Disney, Nestle, and Others Are Pulling YouTube Ads Following Child Exploitation Controversy (bloomberg.com)

Good. Less ads to block by WCMI92 · 2019-02-20 10:12 · Score: 5, Funny

I hate ads on Youtube.

--
Corporatism != Free Market

Re: Good. Less ads to block by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:52 · Score: 0

My ads are tattooed on shaved dicks of YouTube porn stars. YouTube won't flag them.
Re: Good. Less ads to block by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:56 · Score: 0

Boring
Re: Good. Less ads to block by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:03 · Score: 0

What font do you use?
Re: Good. Less ads to block by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 00:10 · Score: 0

"Any content -- including comments -- that endangers minors..."
Small correction needed:
"Any content -- including comments -- that endangers our revenue..."

As sick as it is.. by scsirob · 2019-02-20 10:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

.. There will always be sick people imagining things in pictures or videos that are not there. There will always be people that are offended by anything you do or say. When you put out stuff on the internet for the whole world to see, there's no way to *NOT* offend or trigger some idiot somewhere on the planet.

Please return to common sense. If a video shows a girl having fun, it's about the girl having fun. Not about to sicko three doors down who has sick fantasies. Turning to censorship will not change that.

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB

Re: As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:22 · Score: 0

The issue is that the girls in the videos are lured and manipulated into these compromising situations. It's not so victimless as you think.
Re:As sick as it is.. by zlives · 2019-02-20 10:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

can we have a conversation about why people are uploading their kids on the internet in the first place?
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:36 · Score: 0

You are too old to understand.
Re: As sick as it is.. by edris90 · 2019-02-20 11:00 · Score: 0

Every parent Grooms their child. Christian's groom their children for a life of unsubstantiated guilt, and higher propensities for being manipulated, schools groom children to betray their families and self interests 4 whatever society wishes to devour and use them for. Grooming is a hypocrotical derogatory term for people people raisng children inways you don't like.. but if the children are trained to it than they may not have a problem with it and then there will be no trama for me to use to justify interference with their lives. Teenagers are sexual creatures. they're supposed to be fucking six ways to Sunday. It's the prime of life. That's why they continue to do so cross culture. Even consider them teenagers until around 1920.
Re:As sick as it is.. by TimMD909 · 2019-02-20 11:03 · Score: 1

can we have a conversation about why people are uploading their kids on the internet in the first place?
Why? Narcissism.
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:05 · Score: 1

.. There will always be sick people imagining things in pictures or videos that are not there. There will always be people that are offended by anything you do or say. When you put out stuff on the internet for the whole world to see, there's no way to *NOT* offend or trigger some idiot somewhere on the planet.
Please return to common sense. If a video shows a girl having fun, it's about the girl having fun. Not about to sicko three doors down who has sick fantasies. Turning to censorship will not change that.
Completely agree. This is just another internet do gooder on some fucking crusade. I've seen these videos and its just bunch of girls having fun. There are some slips but you can see that on TV and in Movies if you actually look for it. Until this idiot brought it up I've never have even noticed some of the shit he is bitching about.
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

A fully clothed girl doing gymnastics is not porn.
But, pedophiles will watch such a video and experience lust.
The fact that this will happen freaks people out, and a boring run-of-the-mill "look how adorable my kid is" video has suddenly become dirty.
This situation is fueled by emotion, so it is not logical. Emotion has tremendous motivating power, so you can't talk it down with logic.
People will suffer all kinds of injustice under the banner of protecting children. Its a strong instinct. That's why politicians like to play that card at every opportunity.
It is not fair. Too bad. That's the world we live in.
Re:As sick as it is.. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2019-02-20 11:23 · Score: 5, Funny

why people are uploading their kids on the internet in the first place?
You wouldn't download a car, you wouldn't download a movie. But would you download a kid?

IMAGES. They're uploading IMAGES -- to share. They're also the parental guardians over them, so they have that right. (I think that's a right.) They're presumably doing it to show off to their friends or their kids friends, they don't realize (or don't care) that literally their entire world can watch them as well.

And what's wrong with that? Maybe another dance class instructor will learn a new move or have a new idea (OMG, CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!) Maybe another kid will watch these and decide "I can do that, too!"

Now let's be real -- SOME people are going to watch that and imagine sexual acts. Or bestiality. Or ritual sacrifice. Or beheadings. Or maybe new costume designs or even haircuts. That's true of ANYTHING. (Sheep jokes about NZ. Blond jokes. Rule 42. Someone took an actress's face and glued it on their sex doll.) If you're concerned someone might see something bad in a picture, you (a) shouldn't post it and (b) need to get your head out of the sand. (My mom used to say, "Get your head out of the gutter." Seemingly now-a-days, everyone's head IS the gutter. Not quite sure what happened -- "Sex Sells" or something.)

If we're leading up to talking about banning pictures because they might offend (or attract) someone, then notice that God, Allah, Re, Zeus, Odin, Thor, and FSM appear in EACH and EVERY picture on the internet. They're invisible, so you can't see them, but they're always there. So, let's start banning all pictures everywhere. (Here's a naughty one. But include Muhammad there and heads will literally roll.)

And BTW: if I start fantasizing about AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Trump, can we ban every picture about ALL of them? I'd like for SOMEthing good to come out of this.

--
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Re:As sick as it is.. by PhrostyMcByte · 2019-02-20 11:24 · Score: 1

Have you seen the video in question? This isn't an overreaction or censorship issue.
There are hundreds of comments on these videos of people calling the kids sexy and posting timestamps where the kids are in suggestive positions. often with some short exclamation or suggestive emojis attached, and some even linking to real child porn.
He started a brand new Youtube account, searched something slightly risque but completely safe and normal, and within two clicks found one of these videos along with countless additional suggestions that were all having the same issue.
Re:As sick as it is.. by MobyDisk · 2019-02-20 11:30 · Score: 1

Yes.
Growing up, a group of children in my neighborhood won an award for some civic duty. The newspaper printed a picture of the group and their first names, all except for one child. That child's parents were outraged that the newspaper wanted to publish that information. The believed that having people know their faces and names presented a danger to them. Or maybe it was a news broadcast now that I think of it. But over time, that kind of thinking mostly died out. That kind of information is so trivial to obtain just by walking around or driving around that protecting it is silly.
Are you suggesting that a video of a child on YouTube, with no last name and no location (which is less information than the newspaper offered) is a cause for concern?
Re:As sick as it is.. by The+MAZZTer · 2019-02-20 11:48 · Score: 1

They are proud of their children and want to send videos to family and friends, but don't know how the privacy features of YouTube work (or that they even exist).
Re:As sick as it is.. by bobbied · 2019-02-20 11:50 · Score: 2

Are you suggesting that a video of a child on YouTube, with no last name and no location (which is less information than the newspaper offered) is a cause for concern?
Perhaps.. It depends on both the context and unknown future events. There is just no way to know for sure.
I think most folks vastly under estimate the amount of data they actually are giving up when they post stuff online. It's hard to understand just how the information will be stored, used and impact people in the future. It may be nothing, or, it may be a huge deal.
I think the young adults who grew up in a culture of oversharing everything, getting your 15 min of fame by going viral, it's tempting to just post stuff. Stuff that will be *really* embarrassing in about 10 years, when your kids find it or when some prospective employer want's you to explain why you posted the video in which you clearly are breaking the law in a big way... "I thought it was funny at the time" may not be enough of an explanation then.
Posting videos/pictures of kids by parents runs along the same lines. What's cute now, may not be all that cute in a few years, and may be very embarrassing if not life altering years down the road. It may also be giving up critical information to people who are out to do harm to kids, perhaps yours. Personally, I'd suggest parents error on the side of caution and refrain from posting stuff about the kids. I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm just saying I'd avoid the risks because you never really know.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:51 · Score: 0

How about we have a conversation that kids are uploading images/videos of themselves on the internet? The only way to avoid that would be to remove all cameras. It's the kids themselves that are narcissists, if anything. Want to solve that problem? Start by getting rid of narcissism in adults. Then actively suppress it appearing in children. Good luck.
Re:As sick as it is.. by Kjella · 2019-02-20 11:54 · Score: 1

.. There will always be sick people imagining things in pictures or videos that are not there.
That covers misinterpreting innocent actions or creative editing but people sexualize things entirely on their own, which is why we have rule 34, all the erotic fan-fic, people ogling swimsuit catalogs when they didn't have pr0n and so on. The reasoning here is like saying that because the Harry Potter movies made a lot of people have the hots for Emma Watson the movies must be soft porn. Basically if you're going to remove all the innocent material that could be fodder for someone's spank bank like kids doing gymnastics or yoga you'd better dress everyone up in burkas right now.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:56 · Score: 0

I think it has to be the height of either hubris of accomplishment for people in a society to feel open enough to involve their kids in society by filming them and releasing the footage publicly. Compared to how this was done a hundred years ago, it's got to be one of the safest ways. As with every endeavour, there are risks and rewards, but coming from a shitty family, I sometimes watch the Demolition Ranch guy's home videos and think to myself "Jeeze, that's what I missed out on as a kid". It broadens my horizons and makes me feel better about the world in immeasurable ways. This is a guy who's wife literally makes home videos with him and releases them publicly, you get to see these kids grow up. He's teaching fathers how to be fathers and mothers how to be mothers who would not see that in any other possible way, and he's doing immeasurable good in the world. Furthermore, Nobody's going to screw with a guy who tests the penetrating capacity of various firearms on inanimate objects for fun.
If the Monopolists want to show off they're too big for their own britches and want to pull their ads so be it. We're all tired of their !@#!@#ing Sh!@#t anyway. Throw all the public relations people and marketing people in a mass grave, see if anyone in the country sheds a tear.
Re:As sick as it is.. by sjames · 2019-02-20 12:34 · Score: 1

you'd better dress everyone up in burkas right now.
There's almost certainly a few who would find that to be "hot" and about 100 times as many trolls who will claim they do too.
Re:As sick as it is.. by amicusNYCL · 2019-02-20 12:45 · Score: 1

Seriously, this is absurd. Literally the only difference in "proper" or "improper" use is the intent of the person watching it, and now they want to try to regulate intent? The content itself is not the problem, it's the intent of the viewer that's the problem, so why do people think they can A) determine and B) regulate that intent?

