Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Says It Will Crack Down On Bizarre Videos Targeting Children (theverge.com)

"Earlier this week, a report in The New York Times and a blog post on Medium drew a lot of attention to a world of strange and sometimes disturbing YouTube videos aimed at young children," reports The Verge. "The genre [...] makes use of popular characters from family-friendly entertainment, but it's often created with little care, and can quickly stray from innocent themes to scenes of violence or sexuality." YouTube is cracking down and will now age restrict videos that violate its policy. From the report: The first line of defense for YouTube Kids are algorithmic filters. After that, there is a team of humans that review videos which have been flagged. If a video with recognizable children's characters gets flagged in YouTube's main app, which is much larger than the Kids app, it will be sent to the policy review team. YouTube says it has thousands of people working around the clock in different time zones to review flagged content. If the review finds the video is in violation of the new policy, it will be age restricted, automatically blocking it from traveling to the Kids app. YouTube says it typically takes at least a few days for content to make its way from YouTube proper to YouTube Kids, and the hope is that within that window, users will flag anything potentially disturbing to children. YouTube also has a team of volunteer moderators, which it calls Contributors, looking for inappropriate content. YouTube says it will start training its review team on the new policy and it should be live within a few weeks. Along with filtering content out of the Kids app, the new policy will also tweak who can see these videos on YouTube's main service. Flagged content will be age restricted, and users won't be able to see those videos if they're not logged in on accounts registered to users 18 years or older. All age-gated content is also automatically exempt from advertising. That means this new policy could put a squeeze on the booming business of crafting strange kid's content.

21 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Fine, but... by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    As long as they don't censor "legitimate satire". Sure, keep the poor kids safe from ponies sliding into boxes of nails, but don't unjustly remove Charlie the Unicorn, or anything from Robot Chicken.

    1. Re:Fine, but... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA. This is about a specific genre of semi-randomly-generated videos that exist only to extract ad revenue, not edgy MLP memes.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re: Fine, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      So it's now the internet's business to protect your kid?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Fine, but... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      I bet Queer Kids Stuff will be OK, given that Kevin Spacey recently demonstrated being LGBT is an affirmative defence against charges of paedophilia in the eyes of bien pensants types.

      Blaire White's channel got demonetized though, because being transgender is not an affirmative defence to charges of being conservative.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Fine, but... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Hardly

      https://www.axios.com/republic...

      What they're saying:

      Vice President Mike Pence said, via his spokesperson, that Pence believes that if the allegations against Roy Moore are true, then "this would disqualify anyone from serving in office."

      Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: "If these allegations are true, he must step aside."

      Sen. John McCain: "The allegations against Roy Moore are deeply disturbing and disqualifying. He should immediately step aside and allow the people of Alabama to elect a candidate they are proud of."

      Former Gov. of Massachusetts: "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside."

      Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, "I'm horrified and if this is true he needs to step down immediately." She also said she has spoken to Luther Strange about becoming a write-in challenge, ultimately challenging Moore in the Dec. 12 election.

      Sen. Ted Cruz, who endorsed Roy Moore: "These are serious and troubling allegations. If they are true, Judge Moore should immediately withdraw. However, we need to know the truth, and Judge Moore has the right to respond to these accusations."

      Sen. Jeff Flake: "If there is any shred of truth to the allegations against Roy Moore, he should step aside immediately."

      Sen. John Cornyn, who endorsed Moore and is listed on his website, said: "Well I think the next steps are up to the governor and the people of Alabama. I find it deeply disturbing and troubling. If it is true, I don't think his candidacy is sustainable."

      Sen. David Perdue called the allegations "devastating" and said Moore should withdraw if they're true.

      Sen. Pat Toomey: "If there's a shred of truth to it, then he need to step aside."

      Sen. Richard Shelby: "If that's true, then he wouldn't belong in the Senate."

      Sen. Mike Lee: "If these allegations are true, Roy Moore needs to step down."

      Sen. Tim Scott: "If they're accurate, he should step aside."

      Sen. Cory Gardner, chairman of national republican senatorial committee: "If these allegations are found to be true, Roy Moore must drop out of the Alabama special Senate election."

      Sen. Rob Portman: "It was very troubling ... if what we read is true and people are on the record so I assume it is..." Moore should step aside.

      Sen. Susan Collins: "If there is any truth at all to these horrific allegations, Roy Moore should immediately step aside as a Senate candidate."

      Sen. John Hoeven: "The allegations against Roy Moore are very serious and if true, he should step down as a candidate for the Senate."

      Trump said he should stand aside if the allegations are true

      http://fortune.com/2017/11/10/...

      Sanders said that Trump âoebelieves we cannot allow a mere allegation, in this case from many years ago, to destroy a person's life.

      "However, the president also believes that if these allegations are true, Judge Moore will do the right thing and step aside."

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  2. "Bizarre" you say? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So Trump's boy-scout speech is a goner.

    1. Re:"Bizarre" you say? by whyyisthissohard · · Score: 2

      You know your habit of relating anything you possibly can to Trump is a mental illness right?

      At least you can see his public persona is so burned into your brain that it floats to the top of your list of priorities to mention with regularity.

      but you don't know me! This just happened this one time!

      Once is enough because the train of thought leading from 'children's videos' to 'Trump' goes through a narrow passage in a simple situation. In other words, of all the things you could have connected to that possibly could harm children, you choose a very indirect one with an extremely subjective interpretation because of the perceived social reward at the end, despite any logic or reasoning or honesty, the traits that make you human.

      TL;DR - get a grip lemming

  3. Reactive vs proactive by geschbacher79 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem I have with this approach is that it still relies on a human viewing the video, flagging it (instead of just clicking away quickly), content moderators intervening, etc. During that time, however, more kids could be exposed to these types of videos.

