6 ms·

Let's be clear about all this, and where the problem arises from. Use case #1. If Youtube only allowed people to upload videos (whether for a fee, or no charge

Let's be clear about all this, and where the problem arises from. Use case #1. If Youtube only allowed people to upload videos (whether for a fee, or no charge) and share them with people they know, there would be no issue. You send videos to your friends. Use case #2. If Youtube allowed advertisers to create videos and share those links via channels they control or purchase (e.g. paying a fee per view), there would be no issue. Companies you know market to you by video. The self-created problem that Youtube has is that it wants to make money by charging for showing category #2 to those in category #1 who didn't ask for it. Youtube / Google could choose not to have this problem tomorrow by not selling ads, recommending random videos to people, etc. It's their obligation to figure out this problem, and totally up to them how to solve it. It's not some social or government problem to fix.

ketzo 8y ago
It might be their obligation from a moral standpoint, but it certainly isn’t from a legal point — at least, it isn’t right now. I think that’s where it becomes a governmental problem to fix, because these companies have indicated they are not willing to do so.
- auslander 8y ago
  > governmental problem to fix careful here. It might lead to requirement Google to require identification from users, KYC as in banking. That would be orwellian creepy.
Despegar 8y ago
The actual root cause is extremely intractable for these companies to solve because it inherently conflicts with their business model. The business model requires highly paid software engineers to create a platform that matches buyers and sellers (or viewers and advertisers) but none of the associated costs with policing anything that happens on the platform that can't be done with technical means. As soon as they have to police anything (by preapproval or moderators taking things down after the fact) it massively cuts the margins of the business. Section 230 enabled lots of internet businesses, but it also created lots of negative externalities that are only now being reckoned with after decades of a free-for-all.
- rodgerd 8y ago
  It's only intractable if you're addicated to Nazi gold, as it were. Social media companies can and do solve this problem for countries like Germany (set your Twitter location to Germany, watch how many people disappear from it). They choose not to elsewhere.
  - Despegar 8y ago
    I’m not saying they shouldn’t do it anyway. It’s just that they won’t do it on their own unless governments force them to. There’s no human right that says these businesses have to exist and/or be as profitable as they are. Societies can and should decide that.
save_ferris 8y ago
And YT wants to do this by implementing rules that are easily bypassed and very, very difficult to enforce. The Ricegum/Jake Paul gambling problem exists because there's just no easy way to determine and police the financial influence of a particular video. Not to mention the big money that YouTube makes by allowing covertly sponsored content by these huge YT stars to proliferate on the platform. It's hard to see a world in which they get the incentives to generate content under control while driving the engagement and revenue they're making now.
tschwimmer 8y ago
whoa, what? I feel like most of the value in Youtube is watching videos made by specialized content creators. Some of those creators may create content as an act of passion in their spare time, but some of them want to make money in some way. Youtube is willing to pay them money so that they're incentivized to make content. In order to cover those payouts and also cover hosting costs, they show ads. They could not pay out to content creators, but then creators would probably produce less content. They could also charge a direct fee for viewing content, but that severely limits the audience reach for most of the site. How many people would choose to watch youtube videos on a pay as you go model? An order of magnitude less? Probably more. I think advertising is a pretty elegant model for something like Youtube because it manages to make a lot of people happy: content creators get paid to do something really cool, viewers get a constant stream of new stuff to watch for 'free,' Google makes a lot of money, and advertisers get to reach an audience that in the best case may be specially interested in their products. I think the problem with Youtube right now is their inability to respond nimbly to unwanted trends. As a human society, we've decided some things are so bad we're willing to ban their production and trade (human slavery, weapons of mass destruction). Some things are pretty much harmless (shoes, pizza). Lots of stuff falls in the middle (payday lending, pyramid schemes). Humans are exceptionally good are creating new stuff on each part of the spectrum, but Youtube seems to not be able to get a grip on the stuff near the bad end.
- henryfjordan 8y ago
  The point is that Youtube wants to make a profit off all this, and with profit comes responsibility to follow broadcasting laws. OP isn't saying that Youtube shouldn't exist, but that they chose to exist with that business model and so they need to solve the problems that come with it.
- frogpelt 8y ago
  Nailed it. Leaving YouTube out of it, if you become extremely popular doing a thing and you have a million or ten millions sets of eyeballs tuning in to watch you do that thing, you will become an advertiser (unless you somehow think it's immoral). That's how consumer-based economies work. We don't buy things just because we need them or ask for them. Therefore, we are advertised to.
airstrike 8y ago
> Let's be clear about all this, and where the problem arises from. Yes, let's. It arises from parents letting kids not only watch but outright discover content unsupervised. If it weren't YouTube, it would be [insert name of threat to kids]. With both parents working, supervising kids is easier said than done – I'm not saying it's their fault for having to go to work to support their families, but the responsibility of policing their own kids is certainly theirs and nobody else's.
- rickycook 8y ago
  well, yes and no; what are parents going to do? sit with the kid and watch the whole thing after they (parent) picked out the content? i agree the parent should pick out the content, but the whole auto play at the end of a video situation makes it difficult: is make a good wager that (like when i was a kid) “TV time” is when the parents get things like laundry done, so they have to come back right at the end of a video to pick a new one. if it couldn’t play without the parents consent, the kid would at least yell out. it’s not about parents being lazy (or hell even if it is, parents need a break too) it’s about creating a user experience that caters to the highly stressful life of being a parent. that’s what youtube kids should be!
- sbov 8y ago
  We're dealing with this right now. Please, tell me how I can whitelist channels and/or individual videos on youtube for my kids. I'm not being sarcastic - I've done a lot of looking and can't seem to find out how. There are settings for "keep it kid friendly" but that isn't enough. Some kid friendly videos are terrible for kids. We've resorted to only letting the kids watch videos on a fire tablet, because we can control exactly what they can see on it.
  - airstrike 8y ago
    Block YouTube and have them do something else instead. What did you do for fun as a kid?
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    If you really wanted it you could download the videos for the channels and host them locally. Even then I wouldn't trust most channels; a channel could sell out and have elsa&spidey 'porn' on it tomorrow. As a parent I carefully curate YouTube and won't let the kids watch it on their own. Netflix "kids" channel is quite good IMO, some of the content - like Story Bots - I really quite like. Could do with more shows with people in though, most of it's animation.
pjc50 8y ago
Problem: the entire value of Youtube derives from discovery; both to viewers and to uploaders. Viewers want to find more stuff to see (either horizontally or via search, the thing that made the Google fortune). And uploaders want to be seen. Especially if they get paid. Of course, there are also people who want to get seen without necessarily getting paid for it. Advertisers and propagandists. (This is why "freedom of reach" matters; you might argue that youtube shouldn't take down fascists and terror videos, but you can't argue that they're obliged to say it would be a good idea to watch them)
auslander 8y ago
> It's their obligation to figure out this problem It's their business model, so, no chance