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re: As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 13:08 · Score: 0

No they are not. They are just girls having fun. If you think anything else then you should seek mental help.
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 13:18 · Score: 0

What is proper is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Here is the fact. These girls could be doing gymnastics naked and if you see anything more than that, you are the one that needs the help. Again, if you read anything sexually into what a child is doing then you are the one that is sick in the head.
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 14:13 · Score: 0

Simple, it's monetized.
Re:As sick as it is.. by Nethemas+the+Great · 2019-02-20 14:38 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but believe it or not, there's more than one reason for children to be present on the Internet. It would be wrong to allow some pervs from eastern Europe, et al. to spoil it for the overwhelming majority of the legitimate, innocent content out there for and by children. There seems to be a lot of hand waving surrounding this topic arguing for the equivalent of shutting down playgrounds, water parks, etc. because some perverted letch might be leveraging them for his jollies. As a father of two, with connected kids I'm keenly aware of all the great content out there. I'm also aware of the filth. The alternative Elsa-Anna videos were especially frustrating for a time. Its a reality and a reason for ensuring we educate our kids, as well as watch out for them. You know, a reason to do our job as parents.
I'm also pretty sure Google could do more to address the pervs. Hopefully this guy's video suffices for a sufficient kick in the pants to patrol the comments, reposts, etc. a bit better. I find it a bit challenging to believe they don't have the reasonable ability to put some algorithms on the job. It doesn't take much for ML algorithms to be trained to detect children in a video coinciding with timestamp links and lecherous comments.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 14:46 · Score: 0

That doesn't always work. YouTube has a balance that anything questionable requires a user sign in... usually after something being reported. This isn't just a children's video problem, either. Stunts that are funny but risky, they might be sign-in restricted as potentially self-harm. Even something like the act of going around barefoot, common yet also controversial: some of the comments in response to seeing a dirty sole are definitely adult content quality even in text format... even if the video is "just going barefoot" but they also show the sole, and then someone who comments is VERY interested in it.
VIDEO TAKEDOWN or CHANNEL CLOSURE is an entirely separate issue than must sign-in to view the video... but then that loses user privacy when their video view history is tracked. On the other hand, reporting video content requires user sign-in, a guest user randomly viewing videos can't file a report.
Re:As sick as it is.. by gweihir · 2019-02-20 17:53 · Score: 1

Indeed. It is pretty hard to see how anybody is getting exploited here. The test for exploitation (the subject is harmed) seems to fail completely. This panic is not new though. In fact, a pretty large part of the human population will be offended by anybody female being shown at all, and this is going in that direction eventually. Do we really want to go that way?

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:As sick as it is.. by gweihir · 2019-02-20 17:57 · Score: 2

So the problem are the comments, not the videos?

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:As sick as it is.. by gweihir · 2019-02-20 17:59 · Score: 1

.... you'd better dress everyone up in burkas right now.
That is probably pretty much the original reasoning behind the burka anyways.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:As sick as it is.. by serviscope_minor · 2019-02-20 20:21 · Score: 1

Of course I would: free meat is free meat.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:As sick as it is.. by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 21:06 · Score: 1

It's hardly a new thing. There have always been public events for children, or maybe more like their parents, to show off their ballet skills or whatever. A few years ago there was a panic over parents taking photos of their kids at swimming events or even just playing football.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:As sick as it is.. by gweihir · 2019-02-20 21:07 · Score: 1

Seriously, this is absurd. Literally the only difference in "proper" or "improper" use is the intent of the person watching it, and now they want to try to regulate intent?
They do and they have done so in the past. What do you think the real reason for an all-seeing "God" is? It is to censor and enforce restrictions on intent, nothing less. As more and more people see through that old scum these days, they are now trying other ways to control what people dare to think. They are starting with something where they think many people will agree, but of course, this is planned to be extended as soon as they won this battle.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:As sick as it is.. by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 21:10 · Score: 2

The problem is that they treat YouTube like social media, but it's not really. On Facebook they can post the video and only their friends of the gymnastics group can see and comment on it. Anyone posting inappropriate stuff gets booted out.
YouTube doesn't have that kind of access control. Visibility is either everyone or no-one, comments are either on or off.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 02:16 · Score: 0

The fact that this will happen freaks people out, and a boring run-of-the-mill "look how adorable my kid is" video has suddenly become dirty.
This quote from TFA is what really scares me:

activities that could be construed as sexually suggestive
So tomorrow when someone desides that solving math equations is sexually suggestive, do we have to ban videos of young kids doing homework?

Also, just to troll a little more here -- are boys not even in the equation of "soft-core porn pedophilia"?
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 03:18 · Score: 0

There is plenty of legit sick shit made that is based off children's shows and what not. The problem is youtube is out there demonizing conservatives, conspiracy theorists, gun channels, etc. in order to be "advertiser friendly" but not do much of anything about the really sick shit and actually losing advertisers because of it.
Re: As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 03:42 · Score: 0

Well, it's a great thing we have people like you to swoop in and save them! I bet they'll even have sex with you, fair knight!
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 03:48 · Score: 0

Also, just to troll a little more here -- are boys not even in the equation of "soft-core porn pedophilia"?
I don't see that as a troll question, that's a legitimate (albeit rhetorical) question.
Our society likes to be the "protective father". Kick any man's ass who looks at your little girl, but high-five your son once he gets his dick wet, no matter how young he is when it happens.
Unless it's someone else wetting his dick in your son's butt.
Then you just pretend it didn't happen, right?
Re:As sick as it is.. by wisnoskij · 2019-02-21 04:43 · Score: 1

Yes and no.
First off, their are loads of little girls who made videos specifically to be sexually suggestive, and I guarantee you their are also adults filming these girls specifically trying to create sexually suggestive content. AKA, some of these content simply is CP from intent to execution.
Other content is or course a gray area. They just want attention, their parents want them to by the next Miley Cyrus and they naturally gravitate to sexually suggestive content because 1) that is what their idols do and 2) that is what gets them views.
And then their are probably loads of completely innocent videos.
But all of these categories share 1 similarity, the only people watching them are pedophiles.
At first I thought that what does it matter, of course Disney is not advocating pedophilia, and it makes sense for them to want to advertise to pedophiles and they are likely to buy their merchandise. But I can see that they would not want to be seen as a brand that pedophiles like.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:As sick as it is.. by wisnoskij · 2019-02-21 04:58 · Score: 1

Yes, and off of YT they are often not even clothed. And sometimes the parent who thinks its adorable, is instead a parent, pimp, or other who is simply trying to maximize revenue any way possible.
The world and particularly the internet is full of people and organizations who live off of grooming children and selling sexual content they create. I guarantee that at least some of the children in these videos have content on other websites behind a pay filter hosted in non-extradition counties.
It makes sense that Disney would not want to be in associated with these people.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:As sick as it is.. by PhrostyMcByte · 2019-02-21 06:59 · Score: 1

So the problem are the comments, not the videos?
Half the problem is the comments. The other half (also demonstrated in the video) is people copying & reposting these videos under throwaway accounts.
It seems like Youtube needs both a way for parents to prevent unsupervised postings from their children, as well as a way to better track these obvious abuse cases.
Re: As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 09:13 · Score: 0

LOL. You are an idiot. Grow up.
Re: As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 09:17 · Score: 0

Again, you are a clueless idiot trying to police everything people do. Grow up, let people make their own choices. It isn't your job to lie on the internet for your cause.
So you are saying anyone watching a video that has kids doing gymnastics is a pedophile? And the parents are pimps? Interesting.
Re:As sick as it is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-22 10:24 · Score: 0

The owner of YT video can hide the link. So unless you have the link, you can't watch the video.

And there's the opposite side of the coin by DontBeAMoran · 2019-02-20 10:18 · Score: 1

Channels such as Naomi 'SexyCyborg' Wu, where I'm not quite sure if people are watching her for what she does, or what she looks like.

