8 ms·

YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

199 points by arctux 7y ago

14 7y ago
I for one am glad at this though I am sure the fine could have been exponentially larger. The fact that YouTube can go here and say their platform is only intended for 13 year olds and up is a joke. Their are thousands of shows targeted directly at my kids. I can even clearly hear one video my kid likes to watch starts out with saying “look kids” so tell me how that is not directed at kids. I use an adblocker but when I go to my moms she doesn’t have it set up on her iPad. The kids shows are bombarded with ads for adult products like cars or you name it. They are marketing towards kids and I can’t stand it.
- ty38 7y ago
  > the fine could have been exponentially larger. 200,000,000^2 is 4e16, which is more wealth than exists in the entire world. Which exponent did you mean?
  - cududa 7y ago
    Exponentially larger on a per user basis
- cududa 7y ago
  Why in the hell are you being downvoted for saying YouTube targets children?
  - techntoke 7y ago
    Because children have these things called parents, that are allowing unrestricted access to a platform that they failed to read and follow the terms and conditions of. There is also a YouTube kids app, specifically geared towards helping filter child-appropriate content and advertising policies. I'm personally no fan of YouTube myself, as it constantly recommends channels and videos that I have no interest in and that I often find to be despicable based on my actual interests. I loathe that it does this, but I have the choice of not using it. What would you prefer... Every site you going to require that you sign in and verify your identity before being able to use the service, and sign some type of agreement that you won't let a minor or child access it? Same goes to cigarettes and alcohol by the way.
    - dang 7y ago
      > children have these things called parents Please don't break the site guidelines by being snarky and taking threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - techntoke 7y ago
        Sorry
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Youtube Kids doesn't work. It doesn't have the content that children want to watch, and it includes content that is not suitable for children. Other organisations manage to provide ad-supported video content with very few problems. You can sit a child down in front of UK Channel 4 or ITV children's content and know that the ads won't be for alcohol or gambling or horror films, and you'll know the video will be age appropriate. There are content creators on Youtube who target children. There are children who want to watch that content. There are parents who'll allow their children to watch the content. All we need now is for Youtube to not place horror film ads in that content, and not to start recommending videos to the child where people are yelling "DIE YOU FUCKING $racialslur".
- dmix 7y ago
  Isn't there a YouTube kids version? I'm not a parent so I've never used it and I've been curious since I also see that Netflix had a cordoned off sections for kids too. I'm not sure if these are sufficient content and feature wise? Also is there any parental consent thing going on here as well with how YouTube words it? I remember seeing plenty of adult ads as a kid watching TV at night time watching with my parents. The morning kids shows and kids channels always had ads for children of course. Id imagine it's in YouTubes interest not to show kids adult ads as well, most adults probably aren't sitting around watching the same shows with them to make the adult ads useful.
  - ryanjshaw 7y ago
    There is but it is not free from very disturbing issues (search for 'elsagate'). Also YouTube Kids has no quality controls. It uses more bandwidth, due to our hires tablet display I guess, than any other device in our household. Very annoying when on capped LTE on a trip.
    - mav3rick 7y ago
      You can set video quality to a lower res.
  - jan_g 7y ago
    There is and any parent giving their phone/tablet to young kids should at minimum make sure it's YouTube Kids they're watching. It doesn't have ads or comments section, for example. As for its content being sufficiently filtered or not - nowadays I think it is. We, the parents, should of course try to minimize the amount of time our kids spend with youtube or in general with phones/tablets/TVs.
- namewasmypw 7y ago
  YouTube is a video hosting platform. It targets whatever the people who upload videos target. Stop clutching your pearls and start being responsible for yourself. The "please think of the children" rhetoric has the effect of ruining it for the rest of us, and it's especially frustrating when the subtext is "because I'm not willing to think of the children myself." If you want a website you can let your kid use with unfettered access and no supervision, go use one of the sites that claims to provide that.
  - dang 7y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN?
    - namewasmypw 7y ago
      Can you highlight which part of my post was a personal attack?
