Slashdot Mirror
Brands Pull YouTube Ads Over Images of Children (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Lidl, Cadbury maker Mondelez, Mars and other companies have pulled advertising from YouTube after the Times newspaper found the video sharing site was showing clips of scantily clad children alongside the ads of major brands. Comments from hundreds of pedophiles were posted alongside the videos, which appeared to have been uploaded by the children themselves, according to a Times investigation. One clip of a pre-teenage girl in a nightie drew 6.5 million views. The paper said YouTube, a unit of Alphabet subsidiary Google, had allowed sexualized imagery of children to be easily searchable and not lived up to promises to better monitor and police its services to protect children. In response, a YouTube spokesman said: "There shouldn't be any ads running on this content and we are working urgently to fix this."
So it is confirmed that the content is not a problem? Interesting policies youtube.
Let the Cadbury boycotts begin
MAGA
Or it didn't happen
(It's funny, laugh)
NOOOOOOOOO!
Automated algorithms really just highlight that fact.
How else does Faccebook end up selling ads for the term "Jew Hater"?
And then tech companies just say "oh noes, it wasn't us, it was teh algorithm which did the naughty". Sorry, you built it, you own it, you profit it, you're legally responsible for it.
The age of consent used to be 13 up until 20-25 years ago when I was still a kid, then crept to 16, and is it 18 yet in the UK?
But even more fundamentally: That one of the biggest and most powerful rings of *ACTIVE* pedophiles was in Parliament itself, damaged untold numbers of orphaned children they 'borrowed' from local orphanages, and then the whole thing was covered up by MI5 until after the last of said pedophiles died, helping to keep from it tarnishing the image of Parliament. All while at the same time making Pitcairn into a pedophile state (complete with restrictions on new people moving there with children aged 15 or younger!) for essentially the same behavior as Britains political leadership.
Oh by the way, Britain has made that entire region a 'Nature Preserve' despite that going against current UNICLOS legal guidelines, and most likely intended for future exploratory mining to help shore up Britain's declining economy and relevance in the international community.
Starts witchhunt against superior competitor it cannot compete anymore.
This is news? For real?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
had allowed sexualized imagery of children to be easily searchable
What does that mean? People could search for "sexy little girl' and the kid in the nightie showed up? That worked because someone made a comment with that exact text on the video? If so, how do they prevent it now?
6.5 million views, not really a lot. I'm guessing 100k of those are pedos and the other 6.4 million are just trolls that think it's funny to pretend to be a pedo.
Why is a little girl's (probably stupid and pointless) video have ads on it anyway? Is the little girl getting a percentage? If not, then how does the pedo aspect make it worse? Isn't youtube just exploiting a little girl regardless of the sexualization?
does the fact that ads were displayed mean that the videos were monetized? if so, I call BS on "appeared to have been uploaded by the children themselves".
Or rather, maybe they were uploaded by the kids but under supervision of an adult that gets the money from the ads...
Wouldn't that violate Youtube's TOS?
Google's plan to advertise anything, anywhere, anytime is backfiring.
They're too busy demonetizing second amendment channels to realize that their kiddie porn industry is blooming.
https://youtu.be/H0Atpwo_AuY
Only somebody who is already a sick fuck could come up with thinking that, when seeing that!
It's ye olde Caltholiban morals again.
Then again, apparently 6.5 million assholes ARE religious ... err, I mean pedosexuals.
Just for comparison, here is some sane behavior, uninfluenced by religiously repressed sexuality that later pops out as perversion:
http://polynesianresourcecenter.com/culture/item/polynesian-sexual-customs
Or redefining "children" as 17y11mo30d--olds?
I have five kids. I don't want my young daughters thinking their bodies are sex objects. I don't want them worrying about always covering up. I can't control what other people think and I don't think it matters what thoughts other people have in their heads. What I do care about is what other people say or do. So if my daughters upload something where they are having fun and they happen to also be in pajamas or their bathing suits I don't want someone saying they are being pornographic and shouldn't post it. I don't want my daughters actions or activities to be restricted because some people are worried about what other people are thinking. That's just messed up.
I'm not fond of images of underage kids dressed in such a way, but I am even more against censorship, and no censorship often means things we don't like being available to the masses.
In the end, it's the responsibility of the parents to monitor their children to avoid this, and if they think their children are old enough to not be monitored, then that too was the parents choice.
This allergic reaction gives incentive to murder children who have already been abused, since the sentences are about the same but the murder makes the pedo less likely to be caught. It keeps pedophiles from seeking help before they abuse, since no psychiatrist can be trusted. It encourages further degradation of the constitution, as any abuse is considered acceptable to stop a pedophile. It constitutes a de-facto thought crime. It encourages shortcuts in logic. It prevents scientific arguments about how to best help children. It encourages crime in prison. And it causes more harm to children than it prevents. End the hysteria. End it now.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I do not know why it is necessary to politicize something like this. There are plenty terrible things happening from both sides of the isle. People, in general, are terrible.
Life is too short and too important to { take seriously | use windows }.
'nuff said.
By the platform itself.