ketzo 8y ago

It might be their obligation from a moral standpoint, but it certainly isn’t from a legal point — at least, it isn’t right now. I think that’s where it becomes a governmental problem to fix, because these companies have indicated they are not willing to do so.

auslander 8y ago
> governmental problem to fix careful here. It might lead to requirement Google to require identification from users, KYC as in banking. That would be orwellian creepy.

Despegar 8y ago

The actual root cause is extremely intractable for these companies to solve because it inherently conflicts with their business model. The business model requires highly paid software engineers to create a platform that matches buyers and sellers (or viewers and advertisers) but none of the associated costs with policing anything that happens on the platform that can't be done with technical means. As soon as they have to police anything (by preapproval or moderators taking things down after the fact) it massively cuts the margins of the business. Section 230 enabled lots of internet businesses, but it also created lots of negative externalities that are only now being reckoned with after decades of a free-for-all.

rodgerd 8y ago
It's only intractable if you're addicated to Nazi gold, as it were. Social media companies can and do solve this problem for countries like Germany (set your Twitter location to Germany, watch how many people disappear from it). They choose not to elsewhere.
- Despegar 8y ago
  I’m not saying they shouldn’t do it anyway. It’s just that they won’t do it on their own unless governments force them to. There’s no human right that says these businesses have to exist and/or be as profitable as they are. Societies can and should decide that.

save_ferris 8y ago

And YT wants to do this by implementing rules that are easily bypassed and very, very difficult to enforce. The Ricegum/Jake Paul gambling problem exists because there's just no easy way to determine and police the financial influence of a particular video. Not to mention the big money that YouTube makes by allowing covertly sponsored content by these huge YT stars to proliferate on the platform. It's hard to see a world in which they get the incentives to generate content under control while driving the engagement and revenue they're making now.