      - dang 7y ago
        > Stop clutching your pearls and start being responsible for yourself
- point78 7y ago
  Cartoon nursery rhymes directed at as low as even 1 year olds will sometimes have ads popup for a tv show containing drugs and guns. Completely inappropriate! EVERYTHING that deals with children whether directly or indirectly is strictly regulated, and rightly so. Television programming as an example, for 70 years only permits certain ads to be displayed on children's shows. YouTube should be regulated by the FCC in regards to this and very easily can have a checkbox for advertisers and providers to check that says the content is for under 13 or not.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Yes. I've complained to the UK regulator about gambling ads placed in children's content and they are paying attention. They say it's hard because YouTube forbids (because COPPA) anyone under 13 from having an account, which means those children use their parent's accounts, and so the demographics used by the advertisers are skewed. However, they did take action against every single gambling company I complained about because the ads were placed against children's content.
  - izacus 7y ago
    > Cartoon nursery rhymes directed at as low as even 1 year olds will sometimes have ads popup for a tv show containing drugs and guns. Completely inappropriate! Does that still happen if you actually pay for the service via Prermium subscription? Or only if you want to use it completely free and paying nothing?
    - point78 7y ago
      Free. Just like public broadcasting system is free and when watching Sesame Street an ad for The Wire (Or whatever came up) will not happen.
- midev 7y ago
  You need to be a parent and not expect regulatory fines to watch your children. You've identified a problem, you've identified the cause, and now you need to do something about it within your household. You're literally talking about a video you let your child watch, while bemoaning the FCC needing to step in. > The fact that YouTube can go here and say their platform is only intended for 13 year olds and up is a joke The joke is that you understand YouTube is for 13 year olds and up, and you still allow your child on there. Personal responsibility needs to come first. > They are marketing towards kids and I can’t stand it. What kind of home router do you have. I'll show you how to block YouTube. Your mom can do similar things at home. There are plenty of blocking solutions out there. Which ones have you tried?
  - point78 7y ago
    Completely wrong, everything targeted at children (for decades) is regulated. If your kid is watching Sesame Street on PBS and an ad for The Sopranos appears - that does not happen for a reason. Uploading cartoon nursery rhymes and having an ad for drug trafficking come up is idiotic.
    - johnisgood 7y ago
      It very may well be regulated, sure, but what is completely wrong exactly? Parents are responsible for their children! Is this incorrect? We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        We don't want a society where parents have to helicopter their children. We want a society where parents can give their children gradual access to freedom. > We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes. This is a completely different problem. Content is made for children. Those content creators don't want unsuitable ads in the content. The children enjoy watching the content. Those children don't want unsuitable ads. The parents are happy for their children to watch the content. Those parents don't want unsuitable ads. All YouTube has to do is give content creators a checkbox: "Is this content aimed at people under 18?", then not place ads for gambling or alcohol or horror movies etc against that content. YouTube needs to be aware that regulation is coming, and they're not going to like what the EU will impose.
- wolco 7y ago
  I thought having an account required 13 or over but to view a public video there are no age restrictions.
echelon 7y ago
As I understand it, YouTube remains unprofitable to this date. What game is Google playing at here? Creators are unhappy with the strong arming, users are displeased with the ads and the comments and, well, everything. Parents are unhappy with the creepy videos targeting children. YouTube music is a travesty and is likely to fail like all the other half-baked Google products. YouTube gaming... is dead. Now they're getting fined for something they could have easily avoided. What in the hell is Google doing, and why do they suck at this so bad? I can imagine so many better product experiences. Why can't they get their act together?
- mav3rick 7y ago
  Yeah right. The competition is doing so well. Try running a video hosting service within the frameworks of the law. It's still the most popular service by a longshot. Classic HN being delusional again.
  - echelon 7y ago
    Reddit, Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Twitch Edit: Facebook, Twitter
    - ekianjo 7y ago
      You do realise that Disney, HBO and Netflix are one-way distributors right? They don't even belong in that list.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        We're talking about monetised, profitable, video content aimed at children. These other companies can manage it. YouTube can't, but importantly YouTube wants it both ways - they want to include content that targets children without providing any of the protection that parents expect. And that expectation isn't unreasonable. We don't want parents who helicopter every waking hour of their children's lives, we want to give parents some freedoms to allow their children to explore and grow.
um_ya 7y ago
With all the complaints against Youtube, I don't know how they can still be so out of touch with everyone. It's almost as if they're doing it deliberately. They're begging for competition to take over their unprofitable business. Nobody wants to step up.