    Instead, for Youtube Kids, it would be better for parents and kids to have a videos go through a proactive approval process before they are shown. Google obviously doesn't want this: They want magic algorithms to avoid having human review every video for scalability and monetary reason. But I think this process is flawed for Youtube Kids (I'm not as concerned about Youtube proper). Google makes money from these videos, but they want essentially zero responsibility for the content.

    Note that there is still room for parody and disturbing videos involving kids characters. I'm fine with that. What these articles are referring to, however, are video creators intentionally gaming the system to get their videos past the Youtube Kids filters in order to get views.

    Google needs to step up and be proactive if they want Youtube Kids to actually be reliable instead of a wild west shitshow of scary content.

    1. Re:Reactive vs proactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After reading the article and watching some of the videos, I really don't think this is the "problem" that some people are trying to make it into.

      Yes, these videos are very weird. And pointless. And weird.

      But weird, by itself is not particularly harmful.

      What's really happening here is a bunch of people and/or bots cranking out massive amounts of random content with world-salad titles (to make the videos show up in keyword searches), with other bots clicking on the videos to run up the view counts. All for the sole purpose of gaming the system and generating ad revenue for themselves.

      This is even mentioned in the article but quickly glossed over because the author is more interested in pushing a narrative about some vast, dark, secret conspiracy to harm our children.

  4. Should YT Kids require YT Red? by tepples · · Score: 2

    As you mentioned, proactive costs money, which has to come from somewhere. If you were in charge of YouTube Kids, would you fund proactive review by requiring a valid YouTube Red subscription in order to access the app?

    1. Re:Should YT Kids require YT Red? by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      You must be kidding. Google is making billions off of ads and selling your (and your kids) data. It is already fully "funded"

    2. Re:Should YT Kids require YT Red? by tepples · · Score: 2

      Google is making billions off of ads and selling your (and your kids) data.

      But apparently, it has been demonstrated that the "billions off of ads and selling your (and your kids) data" that "Google is making" are insufficient to hire an army of human reviewers to review every minute of video uploaded to YouTube for age appropriateness.

  5. So.. by itomato · · Score: 2

    No more vintage Sesame Street?

  6. How about an easier way by fodder69 · · Score: 2

    So my is severely autistic and loves you tube. There are videos he finds related to elmo or what have you that start innocent and devolve into epilepsy inducing random loud music, screaming, and what not.

    I will delete them from history but they get recommended again.

    Can I just flag a video as 'Never show me this again', would that be so hard?

  7. Re:Aw shit by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

    Funny you should mention poop, Toilet Poop is a kid area mention to teach them
    https://www.youtube.com/result...

    This one has a place of it's own https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  8. Well they cracked down on this one by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 3, Informative

    paw patrol babies pretend to commit suicide https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I saw this one a few days ago, it was the comments that caught me and I'm sure had a lot to do with this crack down.

  9. Re:Why do you expect the world to coddle your chil by LoTonah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's bullshit. You obviously have never been a parent.

    Yes, parents shouldn't let kids live on a tablet all day long...sometimes you just want them to be entertained for a few minutes so you can focus on what you are doing (in my case, my autistic daughter is given a tablet, so I can get some shit done like cooking dinner or doing a bit of woodworking to make some money). It takes no time at all to stumble on this crap. I don't really like her seeing videos where her favorite characters are having their heads ripped off and their bodies lying in a pool of blood (yes, that happened). In Youtube Kids, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to block videos or channels. I would completely block all that content if I could.

    And before you say I'm a bad parent...you don't know my life and my problems. Sick of SWJ neckbeards telling me what they think parenting should be without ever even babysitting before.

  10. A silver lining - adfree content. by edgedmurasame · · Score: 2

    If you don't want ads on your videos, what prevents someone from just marking the video as 18+?

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  11. It's money they want from these "bizarre" videos? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then it is absolutely trivial to solve. Simply wait two months before paying a dime, put it in your EULA that you don't see a cent if your video is "bizarre" (and I mean not a cent AT ALL, not "from whenever we notice") and you'll see these videos vanish pretty fucking quickly.

    If it's not the video itself that's the goal for these people, like with the terrorists who don't give a fuck whether they make ad revenue with their message from imaginary friends that want you dead, but if they game the system for money, all you have to do is deny them the money and their incentive to make those videos ceases immediately.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:Why do you expect the world to coddle your chil by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    100% with you on this. Not only that, but hovering over your children filtering every experience they have is bad for them too. We call those parents 'helicopter parents' and complain about the bad behaviour of their 'snowflakes'.

    I've taught my kids that inappropriate content exists and that I don't want them watching it. They also know that I will randomly pop my head in once in a while to see what's on their screens. And they know I have the ability to monitor their network connection if I want to do so. They generally stick to the kid-approved sources and it's nice to know that the content therein is well filtered so I don't have to be too concerned or vigilant.

    I also know they're sneaking peaks at stuff they shouldn't. As long as it's not totally out of bounds and it's not happening frequently... so what? They're kids and that's part of growing up.

    I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I saw a porn magazine or two when I was far younger than I should have been, and I occasionally snuck some inappropriate late-night television movies into my schedule when I was a bit older. I'm pretty sure I'm mostly undamaged.

  13. Something does need to be done by MattBear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've seen this stuff first hand and it's kind of shocking. My four year old daughter was watching Frozen or My Little Pony videos on my tablet, I hear screams coming from whatever she's watching so I look, and its a crudely animated parody of My Little Pony where everything is getting killed and full of foul language, it made South Park look tame. It was the kind of stuff 15 year old me would of thought was funny, but not a little girl. So the YouTube thing pretty much ended then and there. She has the run of NetFlix Kids now though.