tschwimmer 8y ago

whoa, what? I feel like most of the value in Youtube is watching videos made by specialized content creators. Some of those creators may create content as an act of passion in their spare time, but some of them want to make money in some way. Youtube is willing to pay them money so that they're incentivized to make content. In order to cover those payouts and also cover hosting costs, they show ads. They could not pay out to content creators, but then creators would probably produce less content. They could also charge a direct fee for viewing content, but that severely limits the audience reach for most of the site. How many people would choose to watch youtube videos on a pay as you go model? An order of magnitude less? Probably more. I think advertising is a pretty elegant model for something like Youtube because it manages to make a lot of people happy: content creators get paid to do something really cool, viewers get a constant stream of new stuff to watch for 'free,' Google makes a lot of money, and advertisers get to reach an audience that in the best case may be specially interested in their products. I think the problem with Youtube right now is their inability to respond nimbly to unwanted trends. As a human society, we've decided some things are so bad we're willing to ban their production and trade (human slavery, weapons of mass destruction). Some things are pretty much harmless (shoes, pizza). Lots of stuff falls in the middle (payday lending, pyramid schemes). Humans are exceptionally good are creating new stuff on each part of the spectrum, but Youtube seems to not be able to get a grip on the stuff near the bad end.

henryfjordan 8y ago
The point is that Youtube wants to make a profit off all this, and with profit comes responsibility to follow broadcasting laws. OP isn't saying that Youtube shouldn't exist, but that they chose to exist with that business model and so they need to solve the problems that come with it.
frogpelt 8y ago
Nailed it. Leaving YouTube out of it, if you become extremely popular doing a thing and you have a million or ten millions sets of eyeballs tuning in to watch you do that thing, you will become an advertiser (unless you somehow think it's immoral). That's how consumer-based economies work. We don't buy things just because we need them or ask for them. Therefore, we are advertised to.

airstrike 8y ago

> Let's be clear about all this, and where the problem arises from. Yes, let's. It arises from parents letting kids not only watch but outright discover content unsupervised. If it weren't YouTube, it would be [insert name of threat to kids]. With both parents working, supervising kids is easier said than done – I'm not saying it's their fault for having to go to work to support their families, but the responsibility of policing their own kids is certainly theirs and nobody else's.

rickycook 8y ago
well, yes and no; what are parents going to do? sit with the kid and watch the whole thing after they (parent) picked out the content? i agree the parent should pick out the content, but the whole auto play at the end of a video situation makes it difficult: is make a good wager that (like when i was a kid) “TV time” is when the parents get things like laundry done, so they have to come back right at the end of a video to pick a new one. if it couldn’t play without the parents consent, the kid would at least yell out. it’s not about parents being lazy (or hell even if it is, parents need a break too) it’s about creating a user experience that caters to the highly stressful life of being a parent. that’s what youtube kids should be!
sbov 8y ago
We're dealing with this right now. Please, tell me how I can whitelist channels and/or individual videos on youtube for my kids. I'm not being sarcastic - I've done a lot of looking and can't seem to find out how. There are settings for "keep it kid friendly" but that isn't enough. Some kid friendly videos are terrible for kids. We've resorted to only letting the kids watch videos on a fire tablet, because we can control exactly what they can see on it.
- airstrike 8y ago
  Block YouTube and have them do something else instead. What did you do for fun as a kid?
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  If you really wanted it you could download the videos for the channels and host them locally. Even then I wouldn't trust most channels; a channel could sell out and have elsa&spidey 'porn' on it tomorrow. As a parent I carefully curate YouTube and won't let the kids watch it on their own. Netflix "kids" channel is quite good IMO, some of the content - like Story Bots - I really quite like. Could do with more shows with people in though, most of it's animation.

pjc50 8y ago

Problem: the entire value of Youtube derives from discovery; both to viewers and to uploaders. Viewers want to find more stuff to see (either horizontally or via search, the thing that made the Google fortune). And uploaders want to be seen. Especially if they get paid. Of course, there are also people who want to get seen without necessarily getting paid for it. Advertisers and propagandists. (This is why "freedom of reach" matters; you might argue that youtube shouldn't take down fascists and terror videos, but you can't argue that they're obliged to say it would be a good idea to watch them)

auslander 8y ago

> It's their obligation to figure out this problem It's their business model, so, no chance