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."

2 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Re:There shouldn't be any ads on this content? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the UK (where The Times is) this material could be illegal for some people. The law states that for something to be child porn it doesn't necessarily have to contain nudity or be suggestive, only likely to stimulate the viewer. So children's clothes catalogues in a parent's hands are fine, but under some single guy's mattress could be child porn.

    Yes, it's that crazy.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Re:There shouldn't be any ads on this content? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

    Intent (mens rea) is always an issue in crime.

    But yes, in reality it gets to be pretty bizarre.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!