4 ms·

>- they've admitted a serious problem exists that they were unwilling to deal with until external pressure forced them to (i.e. they can't be trusted to self re

>- they've admitted a serious problem exists that they were unwilling to deal with until external pressure forced them to (i.e. they can't be trusted to self regulate) No, they didn't. The problem that Youtube is dealing with is advertisers leaving, not the actual comments. Dealing with the problem of advertisers leaving is different from dealing with those comments. It's unclear whether dealing with those comments is even desirable, because Youtube would, in essence, become the censor of what is and is not okay to post in the comments sections, even if they don't break any codifiable rules or laws. Would you find it acceptable that what your freedom of expression is filtered by rules as unclear as that? Laowhy86 got his comments disabled because his daughter appeared in some of his videos. If this standard were to be pushed across the board then it would effectively ban comments on any videos that have underage people appear in them. Is this desirable for our society? >Favourite summary: kids are safer on YouTube today because of Disney and Nestle, not because of Google. Let that sink in. But this is not true. Firstly, kids on YouTube were NOT impacted by this. When a creep watches a video of a person then that person is not negatively impacted by it. Secondly, all you've done is hide the problem. The videos of the kids still exist, the time stamps can still be created. All the creeps need to do is share that information somewhere else. That's it. And the only way to fight this one is to simply bar kids from appearing in any media content. Good luck posting a video of you walking around town or of an event where somebody underage might be. This is similar to the discussion about whether you are allowed to let your 9 year old go outside unsupervised. It's a question of how much freedom do we allow people and kids in our society. It seems to be that public opinion is on the side of less freedom and more protection.

_wmd 8y ago
> Firstly, kids on YouTube were NOT impacted by this Unfortunately this is inaccurate. There are billions of daily adolescent YouTube users, some of whom entering puberty that were exposed and continue to be exposed to the recommendation algorithm that created this mess in the first place, and for periods running into hours every evening. At such an early stage in development, it is absolutely the company's duty of care to ensure that a 5 year old is not being sent up a gradient of a recommendation system that is encouraging them (with the help of the comments just removed) to view people of their own age in a sexual manner. Not only were children impacted by this, but the mechanism that enables it remains active to this day. I agree with the idea of allowing children outside, but as per my reply to your previous comment, not if that means spending all day in the back yard of the village creepy old man. Balance is required in every situation, and denial of the kind your comment is riddled with accomplishes nothing.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >Unfortunately this is inaccurate. There are billions of daily adolescent YouTube users, some of whom entering puberty that were exposed and continue to be exposed to the recommendation algorithm that created this mess in the first place, and for periods running into hours every evening. You are talking about a different issue. >At such an early stage in development, it is absolutely the company's duty of care to ensure that a 5 year old is not being sent up a gradient of a recommendation system that is encouraging them (with the help of the comments just removed) to view people of their own age in a sexual manner. Why would it be the company's duty of care and not the parent's? The parent should be the one that controls what the child consumes, not some nameless company or the government. >I agree with the idea of allowing children outside, but as per my reply to your previous comment, not if that means spending all day in the back yard of the village creepy old man. Again, this should be done by the parent, not by a faceless corporation or the government. It is the parent's job to deal with this.
  - _wmd 8y ago
    > Why would it be the company's duty of care and not the parent It is the company's duty of care for the same reason that - it is the city's duty of care if the child goes outside and falls down an unmaintained manhole - it is the school's duty of care if a fire extinguisher malfunctions and kills the child - it is the driver's duty of care if the child crosses the road and gets struck on a green crossing In all these cases, the entities assume a certain privilege to operate due to the trust placed in them that enables the freedom for the child to go outside whatsoever. If that duty does not exist, then there is no trust the child can safely leave home unattended. In effect what you're arguing for is total control from the parent -- a much worse outcome for a child than self-moderation on behalf of the trusted entities they would otherwise have had the freedom to interact with.
  - zbentley 8y ago
    > The parent should be the one that controls what the child consumes, not some nameless company or the government. The ways in which people access community-created content (or commentary) have changed substantially enough that I don't believe this is true any longer. Content providers now bear a portion of this responsibility in addition to child-rearers. That is ethically much more sticky, I'll admit, but I also think that moral imperative does not automatically follow the path of greatest simplicity.
darkpuma 8y ago
Can a child consent to fame? Should a parent be permitted to make that choice for their child? I don't believe so. We don't let parents send their children down into coal mines, and neither should we allow parents to make their children famous on youtube. Parental rights are secondary to the rights of the child.
- pixl97 8y ago
  Hmm, guess childhood actors aren't a thing any longer. What a weird culture we live in.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Childhood actors are the weird culture. Their abolition would be a lot less weird.
scoutt 8y ago
> Youtube would, in essence, become the censor of what is and is not okay to post in the comments sections They can, that's enough reason. It's their lawn, they can do whatever they want. If you invite me into your house and I start yelling like crazy (because I have the right to), if you don't like it you would suggest me to get out (gently or not). You will be right. Who am I to complain about what I can or cannot do in your house? > freedom of expression Why people always misinterpret what freedom of expression is? It does not apply to the comments section of Youtube. People are not entitled to be heard or to express whatever they want in Youtube comments.
- pixl97 8y ago
  Wait, so you're saying that if every company in the us wanted to ban videos of people that were gay they could because they dont have to allow them that they could. Yet we both know there would be a lawsuit so fast that your head would spin. Age is a protected class too. Children just dont happen to have their own lawyers as often and knowledge to use them in cases like this.
  - scoutt 8y ago
    I was referring to publishing comments as the equivalent of free speech or freedom of expression, and not about denying participation and/or discrimination. Why going so far with the reasoning? It's not Youtube's responsibility to protect anything, they just need to keep things barely legal. They are doing this because of the dollars and public image. Youtube owes us nothing, let alone guaranteeing our freedom of expression or protecting classes. If they say so, it's just PR.