--
#DeleteFacebook

Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:25 · Score: 0

EEEEEEREK
Thank you thank you very much we will repeat the video all week
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

She's an adult who can make the content she wants and it really doesn't matter why others might like her work. She seems like a fun lady who does fun things and is fun to look at, and that's just fine.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Luckyo · 2019-02-20 10:48 · Score: 1, Informative

Except that she is very vocal about the fact that she has already crossed the puritan wing of SJW movement and got deplatformed from various platforms by these puritans in the past.
https://medium.com/@therealsex...
The moment the same powerful cabal gets a chance to finish wiping her digital presence off the internet, they will. They already showed no qualms in doing so in the past, to her or anyone else they deem guilty of "wrongthink".
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:52 · Score: 0

And those puritans can shove a rusty spoon up their ginas. We just have to be adults and tell them no, we will not take them seriously, they don't have power over us, and they aren't even our customers.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Luckyo · 2019-02-20 11:20 · Score: 1

You can tell them "no" all you won't. It won't help people like Naomi Wu when she gets deplatformed. If anything, you telling then "no" hurts people like her, because your "no" is used as evidence of her wrongthink.
Because while you indeed aren't their customers, they do exert significant control over the platforms people like her use to publish their work for you, and get payment from you for their work. The story you can read in that medium article isn't even half of the story. Her account was throttled hard on youtube (and still remains throttled to this day according to her latest claims), she got deplatformed a few more times and so on.
>What about YouTube income? Very low. On October 8th YouTube suddenly throttled my account by 70-80%. No drop-off- full stop. I had many YouTube experts look at my stats, all agreed it was not organic or a result of anything I was doing. After several weeks of negotiation with YouTube, one day they suddenly let off- now it's one throttled by 40%. But it's much, much harder- all the stats are off from what they were for the past year even though updates are popular and more frequent. I can prove it, all I can do it work harder, so I am. But it means that YouTube ad income is not very much, and could disappear the minute YouTube gets pressured to defund my channel. Which is sure to happen given my track record.
Source: her own comment with clarification on her video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Folks in question are not just powerful. They also hold a one mean grudge, and are more than willing to go to great lengths to push it.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Luckyo · 2019-02-20 11:37 · Score: 1

Just out of interest, are you having problems with dosage of your psychotropic medication? Because these bouts of insanity of yours seem to come in really weird bursts, followed by silence for a while.
You should see your MD about that.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:42 · Score: 0

Attention dumb plastic-eating faggot Luckyo - YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO GOOGLE. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FB. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YT. Fuck off if you like whiner, you're WORSE than any SJW.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:50 · Score: 0

Probably coincides with a day pass from the institution as well.
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by amicusNYCL · 2019-02-20 12:47 · Score: 3

Why does it matter? Serious question.
In addition to dictating what people are allowed to watch, are you suggesting also trying to dictate why they should be watching it?

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by hoofie · 2019-02-20 14:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look the first time you watch some of her videos, let be honest it's quite easy on the eye.....
After a few of them you really don't notice that aspect anymore as the content she presents is too interesting - you are a true geek if you can do that.
She has been shamefully treated though and comes across as quite a lovely person.
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 15:04 · Score: 1

Exactly. Sounds a lot like thought crime.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 15:17 · Score: 0

from the synagogue
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Stan92057 · 2019-02-20 15:50 · Score: 1

Looking at the linked video for a bout 30 second her fn tits were hanging out the bottom of her very low cut shirt that's not kids content nor should it be. SO ya i can see major ad buyers like Disney bailing they should. That said I haven't a clue how old she is either but im guessing 17-18 if 17 No way in HELL would i allow my minor daughter to post such a video. If shes not a minor well shes free to do as she wishes buy shouldn't expect people to pay for her content or even question them if they decide to not too. we don't need to sexualize kids they have enough on their plates and ya will figure it out with the help of youtube or even porn.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by freeze128 · 2019-02-20 17:19 · Score: 1

I often wonder if she is *REALLY* a cyborg, though...
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Luckyo · 2019-02-20 19:38 · Score: 1

Kids content?
She's in her twenties doing DYI tech stuff. This is stuff watched by mostly adult men in their 20s and 30s, her age group. What are you talking about?
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 20:26 · Score: 0

He's trying to justify his puritanical opinions on the human body.
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by gweihir · 2019-02-20 21:03 · Score: 1

Nothing less than total control over others will satisfy the current generation (well, all generations really) of authoritarian scum. The sad thing is that these people are again being listened too. As if the numerous fascist, stalinist and other authoritarian catastrophes the human race has caused in the past are not enough and we need some more.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 21:17 · Score: 4, Informative

She is also an accomplished engineer. She has a great deal of skill when it comes to 3D modelling and printing/CNC, particularly an ability to conceive of a product and turn it into something workable quickly.
She has done a lot of China too, especially promoting open source. She is responsible for the first three open source hardware products out of China. She went to the manufacturer of some 3D printers, convinced them to open source the design, helped them do it and meet all the requirements, and got it certified. Gave them a nice sales boost too as westerners love open source hardware. She also helped take some of the stigma off Chinese products, demonstrating that they can be good quality and that the manufacturer can engage with the western world.
There is also the Sinobit, a single board computer for learning. She does a lot to help kids learn about engineering. The design is a little bit like the British Microbit board, but with a larger LED display because the British one is too small to display Chinese characters. Again, open source.
I'm amazed that she kept going after western journalists from Vice nearly destroyed her. They put her in real danger - I won't get into it because that would just be compounding the problem, but suffice to say many people would have gone into hiding after that.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 23:26 · Score: 1

What happened to her has nothing to so with "SJWs". It was Vice journalists (particularly Sarah Jeong) who screwed her over by reneging on an agreement they had to not discuss certain things in their article. She lives in China, it's not safe to be putting out articles like that.
Vice are not SJWs. They are just scummy, low grade journalists with flexible morals looking for a story. Their only agenda is self promotion and building their own careers. There is no ideology. There was so "wrongthink" here, they just threw Wu under the bus to make a quick buck and then refused to even acknowledge it, let along put things right.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Luckyo · 2019-02-20 23:30 · Score: 2

I have no problems with holding puritanical opinions on human body. I only have problems with pushing such ideas on people who aren't in any close relationship to one holding such ideas.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by RedK · 2019-02-21 00:03 · Score: 1

Vice are now some of the biggest SJWs out there, stop gaslighting all the time.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-21 00:19 · Score: 1

Anti-union, anti-rights and equality, covering up sexual misconduct, enabling people like Sarah Jeong who actual SJWs despise... They don't sound like SJWs.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 00:57 · Score: 0

If I remember correctly, she's in her mid 20s, so she's not 17 or 18 as you put it.
And just because you're afraid of boobs doesn't mean everyone else is as immature as you and unable to handle them. I'm not personally a fan of hers as everything I've seen is mostly just glitzy and flashy and seems more down the the fashion line and just doesn't interest me, but maybe she's got some better stuff that I've not seen. Personally Simone Giertz is more up my ally.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by BringsApples · 2019-02-21 01:29 · Score: 1

Every time I see "this guy" post, I feel like it's not a single person, but rather an assumed personality that is commonly taken, here on slashdot, by those with pent up anger.

Of course, if I'm wrong, and it is a guy, then I'll probably get shouted at too, about how I'm a lying nazi faggot plastic-eating pedophile satan-worshiping {trump-supporter|obama-supporter} conspiracy-theorist that plays the trumpet to loud at night.

But I'll just have that guy know: His hosts file kicks ass.

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 01:30 · Score: 0

Drink! AmiMojo pulls the "no true SJW" card!
Extra drink as he'd just as easily turn around and say "SJW" doesn't have a concrete definition (but somehow here he just knows who's an "actual" SJW and who isn't)
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by DontBeAMoran · 2019-02-21 02:17 · Score: 1

At least two parts of her are artificial in nature, she confirmed it herself.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by squiggleslash · 2019-02-21 02:25 · Score: 1

If you extend the definition of SJW to mean "Anyone I don't like who says something I disagree with occasionally" then sure they're SJWs. In that respect, AmiMojo is wrong because SJWism is a meaningless word that applies to pretty much everyone, and yet pretty much no-one these days.
What is true is that normally when people refer to SJWs they're saying they're vaguely left wing and vaguely concerned about racism or sexism. Vice definitely does not fall under that category - it's usually the target of people with those concerns, not a ally to them.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 02:54 · Score: 0

SJWs are people who perceive injustice, and attempt to correct that injustice with more injustice.

Now I say "perceive", but I want to make clear that that does not mean the injustice does not exist. The injustice they perceive could be fake, but could also be real. The important part about what makes an SJW, is that they steamroll ahead with more injustice in an attempt to fix the problem.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by DontBeAMoran · 2019-02-21 03:44 · Score: 1

That said I haven't a clue how old she is either but im guessing 17-18.
You're right, you don't have a fucking clue. Asians women tend to look much younger than their actual age, at least from our western point of view.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by DontBeAMoran · 2019-02-21 03:46 · Score: 1

It does not matter to me, I'm just curious if she would have as many followers if she didn't have her breast implants.
It's a good move on her part for exploiting the male psyche, though.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by wisnoskij · 2019-02-21 04:49 · Score: 1

Well for good or ill that currently is our laws. It is simply illegal for people to create content intended to be masturbated to where the star(s) are girls under age. If you don't think that any of these YT videos are this, than you have your head in the sand.
Similarly, I suspect having/watching video content you yourself consider to be CP makes it CP... Porn is a nebulous consent with regard to the law, it is all about intent. I defiantly would not want to be in a courtroom trying to argue that while I did not use it in that fashion those videos on my laptop can technically be watched while not masturbating.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-21 05:04 · Score: 1

I should point out that my goal here, which I appreciate may be too subtly indicated sometimes, is that when you try to nail people down on what an SJW actually is they basically describe the person they are complaining about in that moment. Well, more accurately they describe the imaginary boogyman with the same face as the person they are complaining about.
BTW, thanks for your efforts over the years. I feel like I've really made it as a star of social media now that I have my own personal long-term trolls, with memes just for me. The fact that you made a drinking game out of me triggering anti-SJWs is really heart-warming.
Only thing is, and I don't mean to nit-pick, but... The 'J' in my name is capitalized. It might seem like a small thing but it's important to me. Thanks buddy.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 07:16 · Score: 0

I should point out that my goal here, which I appreciate may be too subtly indicated sometimes, is that when you try to nail people down on what an SJW actually is they basically describe the person they are complaining about in that moment. Well, more accurately they describe the imaginary boogyman with the same face as the person they are complaining about.
Drink! AmiMojo is telling other people what they're thinking
He hates it when people do it to him, but it's ok when he does it!

