Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Brands Pull YouTube Ads Over Images of Children (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the your-time-has-come dept.

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."

12 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. There shouldn't be any ads on this content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So it is confirmed that the content is not a problem? Interesting policies youtube.

    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!
    3. Re:There shouldn't be any ads on this content? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Why should it be? The kids uploaded the videos by themselves of their own volition.

      If youtube decided to censor these videos it would run up against free speech provisions of the US constitution.

      First thing is, this was the UK, who doesn't answer to the US constitution.

      If it was actually decided that the images constituted kiddie porn, it wouldn't absolve the children of legal responsibility, at least in the USA. I don't know if any of the publicized cases went to trial, but there have been threats of arrest against teenagers who posted naked selfies.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:There shouldn't be any ads on this content? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I screwed up that link about the Democrats getting a remarkable 98% of Google's employees donations compared the tech industry average of 53%

      http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/1...

      NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Google Inc. employees took out their wallets and showed overwhelming support for the Democratic Party last year, according to a report Monday in USA Today.

      A USA Today campaign finance analysis found that, of the company's overall political contributions, 98 percent went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors.

      The online search company's employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates during last year's election campaign, which includes the White House race between Democrat John Kerry and the winning incumbent Republican, President Bush. The contributions were up from just $250 in 2000 when Google was a start-up, according to the paper.

      The paper said that 53 percent of the broader tech industry's $25.9 million went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign finance.

      --
      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;
    5. Re:There shouldn't be any ads on this content? by Computershack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So it is confirmed that the content is not a problem? Interesting policies youtube.

      I think it is more of an indictment of yourself that you think a young kid being in a night gown is anything other than a young kid being in a night gown. I doubt it was a negligee or other lingerie, probably just a young girl in a my little pony nightie. If you find the possibility of that being sexually attractive then you have issues. Or are you one of the brigade that think every man is a closet paedophile?

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
  2. People are sick assholes ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. As a father I find the reaction disturbing by FeelGood314 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:As a father I find the reaction disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be great if YouTube allowed you to disable comments? /s

  4. Re:Gets even crazier when you realize... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    The difference is that the sex does not require technology.

    Speak for yourself.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Re:Justifying being a sick fuck, are we? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

    Yes, and in the middle ages, nobles could kill serfs on a whim - luckily things have moved on a bit since then. Just because you like to spend your time trying to defend pedophiles doesn't mean others have to agree.

    --
    That is all.
  6. And here we go again... by Z80a · · Score: 2

    Old media trying to murder new media .