_wmd 8y ago

> Firstly, kids on YouTube were NOT impacted by this Unfortunately this is inaccurate. There are billions of daily adolescent YouTube users, some of whom entering puberty that were exposed and continue to be exposed to the recommendation algorithm that created this mess in the first place, and for periods running into hours every evening. At such an early stage in development, it is absolutely the company's duty of care to ensure that a 5 year old is not being sent up a gradient of a recommendation system that is encouraging them (with the help of the comments just removed) to view people of their own age in a sexual manner. Not only were children impacted by this, but the mechanism that enables it remains active to this day. I agree with the idea of allowing children outside, but as per my reply to your previous comment, not if that means spending all day in the back yard of the village creepy old man. Balance is required in every situation, and denial of the kind your comment is riddled with accomplishes nothing.

Mirioron 8y ago
>Unfortunately this is inaccurate. There are billions of daily adolescent YouTube users, some of whom entering puberty that were exposed and continue to be exposed to the recommendation algorithm that created this mess in the first place, and for periods running into hours every evening. You are talking about a different issue. >At such an early stage in development, it is absolutely the company's duty of care to ensure that a 5 year old is not being sent up a gradient of a recommendation system that is encouraging them (with the help of the comments just removed) to view people of their own age in a sexual manner. Why would it be the company's duty of care and not the parent's? The parent should be the one that controls what the child consumes, not some nameless company or the government. >I agree with the idea of allowing children outside, but as per my reply to your previous comment, not if that means spending all day in the back yard of the village creepy old man. Again, this should be done by the parent, not by a faceless corporation or the government. It is the parent's job to deal with this.
- _wmd 8y ago
  > Why would it be the company's duty of care and not the parent It is the company's duty of care for the same reason that - it is the city's duty of care if the child goes outside and falls down an unmaintained manhole - it is the school's duty of care if a fire extinguisher malfunctions and kills the child - it is the driver's duty of care if the child crosses the road and gets struck on a green crossing In all these cases, the entities assume a certain privilege to operate due to the trust placed in them that enables the freedom for the child to go outside whatsoever. If that duty does not exist, then there is no trust the child can safely leave home unattended. In effect what you're arguing for is total control from the parent -- a much worse outcome for a child than self-moderation on behalf of the trusted entities they would otherwise have had the freedom to interact with.
- zbentley 8y ago
  > The parent should be the one that controls what the child consumes, not some nameless company or the government. The ways in which people access community-created content (or commentary) have changed substantially enough that I don't believe this is true any longer. Content providers now bear a portion of this responsibility in addition to child-rearers. That is ethically much more sticky, I'll admit, but I also think that moral imperative does not automatically follow the path of greatest simplicity.

darkpuma 8y ago

Can a child consent to fame? Should a parent be permitted to make that choice for their child? I don't believe so. We don't let parents send their children down into coal mines, and neither should we allow parents to make their children famous on youtube. Parental rights are secondary to the rights of the child.

pixl97 8y ago
Hmm, guess childhood actors aren't a thing any longer. What a weird culture we live in.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Childhood actors are the weird culture. Their abolition would be a lot less weird.

scoutt 8y ago

> Youtube would, in essence, become the censor of what is and is not okay to post in the comments sections They can, that's enough reason. It's their lawn, they can do whatever they want. If you invite me into your house and I start yelling like crazy (because I have the right to), if you don't like it you would suggest me to get out (gently or not). You will be right. Who am I to complain about what I can or cannot do in your house? > freedom of expression Why people always misinterpret what freedom of expression is? It does not apply to the comments section of Youtube. People are not entitled to be heard or to express whatever they want in Youtube comments.

pixl97 8y ago
Wait, so you're saying that if every company in the us wanted to ban videos of people that were gay they could because they dont have to allow them that they could. Yet we both know there would be a lawsuit so fast that your head would spin. Age is a protected class too. Children just dont happen to have their own lawyers as often and knowledge to use them in cases like this.
- scoutt 8y ago
  I was referring to publishing comments as the equivalent of free speech or freedom of expression, and not about denying participation and/or discrimination. Why going so far with the reasoning? It's not Youtube's responsibility to protect anything, they just need to keep things barely legal. They are doing this because of the dollars and public image. Youtube owes us nothing, let alone guaranteeing our freedom of expression or protecting classes. If they say so, it's just PR.