BTW, thanks for your efforts over the years. I feel like I've really made it as a star of social media now that I have my own personal long-term trolls, with memes just for me. The fact that you made a drinking game out of me triggering anti-SJWs is really heart-warming.
Drink! AmiMojo pulls the old troll trick: backpedaling and claim he was purposely acting like a troll to get a rise out of people all along!
Think he'll remember this the next time he complains about getting downmodded with troll and flamebait, even in posts where he isn't trying? Nah, get your drinks ready.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 07:45 · Score: 0

What is true is that normally when people refer to SJWs they're saying they're vaguely left wing and vaguely concerned about racism or sexism. Vice definitely does not fall under that category - it's usually the target of people with those concerns, not a ally to them.
If we're talking about this Vice, they are left center.
Vice being involved in scandals related to racism and sexism doesn't make them not left leaning. It makes them hypocrites.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 09:08 · Score: 0

People are watching because of her tits. She's bland and boring but has nice set of tits. So I tolerate for 2 Minutes.
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 09:59 · Score: 0

It's Youtube. People try to look attractive on video. If her looks weren't part of it she could just write a blog. If viewers prefer to have their tech news delivered with silicone then that's their choice, nothing exploitative about it in either direction.
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by amicusNYCL · 2019-02-21 13:12 · Score: 1

It is simply illegal for people to create content intended to be masturbated to where the star(s) are girls under age.
No, that's not illegal. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor. If someone masturbates to kids playing on a playground, and that person creates an animation of kids playing on a playground, that's not illegal. Similarly, a parent's pictures of their naked children may not constitute child pornography as long as the pictures are not sexually suggestive. A 15 year old girl uploading a video of her showing off her cleavage, while otherwise clothed, is not illegal.

If you don't think that any of these YT videos are this, than you have your head in the sand.
Hmm, are you trying to suggest that sex sells? That's amazing, we need to alert everyone.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 14:15 · Score: 0

Are you a lawyer? That's not the standard at all. One of the governing tests is community guidelines--aka what the jury thinks. Do they think it's porn? Depends on the jury. You can't intend on behalf of something that doesn't exist.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Luckyo · 2019-02-22 01:57 · Score: 1

I understand that between the Covington and the Smollett, far leftists have nothing left but to desperately try to gaslight people about their involvement in this particular cultural insanity as various aspects of it keep coming out.
But you being desperate does not make you any less incredulously unbelievable. If anything, it makes you so unbelievable, that you cross the realm where it's just plain funny that you would even try.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-22 02:27 · Score: 1

I don't know what the Covington and the Smollett are or what they have to do with me or Vice.
What I do know is that most of the left leaning people I know, especially the ones who identify as socialists, don't like Vice or what they did.
Also, since apparently I'm the prototypical SJW, and Vice piss me off, they can't be SJWs either. Whatever an SJW is. Still can't get a clear answer on that one.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-22 02:29 · Score: 1

At the risk of further raising your blood-alcohol level, I really wish there was a way to get notified of AC replies to my comments because I often miss yours.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-22 02:32 · Score: 1

I guess that is an American site, so using the American political scale... For example they rate the BBC as left of centre, where as by European standards they are either dead centre or a little to the right. In fact over the last decade or so they have definitely drifted right a bit.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Luckyo · 2019-02-22 02:43 · Score: 1

I'm not going to bother with the silly grasping at straws where you continue with incredulously silly narrative even when called on it by several people. The only thing I have to address is the "but if I'm [x] and I'm pissed by [y], they can't be [x]".
This is a common tactic in religious circles to denounce disgraced members of their particular faith. "Terrorist muslims aren't real muslims, even though they literally follow the Quran". etc. It's meaningful only to the faithful protecting his faith from damage caused by recognising just how awful of actions his faith has induced in other people.
It's utterly irrelevant to those outside the faith, as they have no investment in maintaining base tenets of said faith. They simply see faithful parties having a theological disagreement on some limited interpretations, while sharing most of the belief structure. It's why overwhelming majority of islamic terror is done to muslims. The worst enemy is the enemy that shows you the problems with your beliefs while representing them.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-22 03:45 · Score: 0

I guess that is an American site, so using the American political scale... For example they rate the BBC as left of centre, where as by European standards they are either dead centre or a little to the right.

The site has an about page and a methodology page. I glanced them over and it doesn't seem like their methods depend on any sort of cultural lens.
Maybe you can find something that says otherwise in there, but first you'd have to go read them first before throwing out guesses.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-22 03:47 · Score: 1

I think maybe you mistook me for an American. I googled those names and they seem to be related to stuff happening in the US.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Luckyo · 2019-02-22 08:16 · Score: 1

And yet, you chose to defend Vice, a US company. This grasping of straws follows the same principle as I noted above - it's so incredulously unbelievable that it's hilarious that you would even try arguing it this way.
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-22 08:59 · Score: 1

Defend Vice? They are a bunch of asshats. I have no love for them whatsoever. I was ranting about how scummy Vice are just yesterday.
You seem to be very, very confused. Do you have me mixed up with someone else?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: And there's the opposite side of the coin by Luckyo · 2019-02-22 12:38 · Score: 1

I do love the way you're persistently gaslighting with every post though. At least you're consistent, if utterly awful at it.
Re:And there's the opposite side of the coin by freeze128 · 2019-02-23 04:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, they're implants, but are they CYBERNETIC, or just saline? Do they even have Bluetooth?

To be shortly followed by... by hymie · 2019-02-20 10:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

...people complaining about how YouTube pulled the video of their children being adorable.

Re:To be shortly followed by... by zlives · 2019-02-20 10:38 · Score: 1

FTFY ...people complaining about how YouTube pulled the video of their children before they could be exploited by the parents lack of self esteem and vicarious living through children as the only justifiable answer to committing an hero
Re:To be shortly followed by... by Luckyo · 2019-02-20 10:50 · Score: 1

Out of sight, out of mind, eh?
Hint: just because the spotlight isn't shining at the problem any more doesn't mean that problem went away.
Re:To be shortly followed by... by Mashiki · 2019-02-20 12:10 · Score: 1

That's not really the problem. There a few actual problems, one being that Youtube knows that there's a pedo problem already, they have an automatic comment restriction system that kicks in on a lot of kids videos. Another problem is that, it's trivial to find the content and as pointed out in the video the comment section is cancerous and full of pedo crap. The real problem is that the pedos will start telling the kids what to do in the comment section, then the kid starts doing it. "Kids being cute" is perfectly fine. "Kids being cute" then pedos trying to groom them to preform sexual acts in front of the camera on the other hand is a problem. Enough of a problem that here in Canadaland that nearly all of the police to school programs(i.e. where they go in and do something fun with the kids) directly talks about why doing these things for strangers isn't a good idea.
Kids think it's innocent tech, and it is. Parents are using tech as baby sitters/keeps them out of their hair and that's not good. They also are lacking in teaching the kids why personal privacy and whatnot is important. I don't see any easy answers to this. Censorship isn't the solution, restrictions are the better solution. But it would be far better all around if the parents weren't shoveling their kids off on tech.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:To be shortly followed by... by djinn6 · 2019-02-20 17:59 · Score: 1

Why wouldn't censorship be a solution?
Kids watching YouTube makes them money. Kids uploading videos generates bad press. Block all videos with kids in them and the problem goes away.
Re:To be shortly followed by... by Mashiki · 2019-02-21 07:14 · Score: 1

Censorship isn't the solution because it begets the slippery slope. See the UK for example, which first started restricting "allowable types of porn" and whatnot, and now are pushing for you to buy a porn pass.
Blocking all videos with kids in them, would mean that videos that the RCMP does, or OPP would no longer be available either. It's similar to the "everything looks like a nail, when you're holding a hammer" approach.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:To be shortly followed by... by djinn6 · 2019-02-21 09:34 · Score: 1

If you only have a hammer, then you should use it until you get yourself a better tool. It's much easier to build a ML model to identify children in general than to identify children in potentially compromising positions, especially when you don't know what some freak might be turned on by.
I also don't see how this can be a slippery slope. Having separate platforms for kids and adults to post content on makes a lot of sense. There's a good reason why schools are segregated by age, not the least of which is the potential for abuse.
Re:To be shortly followed by... by doconnor · 2019-02-22 02:47 · Score: 1

Right on schedule: https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
Re:To be shortly followed by... by Mashiki · 2019-02-23 01:26 · Score: 1

If you only have a hammer, then you should use it until you get yourself a better tool. It's much easier to build a ML model to identify children in general than to identify children in potentially compromising positions, especially when you don't know what some freak might be turned on by.
So we wait another 5-10 years? Cause ML is a pretty shit solution in the short term.

I also don't see how this can be a slippery slope. Having separate platforms for kids and adults to post content on makes a lot of sense. There's a good reason why schools are segregated by age, not the least of which is the potential for abuse.
For one thing, there isn't a separate platform between the two. Second various laws in various countries require a minimum age, understanding of the agreement, and/or a parent/guardian to grant the account. Third, I'm not sure what school you went to, but most people on /. can probably point to a time when k-12 was a single school with a small number of students unlike the gigantic central-plex mega schools that have replaced them over the last 20 years. The school I went to was K-8, 9-13 wasn't very far down the road. You basically went to school with the same group of people for years and everybody knew each other. Even the country kids went to particular schools, while city kids went to another. The education taught at those schools was also focused around what they knew and the lessons formed around what they had learned.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:29 · Score: 0

Just another day in the valley. Remember the Saudi Pedo ring in broad daylight on Twitter a while back?

Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:30 · Score: 0

Partially true. They went for the low hanging pedophile fruit first, famous conservatives.

Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:30 · Score: 1

"Any content -- including comments -- that endangers minors is abhorrent ..." unless the minors are Catholic school students, apparently.

It won't work by TWX · 2019-02-20 10:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

From Youtube: "Any content -- including comments -- that endangers minors is abhorrent and we have clear policies prohibiting this on YouTube. We took immediate action by deleting accounts and channels, reporting illegal activity to authorities and disabling violative comments," a spokeswoman for YouTube said in an email.

It won't work. The fundamental problem is that it's expensive to editorialize/police content and advertising. Major television networks employ standards boards, local television stations have station managers and other staff, and even cable networks have to maintain staff to both sell and to police the content of television shows and of ads. These entities have to spend a sizable amount on salary for these censors, and even being limited to airtime that's limited to 1440 minutes in a 24-hour period they still get it wrong.

There are claims that 5 billion videos are watched daily on Youtube, and more than 400,000 hours of content is added to Youtube every day. There's simply no way to keep up as censors with that kind of content. Hell, Google can't even keep its ad delivery networks free from malicious ads, how do they expect to keep inappropriate content off when those uploading content don't have a strong financial tie with a particular salesman or censor?

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:It won't work by Aristos+Mazer · 2019-02-20 10:51 · Score: 2

Assign every content uploader to be the personal censor for a random other uploader. And then pick a third random uploader to be the metamoderator for the first censor. Shuffle every week. You can't upload if you haven't caught up on your backlog of reviewing and rejecting or approving whoever you're assigned to. Make the random assignments balanced -- people who upload lots of stuff are assigned other people who upload lots of stuff.
Re:It won't work by mark-t · 2019-02-20 11:00 · Score: 2

You can't upload if you haven't caught up on your backlog of reviewing and rejecting or approving whoever you're assigned to.

What happens if you approve stuff that the metamoderator disagrees with? Do you also get blocked from uploading?
Bear in mind that your suggested system is simply self-reinforcing, and does not generally allow for the insertion of new or potentially even controversial information, even if there is an otherwise objectively legitimate reason for it.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re: It won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 12:28 · Score: 0

A) If youâ(TM)re randomizing over billions of people, youâ(TM)ll get even extreme ideas approved by someone from time to time.
B) Yes, youâ(TM)ll move over time toward a global standard of acceptability, just as happens in any community.
Re: It won't work by mark-t · 2019-02-20 12:54 · Score: 1

It is more likely, in fact, that you will simply tend towards mediocrity.
Entropy increases in any closed system, including social networks.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:It won't work by Nethemas+the+Great · 2019-02-20 15:09 · Score: 1

Of course there is. ML algorithms could easily screen stuff. Those 400,000 daily hours uploaded is backed by the computational horsepower to support that. You're not asking your personal Dell PC to check this stuff. There's any number of low cost risk mitigation strategies that could be employed. For example, while helping my kids navigate Youtube I've found that much of the pervy stuff comes in the form of reposts. That is, someone ripping off content from a legitimate channel and posting the trimmed lascivious versions on their own channel. Simply scanning for reposts would be a boon to huge swaths of content creators, in addition to keeping the pervs at bay. As a parent I'd love it if there was a kid friendly "whitelist" ability where my kids would be allowed to search around and find stuff, but post a popup asking for parent permission before allowing them enter an unlisted channel. Or, perhaps something a bit more sophisticated where content creators could get a "reputation" score and I could set the threshold for when I'd need to give the OK.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:It won't work by gweihir · 2019-02-20 18:02 · Score: 1

No, it cannot. ML is maybe 90% accurate if really, really good. You need a lot more than that here.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re: It won't work by djinn6 · 2019-02-20 18:07 · Score: 1

If left alone, social networks actually trend towards cliques. They make it easy for like-minded people to find each other and reinforce their off-the-wall ideas.
Re:It won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 18:08 · Score: 0

>it's expensive to editorialize/police content and advertising
Yup. That's why they aren't.
This is PC theater. No, it's a rerun of theater, that I've seen so many times it's become dull. The adbucks get spooked and everything becomes frantic nodding and "Yes sir"s and hunched-over hand-wringing for a few weeks. A broadway performance is put on, the adbucks soon have faded memories of the STMs* who were screaming, and their business comes right back for the same reason as ever - they want eyeballs on their product.
I think Twitter has done it repeatedly. Can't stand the idea of ever being a twatter, but it's a little tragic that they keep indulging the loop of "okay we banned the Drama of the Week, please bring your money back".
*see the manager, e.g. "HEY DISNEY ARE YOU ALL RACISTS THEN WHY DO YOU SUPPORT A RACIST SITE LIKE YOUTUBE"
Re:It won't work by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 21:27 · Score: 1

In this case though all they need to do is disable comments. They are not objecting to the content of the video, just the comments from people jacking off over them.
Of course the problem with that is that some of those channels want comments, because they create engagement which translates to $$$. Even just people reading the comments while the video plays adds to its watch time.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: It won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 06:56 · Score: 0

C) If you're using an iPhone to post on Slashdot, you'll look like a lazy idiot, especially since those smart^Wstupid quotes can be disabled easily.
Re:It won't work by Nethemas+the+Great · 2019-02-21 11:30 · Score: 1

You don't need to be 100%. You don't need to have the ML remove 100% and you don't need to match 100% to improve the situation in a significant and meaningful way. An example ML involved strategy that I believe would be very effective would be a multi-stage filtration system system. Stage one, the ML, grabs the low hanging fruit--everything hitting a sufficiently high confidence threshold. Stage two, Google staff get handed stuff the ML flagged as likely, but not having sufficient confidence to automatically filter. Stage three, end-users flag inappropriate material missed by one and two.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:It won't work by gweihir · 2019-02-21 18:12 · Score: 1

As this is a panic, you need 100%. Seriously. Any single case left will be hyped all out of proportions.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Sounds like a slippery slope situation. by fahrbot-bot · 2019-02-20 10:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Matt Watson, a video blogger, posted a 20-minute clip detailing how comments on YouTube were used to identify certain videos in which young girls were in activities that could be construed as sexually suggestive, such as posing in front of a mirror and doing gymnastics.

Just about *any* activity can be sexually suggestively to someone, somewhere. Not judging, just sayin' ...

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:Sounds like a slippery slope situation. by DontBeAMoran · 2019-02-20 10:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Tell me about it! Who came out with the perverse idea of a four slots toaster?!

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re:Sounds like a slippery slope situation. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:59 · Score: 0

The only people who have trouble with gymnastics are people with sick minds.
Re:Sounds like a slippery slope situation. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:12 · Score: 0

A corollary of Rule 34.
Re:Sounds like a slippery slope situation. by Luckyo · 2019-02-20 11:15 · Score: 2

In this case though, the behaviour is often overtly suggestive and is literally the point of the video, down to it being mentioned in the click bait video name. One comedy youtuber I occasionally watch openly mocked one channel that did this to an extreme degree quite a while ago. Literally girl in early teens in outfits highlighted in the video clickbait topic as "making her boyfriend jealous" doing a rather awkward attempt at acting like a porn star right before sex scene starts. Then making out with her boyfriend on camera for a few seconds.
Extremely cringy stuff, the kind I can understand early teens experiment with their sexuality and without parental control doing. Now I don't really care if that's what they do amongst themselves, as I'm not a puritan, but "what the fuck are their parents doing" wouldn't get out of my head specifically because this was on youtube. Putting that stuff on public display at that age is likely going to haunt all of the participants for a long while. Any ad revenue gained is unlikely to be worth it in a long run.
I'm very much in disagreement that this is something that youtube needs to manage though, unless those actions are specifically illegal. This is more of a "social workers, shouldn't you take a closer look at this particular family?" kind of a case in my view, as problems here are likely of a kind that will not go away just because these folks get banned off youtube.
Re:Sounds like a slippery slope situation. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 15:52 · Score: 0

Tell me about it! Who came out with the perverse idea of a four slots toaster?!
You obviously haven't seen the 4x slot toaster with an espresso machine mounted on the side of it, have 'ya?
Re:Sounds like a slippery slope situation. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 16:56 · Score: 0

Oh baby... what are you going to put in those slots?
Re:Sounds like a slippery slope situation. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 00:49 · Score: 0

Exactly. There are videos out there of women farting and apparently that's super exciting to some people.

Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:42 · Score: 0

Or harmful content encouraging conspicuous consumption and irresponsible consumerism in preteens.

Looking at you, unboxing videos.

The Youtube execs love that sort of child-harming content.

What this really shows by SuperKendall · 2019-02-20 10:43 · Score: 1

This just illuminates there is not anything that cannot be ruined by having comments that are not heavily policed - if you cannot police said comments, do not allow them.

It also shows an unexpected misuse of a simple tool - likes and recommendation engines. But here I really don't see any way to solve this, because what if someone really WANTS to see gymnastic related videos? That by itself is harmless or even useful. I don't think we should break all useful tools just because someone can misuse them - instead why not use that data to try and catch out people who are misusing the matching engines. and try to catch them out in something more illegal?

Society seems bent to hide or mask any behavior even slightly disagreeable. But then how can you know who the people are that hold opinions you do not like? I greatly prefer a world where people can say what the like, and I can derive my sense of who they are from it.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:What this really shows by djinn6 · 2019-02-20 18:36 · Score: 1

But here I really don't see any way to solve this, because what if someone really WANTS to see gymnastic related videos? That by itself is harmless or even useful.
Simple. You pay for it.
YouTube and almost all YouTube creators rely on ad revenue. If enough people make a fuss over something, no matter how dumb, advertisers will demand change and YouTube must comply.
The only way to change that is to stop relying on ad revenue, but YouTube Red / Premium didn't really take off.
Re:What this really shows by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 14:23 · Score: 0

The legal term you are looking for is "heckler's veto". Essentially, any seconded objection results in sanction. It nullifies everything, but people who don't know any better keep trying to get it applied to all kinds of situations.