Since when was a kid wearing pajamas or whatever sexualized? Non sense. This is just a movement by religious extremists to regulate what level of clothing is "appropriate" for children to wear. They target the web adds because it's easier than the girls and their parents. Here's the fact: It's not sexual because the child wasn't involved in sexualized activity and wasn't being exploited.
Here's a good rule of thumb I like to apply:
If the child was a boy instead of a girl, would you think it was sexualized? If the answer is no, then it's not sexualized, and you only think it's sexual because it's girls and you want to apply a double standard rooted in religious animus towards women's freedom.
There's a lot of fucking assholes in this country, and I bet most of them voted for Trump if they weren't already felons.
to be easily searchable
The content was easily searchable. It should have been hard to search, or searchable with a hard on. Oh, wait perhaps many of those suspected pedophiles were actually just evil teens trolling for easy laughs. Parents, teach your kids to disable comments on their lingerie fashion/dance videos. And maybe many others as well..
my trolls started pushing the false narrative that I wanted to marry child bride from Mexico or the Philippines over the last two weeks.
Why is it that you'd evaluated the feasibility of selling everything you own to travel to Mexico to find a wife?
I've never taken an interest in this subject
Why is it that you seemed to firmly believe that child marriage is common in the US and allowed? Your head was filled with firmly held misconceptions, if you had no prior interest in the subject it's likely that you'd have accepted the new information with little fuss, That child brides are only legal by exception and almost always socially unacceptable in the USA.
Child brides in the United States are American as apple pie.
Glad you said this with your name attached this time, Added to CREIMER.TXT!
Age:
The general age of marriage in the entire USA is 18 years old or even higher. In the wikipedia article there are ages where exceptions are taken into account. The majority of exceptions granted are for the marriage of couples with less than a 10 year age difference. I'm not even sure what the gap is but 10 years is being generous... certainly a 50 year old man will not be granted an exemption for even a 17 year old girl.
Exceptions:
There have been exceptions in the past for religions reasons and pregnancy. But you're not Amish or Mormon in a state with a sympathetic judiciary. As a matter of fact if you even tried I'm sure the judge would be rightfully pissed off that you're endangering Amish traditions with your efforts to skirt the law. If you came before a judge and requested an exemption for pregnancy, I'm sure the judge would have you explain everything slowly and clearly and then proceed to turn your application over to the prosecution. But I am not a judge or lawyer.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html
Nearly everything you say is exposed as a distortion of the truth in this article. According to this article it's 200k marriages in 15 years! That would be 6 in 1000 marriages requiring an exemption. Keeping in mind that this number includes all cases of 16 & 17 (and in some states 18, 19, and 20) year olds getting married to someone reasonable age appropriate. Suddenly it becomes very obvious that the edge cases that slipped through the cracks are probably not "As American as apple pie"
So why is it so important to you that you'd lie or force yourself to believe a deluded version of the truth?
The zinger:
retired to a foreign and married a sweet young thing (16+ years old) with the village permission.
retired
sweet young thing (16+ years old)
This is not an acceptable marriage to most americans.
sweet young thing
sweet young thing
sweet young thing
the false narrative that I wanted to marry child bride from Mexico or the Philippines over the last two weeks. Not surprisingly, they have taken my comments out of context and twisted them around. I've heard stories over the years from coworkers and family members who knew someone who knew someone else who retired to a foreign and married a sweet young thing (16+ years old) with the village permission.
If I wanted to twist your words it would sound like this:
Creimer writes:
I wanted to marry child bride from Mexico or the Philippines over the last two weeks.
But I don't have to do that
Creimer writes:
I've heard stories over the years from coworkers and family members who knew someone who knew someone else who retired to a foreign and married a sweet young thing (16+ years old) with the village permission.
A normal person hears: My friend went to a poor place and bought a polite sex slave from the village elders.
from media looking to stir up controversy. The advertisers need Youtube more than Youtube needs them. But unfortunately Google themselves sympathize with censorship and pearlclutching so they go along with it.
Images of tweenies in see-through clothing have been on the internet for a while. But now they're in a place where they're easy to find and dumb people can brag that fully-grown nipples are titillating. If they want to perv on real children they can watch this, with only 30,000 views.
Adults are sexual beings but that doesn't happen because a teenager has some magic birthday and can now do 'adult' activities. It happens over a long period of time, which is precisely why children need protection. But businesses like Youtube can't always compensate for childish ignorance or stupidity. Yes, we need to discourage children from sexting but I don't see a shortage of teenagers proclaiming "look at me". Yes, we need sites like Youtube to discourage objectification of children. But most of all, we need to punish people who publicly objectify others. Notice I didn't say "children", I said "others". Modern society publicly objectifies a lot of people, so this isn't a "think of the children" issue. If we want the public image of a child to be respected, we need to start with the public image of an adult.
Old media trying to murder new media .
They don't give a single fuck. People have been complaining about this for years, they only pretend to care now because it made news. They literally have given zero fucks about this.
I'm hearing about another of Alphabet everyday. Who would guess Alphabet has a search engine subsidiary that has a video website?