YouTube Bans Kids From Live-Streaming Video Unless Accompanied by an Adult (variety.com) 56
YouTube is taking additional steps to restrict the possibility that children will be targeted by predators on the video platform -- including banning young kids from live-streaming with adult supervision. From a report: The Google-owned video platform, in a blog post Monday, also said it is limiting recommendations of videos that depict "minors in risky situations." The updated policies come after YouTube in February announced that it would disable the ability to leave comments on nearly all videos featuring kids. The announcement also comes in the wake of a New York Times report Monday, citing research that YouTube's recommendation system has been suggesting videos of "prepubescent, partially clothed children" to users who had watched sexually themed content. According to YouTube, it has applied new restrictions to the algorithm-based recommendations system curbing recommendations of videos with minors to "tens of millions of videos." However, it will continue recommending many videos with children because an all-out ban would hurt creators who rely on the recommendation engine to generate views, according to YouTube.
Editors are be editors ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to bitch about the /. editor, but noticed it's verbatim from the first paragraph in TFA ...
Title: YouTube Bans Kids From Live-Streaming Video Unless Accompanied by an Adult
Text: YouTube is taking additional steps to restrict the possibility that children will be targeted by predators on the video platform -- including banning young kids from live-streaming with adult supervision.
Also, not really sure how they're going to implement this -- unless the predator counts as the adult supervisor.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, not really sure how they're going to implement this -- unless the predator counts as the adult supervisor.
Technically, that could be what they are talking about. Probably needs to be a family-member anyways, because they might not find enough of these "predators" otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not really sure how they're going to implement this
The theater parading has implemented fine, thanks.
Oh, you mean technical implementation? Ha ha, c'mon, it can algorithmically determine if the a video contains mundane yet "sensitive" situations? I'm willing to believe they can automate accurate recognition of "human child in video" with a low false rate, but that's about it - human courts have to debate over what constitutes "lascivious" so posturing with some kid-tested mother-approved shit is for them to entertain, let's not pretend AI magic is real just
And there goes... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone really think letting kids post videos publicly online without parental oversight is a good idea?
I don't, but for every kid that's posting alone on youtube, there's 2 adults fucking off, or over-worked.
Why is YouTube even in this business?
Ad revenue, status quo.
You can't make it a safe space for kids while still having people in the key demographic feel welcome.
Yes of course you can. You make people log in. The problem is, not everyone likes that idea.
Seems like they're trying to mix a night club with a daycare facility.
Yeah, I guess you could say that, but then you'd have to say the same thing about regular TV channels as well, being that they have a "late night" mode.
The real problem here is the current way that kids can make themselves available to adults that have bad intentions. That same concept fr
Re: (Score:2)
But if I give my kid a device to access the web, it's basically like leaving them in town, in a way. I should have some protections in place at home. Alas, these things are much more difficult than they should be, and security is an ever-changing process. So I chose to not give my kids a device that allows them access to the internet, and we do family shit at the house. It's working out well. Both of my kids are over the age of 10 and have yet to make less than a "B" grade at school. All of their friends would all rather be at our house than theirs because we're 'the family that does shit', as they say.
Yep, same here.
No devices, no pocket windows into the world's alleys. Family computer out in the open where everyone can see.
Stuff that was just the norm a few short years ago, and now supposedly makes you a weirdo. Common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
re: Quick question (ok for kids to post online?) (Score:2)
It never takes very long for people to do things that help illustrate potential downsides of ANY behavior, and this was no exception.
As a parent of kids/teens myself, I feel torn on the subject/ On one hand? These kids actually learn some of these skills either in the classroom or in summer camps. This is the 21st. century, after all, where it's assumed that kids can already work a tablet or a smartphone by age 3 or 4. When your kid announces to you that he or she successfully created some content, uploade
Re: (Score:1)
Oh for crying out loud. Just stop already. Let me translate from PR speak.
Youtube has a plan to force everyone to log on before viewing videos. They are rolling this out under guise of a kiddy protection plan because "think about the children" never goes out of style.
Your data will be collected and sold to whoever asks for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which brought up memories of John Oliver's coverage of Charter Schools where one was a school by day and a night club at night. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
The kid is innocently livestreaming, then walks in on the parents who are doing something that should not be on livestreaming.
Does that count as the kid being accompanied by an adult?
Re: (Score:1)
My kids were pretty sad that they could not post video clips from the nudist beach we go to on facebook. I locked their profiles down completely with only approved friends having limited access. Videos still got taken down. See no issue with them sharing a video clip of them having fun with only approved friends.
"Approved friends" as in other nudist kids only.
These platforms are behaving like a-holes. These platforms think they know better and wants to think for us. No they do not at all! No one tells me ho
Handling "don't publicize this please" content (Score:1)
YouTube and others need ways to allow people to upload content that will not be indexed, recommended, etc. but can be reachable by a direct possibly-time-limited link, by logged-in "friends" of a channel, or by people who are accessing YouTube from a given institution, such as a school or business affiliated with the channel.
For content that they identify as having children in it or which is uploaded by an "under 18 years old" account-holder, "we won't publicize your video" should be the default - the uploa
All of this to stop Soph (Score:3)
All of this to stop Soph. Man, that kid really got on their nerves. No matter: she's on Bitchute now, too: https://www.bitchute.com/chann... [bitchute.com]
So wait... (Score:2)
....are they saying then that pedophile porn is now ok on YouTube?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beats me, maybe that videos without adult supervision is not okay so the opposite is also true? No, videos of ISIS teaching kids how to behead people will still not be okay even if it's under adult supervision...
Re: (Score:1)
You can ... (Score:2)
Silicon Valley darlings in for the Treatment. (Score:2)
As in the Shark Treatment. The whole dynamic with YouTube depends on this BS "wink-wink we're just a platform not a publisher" shtick. Not believable of course, but the EULA pretty clear in page-after-page what they're NOT liable for. The whole piracy cloud YouTube actually is kinda depends on that EULA being literal and them staying a passive platform. Facebook same boat. Any/all of them are.
But they're not so smart about the law. YouTube'lll brag about this policy against the Uncle Touchers, but fact is n
Link to the source blogpost (Score:2)