fatal 8y ago
  I haven't suggested a definition of where to draw the line, it's exactly what I'm asking. Is that video sexual content? And how would you suggest encoding it in a policy change? Obviously, "I'll know it when I see it" doesn't scale.
  - nopriorarrests 8y ago
    I don't have an answer. But what I can tell is that video I linked above... I'll give 99% probability easily, that this video was made for purpose, with sexual context in mind, most probably by some adult person, not another kid, and it is not "just kid having fun", and it's not "family video". This is softcore erotica with 12-14 y.o. girl, and it was made to be a softcore erotica. There is literally zero other reasons to shoot video like this.
    - hackinthebochs 8y ago
      If you don't know anything about ASMR you might think that. But that's pretty standard content in the ASMR-sphere. The only difference is that it's being made by a preteen.
      - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
        >If you don't know anything about porn you might think that. But that's pretty standard content in the porn-sphere. The only difference is that it's being made by a preteen. is also true.
        hackinthebochs 8y ago
        Some loose similarities does not establish the sexual nature of these kind of videos.
        fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
        >loose similarities Without sex or nudity, how do you purpose you'd make it more similar?
- djsumdog 8y ago
  So is the girl in this video .. deciding to make this herself? Like she saw other examples of this, with adults, and then decided to do this as a child, was somehow a good idea? In that linked video the guy reacting points out the terrible Tinder joke. So therefore, she's aware to some extend how fucked up this is right? ... I realize some of these kids make tons from ads on these videos .. but at some point ... that's just bad parenting. Like what are you teaching your child?