5 ms·

Youtube should not be allowed to monetize any videos with children in it until they comply with the same conditions that movies that employ child actors have to

Youtube should not be allowed to monetize any videos with children in it until they comply with the same conditions that movies that employ child actors have to. That would remove the incentive to make children perform for Youtube videos.

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
I was thinking today how when I was a kid and watched TV at least there was some sort of oversight about what could be broadcast and advertised on TV, especially to children. There is no such thing on youtube or the internet, so people that let their small child loose on a tablet as a babysitter scare the bejeezus out of me.
- hi5eyes 7y ago
  thats the (ingenuity?) of this whole digital realm media: youtube/instagram are by far the easiest ways to reach kids with the most effective ways to influence kids/teens being influencers. see: JUUL marketing flavoured nicotine to highschoolers gaming: loot boxes. comesetics, using kid friendly youtuber/streamers to sell FOMO; and then we get to game passes it's disgusting how effective its been and how frankly retarded government has been to recognize the laws they made for television arent effective since kids dont watch TV
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    But then when regulators finally realize what's going on, there's weeping and gnashing of teeth, and "would someone think of the poor startups?". The wild-west Internet was fine at the beginning, but then the marketing people came and fucked it up.
    - Nadya 7y ago
      That's because marketers ruin everything. It's what they do. Anywhere peoples' attention goes - marketers will be there to ruin it. Mail, radio, television, internet, email, social media... If a bunch of eyes and ears are focused on it you can bet that marketers will be moving to stand between the two and try and get their message seen or heard. The entire point of marketing is to steal your attention from whatever it is that has your attention so that they have your attention. It's insidious at best and most marketing is manipulative (especially emotionally manipulative).
    - hi5eyes 7y ago
      Agreed, I'd say the period just before the internet really became mainstream/gained significant scale was the peak but then I sound like some dusty old hipster. communities are always great when its being built and enjoyed; just before the next, bigger audience jumps on and the mods really have to step in and ruin the original community.. sigh eternal september forever
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        The period just after the Internet became mainstream was still fine, too. Banner ads were slowly infecting websites, but that's about it. But now all the easy money has run dry, so every overt ad is tracking you, every mainstream news platform is dealing you covert ads, and communities (whether old-school forums or modern social media) are being infiltrated by marketers.
  - hi5eyes 7y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping.... Juul Targeted Schools, Camps and Youth Programs, House Panel Claims https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAa5B71WwAAwhOf?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAa5B71WwAAwhOf?format=jpg&name=...
- kalleboo 7y ago
  This is why I don't let my kid watch YouTube. She gets Hulu Kids, which is high-value, curated, "normal" kids shows. Amazon Prime also has a kids section, I imagine Netflix is the same. I don't understand why more parents don't restrict their kids to these but let them loose on YouTube instead.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
How would that work for those Russian toy videos my kid likes so much? Are we going to force American laws on Russia or just segregate the videos?
- jszymborski 7y ago
  The internet doesn't have some magical "international waters" treaty. ISPs can be forced to block content that infringe on their local laws.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    ....which would basically mean everything not subject to local laws; ie made in foreign countries?
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      I'm assuming you would agree for some electronic material. How do you pick and choose which should be forced to follow the law?
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        The legal system has a well developed notion of jurisdiction to del with that. A movie shot in California will follow California’s laws on child labor, not New York’s, even if it’s shown there.
        SkyBelow 7y ago
        It is not consistently applied. Look at bans on obscenity regardless of the legality where or when it was produced. So it seems just as reasonable to say that local ISPs are responsible for blocking locally illegal material.
- Avamander 7y ago
  Yes to the last question.
kartan 7y ago
> Youtube should not be allowed to monetize any videos with children in it until they comply with the same conditions that movies that employ child actors have to. Yes. If Youtube monetization model rewards parents psychologically abusing their children and profits from it. It is cleary that Youtube is at fault. Google does not want to take responsibility when they host the video, promote the video, and profit from the video. And that creates an incentive to reward bad behaviour and shock content.

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

I was thinking today how when I was a kid and watched TV at least there was some sort of oversight about what could be broadcast and advertised on TV, especially to children. There is no such thing on youtube or the internet, so people that let their small child loose on a tablet as a babysitter scare the bejeezus out of me.

hi5eyes 7y ago
thats the (ingenuity?) of this whole digital realm media: youtube/instagram are by far the easiest ways to reach kids with the most effective ways to influence kids/teens being influencers. see: JUUL marketing flavoured nicotine to highschoolers gaming: loot boxes. comesetics, using kid friendly youtuber/streamers to sell FOMO; and then we get to game passes it's disgusting how effective its been and how frankly retarded government has been to recognize the laws they made for television arent effective since kids dont watch TV
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  But then when regulators finally realize what's going on, there's weeping and gnashing of teeth, and "would someone think of the poor startups?". The wild-west Internet was fine at the beginning, but then the marketing people came and fucked it up.
  - Nadya 7y ago
    That's because marketers ruin everything. It's what they do. Anywhere peoples' attention goes - marketers will be there to ruin it. Mail, radio, television, internet, email, social media... If a bunch of eyes and ears are focused on it you can bet that marketers will be moving to stand between the two and try and get their message seen or heard. The entire point of marketing is to steal your attention from whatever it is that has your attention so that they have your attention. It's insidious at best and most marketing is manipulative (especially emotionally manipulative).
  - hi5eyes 7y ago
    Agreed, I'd say the period just before the internet really became mainstream/gained significant scale was the peak but then I sound like some dusty old hipster. communities are always great when its being built and enjoyed; just before the next, bigger audience jumps on and the mods really have to step in and ruin the original community.. sigh eternal september forever
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      The period just after the Internet became mainstream was still fine, too. Banner ads were slowly infecting websites, but that's about it. But now all the easy money has run dry, so every overt ad is tracking you, every mainstream news platform is dealing you covert ads, and communities (whether old-school forums or modern social media) are being infiltrated by marketers.
- hi5eyes 7y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping.... Juul Targeted Schools, Camps and Youth Programs, House Panel Claims https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAa5B71WwAAwhOf?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAa5B71WwAAwhOf?format=jpg&name=...
kalleboo 7y ago
This is why I don't let my kid watch YouTube. She gets Hulu Kids, which is high-value, curated, "normal" kids shows. Amazon Prime also has a kids section, I imagine Netflix is the same. I don't understand why more parents don't restrict their kids to these but let them loose on YouTube instead.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

How would that work for those Russian toy videos my kid likes so much? Are we going to force American laws on Russia or just segregate the videos?

jszymborski 7y ago
The internet doesn't have some magical "international waters" treaty. ISPs can be forced to block content that infringe on their local laws.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  ....which would basically mean everything not subject to local laws; ie made in foreign countries?
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    I'm assuming you would agree for some electronic material. How do you pick and choose which should be forced to follow the law?
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      The legal system has a well developed notion of jurisdiction to del with that. A movie shot in California will follow California’s laws on child labor, not New York’s, even if it’s shown there.
      - SkyBelow 7y ago
        It is not consistently applied. Look at bans on obscenity regardless of the legality where or when it was produced. So it seems just as reasonable to say that local ISPs are responsible for blocking locally illegal material.
Avamander 7y ago
Yes to the last question.

kartan 7y ago

> Youtube should not be allowed to monetize any videos with children in it until they comply with the same conditions that movies that employ child actors have to. Yes. If Youtube monetization model rewards parents psychologically abusing their children and profits from it. It is cleary that Youtube is at fault. Google does not want to take responsibility when they host the video, promote the video, and profit from the video. And that creates an incentive to reward bad behaviour and shock content.