Re:What? by Aristos+Mazer · 2019-02-20 10:48 · Score: 0

Calling it "irresponsible" crosses a line into moral judgement that I disagree with. It is clearly within the realm of debatable whether such content is harmful or not, and therefore should be allowed. It's up to the parents of kids to allow them to watch such content or not.

Who says what's suggestive? by GregMmm · 2019-02-20 10:49 · Score: 1

So if I did have a daughter who was into gymnastics, and I posted her winning the super duper first prize, is this sexually suggestive? I believe someone out there will find it that way. So where to we draw the line. Would I get in trouble for posting such a video, if "someone" says this is sexually suggestive?

Re:Who says what's suggestive? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:02 · Score: 1

Ah but it doesn't need to be sexually suggestive. If it "could be construed as sexually suggestive" (by whoever writes the rules at that particular moment and for that particular video) then it will be. Next thing you'll be doxxed and you'll have child protection services knocking at your door, with their mind set because they align with the crazy social marxists. You think I jest?
Re: Who says what's suggestive? by edris90 · 2019-02-20 11:03 · Score: 2

Get in trouble is not about right and wrong. It's about whether someone with the capability and the well perceives you to be in the way of what they want. if so they're identify something about you that they can exploit to create a dialogue where you are an evil.
Re:Who says what's suggestive? by sconeu · 2019-02-20 11:29 · Score: 0

We should censor the Olympics for putting gymnastics on the air. /s
[sarcasm tag included per the ADA for the sarcasm-impaired]

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:Who says what's suggestive? by drinkypoo · 2019-02-20 11:45 · Score: 1

Would I get in trouble for posting such a video, if "someone" says this is sexually suggestive?
If you don't monetize the video, you probably won't have a problem. It's the threat to their income streams that galvanized Youtube. It's not like they actually give a shit about your kids, or anyone else's.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re: Who says what's suggestive? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:50 · Score: 0

This is what I am wondering. It has been very light on the actual wrongs committed. Usually when the SJW crowd does this and only parrots a message then it is just their normal screeching.
Re:Who says what's suggestive? by Mashiki · 2019-02-20 12:18 · Score: 1

So if I did have a daughter who was into gymnastics, and I posted her winning the super duper first prize, is this sexually suggestive? I believe someone out there will find it that way. So where to we draw the line. Would I get in trouble for posting such a video, if "someone" says this is sexually suggestive?
Some where someone probably would. But here's the question, is your daughter turning around and then reading through the comments and preforming specific actions that are sexually suggestive or sexual because people were asking for it. See in most cases, people are talking about the latter and not the former. Youtube has an automatic filtering system to close comments on videos that she's posting, and in turn youtube already knows it has a problem asking kids to engage in sexually suggestive or provocative actions already.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Who says what's suggestive? by gweihir · 2019-02-20 18:04 · Score: 1

Eventually, if this panic goes on, this will have your daughter being taken away and you being put in prison.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re: Who says what's suggestive? by gweihir · 2019-02-20 21:09 · Score: 1

Very true.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 10:49 · Score: 0

Use common sense. Look at the video title and author. If you see sleeping beauty (assuming not a humorous porno parody) then hey likely to be okay. If the author is named himmler or Putin then very questionable

Google should not be a Cop by Jarwulf · 2019-02-20 10:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

Sad how things ratchet to authoritarianism. People should stop banging on Youtube/Google/etc to take down everything they don't like and then act surprised when they start censoring and deplatforming based on political viewpoints. Google/etc is not and should not play cop. If the law has a problem it should handle it with Google on as narrow as possible case by case basis. But Google/MS/etc are not completely blameless. They seem to enjoy playing cop themselves a little too much and have set themselves up as such rather than emphasizing they're just the messenger. So they should not be surprised at the backlash. Having said that if your mind automatically goes to the threat of pedophilia at the sight of a girl dancing or wearing a bathing suit, maybe that says more about you.

Re:Google should not be a Cop by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:01 · Score: 0

You're a retarded git. You have no "right" to either google or youtube. Go fuck yourself crybaby, call your batshit Libertarian congresscritter. See if reality changes.

'Soft core' by philmarcracken · 2019-02-20 10:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does 'soft core' acts actually pose any serious mental damage to the children? Are these acts volitional?

Re:'Soft core' by Jarwulf · 2019-02-20 16:14 · Score: 2

Scrolling through the video it looks like this 'softcore child porn' is mostly videos often recorded by the girls themselves dancing and or wearing swimsuits. So basically every parent who has recorded beach day and anyone who has walked down a beach and looked at people is now to be considered a child molester. This is where we're at as a society today and everybody is too terrified to speak out against this.
Re:'Soft core' by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 17:49 · Score: 0

... 'soft core' acts actually pose any serious mental damage ...

Has 'soft core' changed? It used to mean porn stars having a real fuck with camera angles that avoided the groin but everyone knew what was happening off-frame. Before the era of de-sexed dogs, children walking down the street or walking-in during their parents 'me' time, saw the same thing.
Now, children have to be saved from viewing fist-fights, dead animals and naked nipples but guns are family entertainment.
Re:'Soft core' by gweihir · 2019-02-20 18:09 · Score: 1

Indeed. This stuff is not porn in any normal way, it is only porn in the minds of some deviants and the maker of this video seems to be one of them. (Same principle as the most extreme anti-homosexuals are usually secretly one of them...) It seems the potential harm is rather limited and does not justify this outcry at all. Probably some censorship agenda being pushed as well, as happens so often these days.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:'Soft core' by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 04:56 · Score: 0

No, I think soft-core is when actors pretend to fuck, but don't. The camera angles try to hide that there is no genital contact.
Re:'Soft core' by Shotgun · 2019-02-21 05:06 · Score: 1

And don't dare let your children go to the mall. The larger than life posters of underwear clad young women made up to look underage outside of Victoria Secret will make heads explode.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Every time this happens to Google/Youtube by Leslie43 · 2019-02-20 11:02 · Score: 1

I just have to laugh...
Gives them a dose of the hell they give people who host user generated content (chat forums, image hosts, etc..).

I hope our A.I. overloads come for their heads (and Zucker_Borg) first.

YouTube won't pull the video by rsilvergun · 2019-02-20 11:04 · Score: 1, Informative

they'll just de-monetize it and won't promote it (since they can't monetize it).

It's actually really annoying. Lots of good YouTube content has gone poof thanks to this. Stuff like Glove and Boots, Freaky Frank, Talking Classics and the like can't make a living on YouTube since the "adocalypse". A few channels made the jump to Pateron but that only works if you've already got a following. New up and comers needed that YouTube ad revenue to get going.

Somewhat annoyingly the hoards of anti-SJW channels seem to be doing just fine while stuff like Cult of Dusty has the bulk of his videos de-monetized. Though I do get a chuckle seeing an Advert for Donald Trump hitting me up for cash on Secular Talk's videos about Bernie.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re: YouTube won't pull the video by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:48 · Score: 1

See, when your content does not appeal to a minority of the population it is really easy to get viewers. It also helps people are sick to death of idealogs telling them how terrible they are.
Re: YouTube won't pull the video by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:55 · Score: 0

Ideologue. As much as idea logs appeal, it's ideologue.
Re:YouTube won't pull the video by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 21:24 · Score: 1

Can't really force advertisers to advertise on videos they don't want to be associated with, so we need another solution.
How about some kind of charity to support worthwhile YouTube channels? Patreon is too specific and people are unwilling to sign up to a dozen $5/month subscriptions, but a charity that supports a large group of channels might work.
I suppose the problem would be people objecting to some of the channels, but at the very least it would be an interesting experiment in seeing if people really are willing to financially support channels they don't agree for the sake of free speech and better content.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:YouTube won't pull the video by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 02:03 · Score: 0

Disney have "sexualised" their characters for decades.

Re: Good. Less ads to block by Locke2005 · 2019-02-20 11:05 · Score: 2

Comic Sans, obviously... it's the only thing that font is really appropriate for!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

The internet as usual... by bobbied · 2019-02-20 11:14 · Score: 1

The problem here is that the internet is, by and large, anonymous. You can literally post any steaming pile you like, be as rude, abusive and socially unacceptable as you choose with zero real implications.

The problem here is that there is no personal accountability, at least not really. Sure, you can get TOSed or your account deleted, but it's not like a nymph shift is hard to do. Grab another E-mail, create a new account and post your garbage again and again.

The only real solution I see is to require non-repudiation for all original content. Make it so everybody must be positively identified before your material sees the light of day. Of course, U-Tube would pretty much have to shut down to do something like this.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Re:The internet as usual... by sjames · 2019-02-20 12:58 · Score: 1

Of course, the problem then is that sometimes anonymity is legitimately needed. For example, when sincerely posting a legitimate political opinion that might piss off the powers that be. Those powers might be government, a grumpy family member, or an employer with extreme opposite political views.
Re:The internet as usual... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 14:44 · Score: 0

"Grab another E-mail, create a new account and post your garbage again and again."
Is this year 1999? Have you actually tried to register an e-mail account in the last years? It's impossible. *IMPOSSIBLE*. They ALL require "phone verification", or just block your VPN/proxy even before you get to that point.
Stop spreading these idiotic lies about "just registering a new account". It doesn't work. It hasn't worked for many years.
Re:The internet as usual... by djinn6 · 2019-02-20 19:29 · Score: 1

Facebook is not anonymous, yet you see the same stuff. In some cases, you can get people to stop by raising big stink with their employer and getting them fired from their job. But I'm not sure that'd be a good route to go down.
If Slashdot or someone on Slashdot could send everything I posted here to my manager, I wouldn't be posting here at all. I'd rather deal with the shit hole that is 4chan than to risk my job for an internet discussion.

Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:25 · Score: 0

Calling it "irresponsible" crosses a line into moral judgement that I disagree with. It is clearly within the realm of debatable whether such content is harmful or not, and therefore should be allowed.

Think. Think real hard about what you are saying.

That is literally an argument for the legalization of the possession and distribution for child pornography.

Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:27 · Score: 0

Google cannot censor anything. They are not the Grubbermint.

If you do not like the policies which Google has in place for the use of THEIR PROPERTY, then go fuck off and get your own property to fuck about on where you can set the rules.

Kinnek also gone... by CoreDreamStudios · 2019-02-20 11:32 · Score: 1

Hi Dan, Thank you for your message. This was brought to our attention yesterday and we have pulled all ads from Youtube. Kinnek does not condone this abhorrent behavior and until the issue is resolved, we have excluded all ads from Youtube. Best, Kimmy Shiller

A few always ruin it by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:34 · Score: 0

Any sort of public platform will attract its share of weird freaks of human life. Seems a bit unrealistic to think that some of this will slip by the censors. Even when removed they tend to respawn with a new user name and go about the same stuff. I really wonder if maybe some of these companies just don't understand this might be a platform they don't have the stomach for.

Laughable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:37 · Score: 0

considering how much 'soft-core' porn Disney creates of kids. Is there any Disney movie that doesn't have aggressive sexual overtones? If clothed jumping jacks is considered too sexually explicit, everyone at Disney should be in jail. We won't even mention the advertising industry...

And soft-core porn isn't illegal. This is sliding down the slippery slope.

And notice how no one cares about the videos of boys doing the same thing. Nice double-standard.

Why is ball busting still being pushed as being funny instead of as sexual abuse?

Youtube has ads ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:37 · Score: 0

Wow, it's been so long since I have seen any ads on youtube I had forgotten they have them.

Youtube cares as much about kids as Kony does. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:39 · Score: 0

"Any content -- including comments -- that endangers minors is abhorrent and we have clear policies prohibiting this on YouTube.

Right...
User:"No Youtube , I don't like that. No!"
Youtube: "No means YES! Here is more Logan Paul!! You are going to take it, we are going to ram it down your throat!"
User:"No Youtube, No!"

Youtube works as hard as they can to subconsciously teach that "No means yes.". I suspect in the long run bombarding teens with things they have said "No, I don't like/want that!" may cause problems. Not the Youtube will be legally liable. Still it really make their "We think of the children!" as ringing horribly false unless they include "..as exploitable and abusable profit vectors.

Re:What? by HiThere · 2019-02-20 11:50 · Score: 1

Sorry, but due to network effects Facebook is a de-facto monopoly. *I* may choose to avoid it, but I was past 30 before I had a choice.

Now you can reasonably claim that this is an inappropriate use of the word "censor", and arguments can be found to support that claim. But language is not "set in stone", and the use of "censor" to denote authoritarian removal of content from a communication dates back to at least the 1940's, and probably earlier.

Even if it didn't, one could argue that since IP assignment is controlled by the government that a company using IP based communication is acting as an arm of the government. One doesn't hear complaints about using the word "censored" when privately owned newspapers in China remove a story that the newspaper guesses would be politically offensive, even though the action is performed by a private party without any government intervention. (OK, that's an extreme example, but it demonstrates that the letter of the dictionary definition doesn't control the meaning of the word.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Slashdot is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 11:51 · Score: 0

Why does /. accept massive posts like this?

Re:Slashdot is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 12:20 · Score: 0

GOLD https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

Re:What? by sexconker · 2019-02-20 11:53 · Score: 1

Hey, retard. Censorship doesn't have to be done by the government to be censorship.

A Nymous Internet? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 12:04 · Score: 0

The only real solution I see is to require non-repudiation for all original content. Make it so everybody must be positively identified before your material sees the light of day. Of course, U-Tube would pretty much have to shut down to do something like this.

Positively identifying the individuals in the video or positively identifying the poster of the video? It makes a difference. Also, are you suggesting that Youtube publicize this information next to the video or maintain a private database not accessible to the public?

Assuming you mean the former, then Youtube could do it on a technical level. For instance, provided they had a program to identify individuals in videos, either by tagging them with a name or some unique identifier if no name is known, they could simply start applying it to every recent upload. Uploads would likely take longer to appear, but that would be manageable if the program was not too slow. As for the plethora of already uploaded videos, Youtube could tag those at its leisure. I'm not sure what part of that would require Youtube to shut down.

If you meant the latter option, then yes, they could identify people by their IP addresses and ban them as necessary. However, with the rise of VPNs, this may not be viable; even without VPNs, public computers and public wifi could permit people to share IP addresses. I suppose something could be done by tracking the history of IP addresses used. However, this would (I hope) require Youtube to collect even more data than they currently are.

As to the second set of options, either one brings its own host of problems.

Read the fucking article by Orgasmatron · 2019-02-20 12:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Or rather, watch the damn video before commenting. This is probably among the 10 worst summaries I've read on this site, and I've been here just about every day since nearly the beginning.

This isn't a problem about parents uploading videos of their kids, or of kids uploading their own videos. It isn't about the videos at all.

The problem is that there is a side of youtube that most of us would never find on our own. But if you know it is there, you can get to it with one search and two clicks, and shown in the video.

Most of the videos there have been downloaded from other users and re-uploaded under a different account so that the parents and kids have no idea this is happening. The comments on the re-uploaded videos are full of creepy comments and timestamps to suggestive moments, or to other videos.

Once down the rabbit hole, all of the recommended video links are to other videos of the same type with the same disgusting comments and links.

--
See that "Preview" button?

Re:Read the fucking article by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 14:38 · Score: 0

So, the complaint is that Youtube's machine learning has become very good at recommendations when it comes to pedo videos, but it sucks when it comes to general recommendations? Yea, that'd be a great reason to not invest in the platform. Then again, it makes perfect sense: when you aim to learn through narrow focus of similarity upon one axis of consideration you can produce very good results, but when you try to broadly focus upon what generally people like you're bound to produce terrible results.
I guess what I find really amusing is, Disney, Nestle, and Others would seem to be pedos as well. I mean, their whole market is to like kids. Like you say though, these "recommendation rings" are providing funding for videos that other pedos like, not what the kids themselves watch. Obviously, the real problem is the wrong advertisers are paying. The sex doll makers should be pushing these videos.
Re:Read the fucking article by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 15:57 · Score: 0

Someone AT YouTube may be a pedophile or eratophile (teen)? Humans still maintain the machine learning "AI".
There is a controversy among the "barefoot community" as to what is genuinely promoting the lifestyle, what is reckless and should not be accepted, and what is blatantly fetish with no other legitimate purpose but for the viewer to enjoy it THAT WAY.
But hold it... why is it when someone accesses a fully clothed person barefoot in a non-suggestive context (barefoot running, barefoot in the city, barefoot hiking): they eventually start getting international modeling fetish videos and eventually it starts becoming TEEN in the recommendations? If some of the comments are used in the machine recommended recommendations: NO, do not recommend that which can be ultilized as porn!
YouTube's interim solution is they MUST SIGN IN if the video shows a sole, especially if it's the entertainment value or even the "I did it" ability with an exceptionally dirty sole. That still does't fix the recommendations even when one is not logged in.
Re:Read the fucking article by bill_mcgonigle · 2019-02-20 16:14 · Score: 1

I guess what I find really amusing is, Disney, Nestle, and Others would seem to be pedos as well. I mean, their whole market is to like kids.
Disney is famous for hypersexualizing young girls (Lyndsey Lohan, Brittany Spears, Miley Cyrus, et. al.) which fucks them up in young adulthood, and even paid for lawyers at Mirimax to defend Harvey Weinstein when he was diddling young gals on his casting couch.
YouTube is, at a minimum, competition for Disney.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Read the fucking article by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 19:47 · Score: 0

you dont need to hypersexualize young girls... they'll do it themselves... when father tries to "forbid" this behaviour mom overrides everything...
Re:Read the fucking article by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 23:29 · Score: 0

The problem is that there is a side of youtube that most of us would never find on our own.
I found it by searching for the 1995 computer game "teen agent". After that search, all my recommended videos were very young girls doing stretches or yoga or similar. And these videos were indeed filled with comments to specific timestamps where you might be able to see a slip or similar.
I found that odd, and I do like young girls. (Yes. In that way.)

Nestle "kills babies" for profit by quenda · 2019-02-20 12:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

So Nestle is making a fuss over videos of kids eating lollipops?

Nestle, the company who knowingly killed how many thousands of babies, pushing baby formulae in third world counties?
And have made billions stunting the development of millions of babies by promoting the same products to mothers who were capable of breast feeding?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Nestle "kills babies" for profit by serviscope_minor · 2019-02-20 20:27 · Score: 1

So Nestle is making a fuss over videos of kids eating lollipops?
No, they're making a fuss over something they think harms their brand image.
Nestle, the company who knowingly killed how many thousands of babies, pushing baby formulae in third world counties?
And now you see WHY they care so much about something that might harm their brand image.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Nestle "kills babies" for profit by magusxxx · 2019-02-21 00:27 · Score: 1

Let's not forget the young african children who were slave labor at cocoa plantations. Fully explained in the documentary 'The Dark Side of Chocolate.'

--
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.

Bake me a cake by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 13:11 · Score: 0

Bake me a cake for a gay wedding then.

Oh, companies have choices of who to do business with when they support baby killers (liberals), but if they support the church they don't have a choice?

JEWS rape 3 yr. old little non-jew girls? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 13:29 · Score: 0

Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age." from JEWS' talmud!

Don't forget all the embarassing baby/bathing... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 14:23 · Score: 0

photos our parents used to take.

How many TV shows make the jokes about those old photo albums? Or streaking?

But how many of the Millenial generation do either of those behaviors now? Both have become taboo as child abuse pictures and sexual acts in public.

And while we're at it, conservatives cozying up with Russians while vilifying liberals as communists, or socialists if they're pretending to be polite.

Re: JEWS rape 3 yr. old little non-jew girls? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 14:32 · Score: 0

Proud sponsor of whatever the hell is going on here. ~nestle

Re:Good. Less ads to block by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 15:58 · Score: 0

Now after some update on android, they keep pushing ads once the video is over as you scroll down to comments. Who the fuck thought that it was a good idea?

Alex Jones by bill_mcgonigle · 2019-02-20 16:08 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm just sitting here laughing because, as crazy as that bastard is, YouTube proudly deplatformed Alex Jones who is constantly railing against child sex-trafficking rings.

And all the while it turned out that YouTube was the one promoting such things with its technology and/or lack of care.

Not that I'm expecting one single moment of introspection from YouTube.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Alex Jones by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 21:34 · Score: 2

Alex Jones railing against child sex-trafficking is the very definition of virtue signalling. He doesn't really care, he just does it to have something that makes his detractors look bad. "YouTube bans child sex-trafficking activist" sounds bad, until you realize that Alex Jones has been harassing the victims of Sandy Hook for years, and that's not even the worst of it.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Alex Jones by thegarbz · 2019-02-21 10:32 · Score: 1

YouTube proudly deplatformed Alex Jones who is constantly railing against child sex-trafficking rings.
It may surprise you to lean that Youtube did not deplatform him for his stance on this.

And all the while it turned out that YouTube was the one promoting such things with its technology and/or lack of care.
I just masturbated to this post. You need to be banned. Why is Slashdot facilitating your disgusting post.
#outrage.

Not that I'm expecting one single moment of introspection from YouTube.
Oh wow. You actually finished your post with something smart. I'm sure you didn't intend to, but hey accidents happen.

And they are complaining by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-20 17:05 · Score: 1

Every year or so, there's another news article about some mommy blogger who's children just found out every moment of their life was memorialized online - and they are very angry. It's usually followed by the mommy blogger expressing no remorse, and talking about how they are still going to post everything their kid does (including this whole argument), usually with a fig leaf or two about some privacy "protecting" nothing that shows they "compromise".

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!

Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 17:57 · Score: 0

- Legal censorship is still censorship.
- Being legally right only has loose correlation with being morally right.

'Pretty baby', 1978 by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 18:18 · Score: 0

... activities that could be construed as sexually suggestive ...

One day, in my search for bare breasts, I landed on a web-page of a 12 year-old doing full-frontal nudity ('Pretty baby', 1978). The comments section had men drooling over a pre-pubescent Brooke Shields in explicit detail. It was a lesson in how quickly people see strangers as being just as perverted themselves.

On the plus side, allowing such expression meant it wasn't 'forbidden fruit' driving abnormal people to more extreme self-expression. When it comes to perverse behaviour, someone will always want more than society deems polite: Demanding everyone be as 'normal' as you, hasn't worked for sex or religion and hasn't stopped the rise of serial killers. It's important to remember that censoring every impulse only drives bad behaviour underground where it's much more dangerous.

Hypocrisy by ThomasD3 · 2019-02-20 23:03 · Score: 1

Disney toys and clothes: Made for children, by children.

Matt Watson spends a lot of time looking at "CP" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 01:01 · Score: 0

I looked at this guy who's referenced and the videos he's posted. His entire channel is exclusively videos on this subject, started a few days ago. I have to seriously question both the guy's motives AND the guy's behavior. He spent 20 minutes showing us how to find "soft-core CP" (read: kids mostly posting videos of themselves doing yoga, gymnastics, and eating popsicles, not anything you'd actually call "porn") and he's made a "comedy" video of himself asking a 12-year-old looking girl from his car if she'll be in his adult video.

Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 01:22 · Score: 0

OH god. How long until someone unveils something that stitches together sub-second chunks of youtube video and then deepfakes it into something sexual? Like.. at what point are we punishing thoughtcrime? You cannot watch this because.. ughhh.. some of the pixels generated form patterns that we really *really* *REALLLLLLY* as a society get squicked out by so you really can't do that. Even if you present rational arguments like "but.. if you let anyone who wanted to watch CP, watch completely computer generated deepfake stuff, the market for REAL stuff would dry up, less kids would be abused, it could be closed down entirely and basically the entire problem would be solved EXCEPT it would mean you would have to TOLERATE people getting off to stuff you really don't like" which lol.. humans right now.. that is not happening. I'm seriously expecting the whole furry thing to get stomped on.. any day now.. like.. oh my god.. it's bestiality right? Especially when AI gets to the point it can hallucinate entire scenes from a few lines of prose. Can you imagine style transfering sexy foxes and lizards onto human porn? I can. I BET it'll be done in like.. the next few months. Furries are so fucking horny :D

Meh. It's whatever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 03:13 · Score: 0

Transgender content endangers children in multiple ways, Will that be looked upon negatively?

Re: Good. Less ads to block by Shotgun · 2019-02-21 04:44 · Score: 1

Wing Dings.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Are we talking about the Same YouTube by rsilvergun · 2019-02-21 05:52 · Score: 1

that de-monetized Call of Duty streamers for violence? YouTube will come down on this like a ton of bricks. Their main concern is keeping advertisers happy. YouTube, like regular TV, is about ads.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Don't forget all the embarassing baby/bathing.. by zugmeister · 2019-02-21 07:40 · Score: 1

conservatives cozying up with Russians while vilifying liberals as communists, or socialists

Really? You might want to look into the links between liberals and those espousing democratic socialism.

The whole Russian collusion thing (you know, that not crime) I keep hearing about is getting to be like a religion. No evidence but people keep prattling on about it like it'll happen someday.

Re: Don't forget all the embarassing baby/bathing. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 09:11 · Score: 0

No evidence but a bunch of people lying to Congress. I wonder why? Why would lying to Congress be the better course of action than telling the truth?

Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 09:19 · Score: 0

What? We have laws for a reason. You can't just call something illegal because YOU don't like it. This isn't CP, it's nowhere close to CP, and if you think it is, then you might want to go see a therapist.

Re:What? by zugmeister · 2019-02-21 10:10 · Score: 1

That is literally an argument for the legalization of the possession and distribution for child pornography.

Only if you've presupposed that the nature of the material is actually pornographic in nature. At a certain point, you'd think there's a point where a judgement call needs to be made.
What if there's a picture of a car with a kid on a swing way off in the background? Probably safe.
Kid posed in a sexual position without clothes? Probably not.
There's a spectrum in between those two extremes. If we can't make a moral judgement, how do we make the call when a picture is over the limit?
Or did I misunderstand your argument?

Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 10:28 · Score: 0

Even this stupid YouTuber is completely wrong. He stupidly make a whole story and media scandalous CP effect with completely innocents videos, where the simple fact of seeing legs from girls and girls in clothes (whatever clothes, they are NOT nudes..) and he instantly think about CP and sick minded people... even when one commenter says âoepretty girlsâ, he calls him immediately a perverted pedophile...
This whole story is made up by sone sick minded individuals and all those stupid journalists spread the thing without even reviewing any of the information which has been completely made up with INNOCENTS videos!!

Re: Don't forget all the embarassing baby/bathing. by zugmeister · 2019-02-21 10:55 · Score: 1

Do you seriously consider a politician (or anyone operating at a level where you address Congress) lying to be a noteworthy event?
I'm sure there are any number of reasons why they would lie, but I wouldn't be the right person to explain their actions to you.

Look into this "Matt" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 11:41 · Score: 0

The guy who started this has some interesting skeletons in his closet. Lots of suspicious behavior and far-right dog whistles. Something tells me he didn't find this stuff by accident.

Re:What? by Aristos+Mazer · 2019-02-21 12:17 · Score: 1

We are talking about unboxing videos and excess consumption in this fork, not gymnastics.

The grubbermint is... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-21 16:53 · Score: 0

...whoever does the grubbermint's job.

When Google behaves as a grubbermint, they become a grubbermint. If Google doesn't want to be morally responsible for other people's freedom of speech, Google should not put themselves in the position of controlling people's speech.

Freedom isn't a black-and-white thing. If I put a sign on my lawn with a picture of my cat, I'm having negligible impact on anyone else's freedom of speech. If I tell my friends that they can put signs on my lawn (anything they like, so long as they aren't pictures of poodles), I start to have a small but measurable impact on somebody's freedom of speech. If I own 95% of the billboards in town, and declare that no pictures of poodles are allowed on them, I'm having a significant impact on the residents' freedom of speech - though still, of course, not as much as if I were a government and went around arresting people for publicly displaying inappropriate dog pictures.

The greater my influence, the greater my moral responsibility for the freedom of those in my care - whether I like it or not, and regardless of what legal responsibilities I do or do not have. Which makes for an interesting paradox: one can provide a service that enables people to communicate when they would otherwise be unable, and in so doing, cause a net decrease in those people's freedom of communication.

Slashdot Mirror

Disney, Nestle, and Others Are Pulling YouTube Ads Following Child Exploitation Controversy (bloomberg.com)

238 comments