- pjc50 7y ago
  It's a two sided market; the player with the largest catalog wins. Youtube has also negotiated the copyright minefield extremely well - starting a competitor would have to deal with takedowns.
  - dmix 7y ago
    A competitor who finds a way to deal with copyright better, has a sane advertising policy that doesn't randomly demonetizes people, with a patreon system built in, and has a modern UI (YouTube has a lot of room for improvement) it could possibly compete with YouTube. A whole lot of major YouTube channels who are constantly attacked by false copyright claims or have to push product placements due to no ads would love to push users to a better platform. So marketing wouldn't be impossible. They could also push privacy and fine tuned data controls which helps with kids. There's enough of a market for two to exist. Maybe with some type of semi decentralized platform approach so individual hosts who deal with copyright poorly can take the hit, making the system more resilient. Chrome style apps and mobile clients could be the interface and the ad/patreon system is controlled by the primary software developer but the rest is an open protocol with a linear license for non commercial stuff (at least non commercial as far as not competing with the monetization platform). The network effects of managing the ad buyers, subscriber accounts with credit cards and one click subs could stave off the competition without fully controlling the full video network and hosts.
    - input_sh 7y ago
      It's a chicken and egg problem: users won't switch platforms until their favorite creators switch over, and the creators won't switch over if nobody's there to watch their videos.
ct520 7y ago
Love it
ummonk 7y ago
Why did every top level comment here get downvoted? Did this get brigaded by Youtube / Google employees?
- dang 7y ago
  Not as far as I can tell. Many of the comments in this thread have broken the site guidelines and/or are not particularly thoughtful. Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvotes or making insinuations about brigading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
wongarsu 7y ago
I must say I'm perplexed how every single top level comment is downvoted. This isn't normal.
- dang 7y ago
  The topic turns out to be unusually emotional and many of the comments in the thread are pretty bad.
dang 7y ago
All: this seems to be quite a provocative topic, as with many submissions that involve children and parents. If you're going to comment, please post thoughtfully and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't do that, please don't post until you can.
classics2 7y ago
That’s nothing compared to their ad revenue, not even a notable one time loss.
- warent 7y ago
  I agree. There are many people who I've seen say "this is just a warning to other companies" or "this is just the beginning" but it seems like that's always the case. The fact is, the fine needs to be multiples of quarterly revenue. It needs to be so high not to destroy the company, but enough to make it limp and force it to borrow money to make it through. THEN these will be taken seriously. Until then, these aren't fines. These are price tags for unethical, law-breaking behavior, and these companies are more than happy to pay it.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Force them to borrow money? How big a fine we talking in your authoritarian world? How many people's jobs is it worth losing? No. It does not need to be so damn high. YouTube is aware of the warning, and yes it likely deserves another (order of magnitude larger) fine if they do nothing. But arbitrary fines right out of the gate just hurt everyone.
- Zenst 7y ago
  For a large company, but it does make any new startup/competition go thru a whole extra hoop, which does favour established players.
- judge2020 7y ago
  Unless they've made huge steps in their profit margins, it's still pretty big consisering they weren't profitable in 2015 [0] and likely still not profitable in 2016 [1]. The only argument you could make is the immense value of user data Google gets from YT to show relevant ads outside of the platform. 0: https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-google-any-money-2015-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-go... 1: https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/ https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-woj...
dgzl 7y ago
To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.
- theobeers 7y ago
  Yeah. I haven’t found any way of using YouTube that I would consider safe for children. The problems are at a fundamental level.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- longtom 7y ago
  I think humans are a lot more robust than commonly assumed. Most of us do not break due to their mere experiences as long as their fundamental needs (food, being loved, goals and so on) are fulfilled. Once these needs are not fulfilled they may be more vulnerable though.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    It is, however, important to take note of how this robustness varies with age, just what proportion of people "most" counts as, and whether the most absolute category of humans "breaking" is most appropriate when we take into account the massive variation of mental states, disorders and the entire field of media effects and child psychology.
    - longtom 7y ago
      But consider for example the link between violent video games and prosocial outcomes. The effect sizes are tiny. The downsides of additional filters will very likely outweigh anything that can be gained regarding mental health and childhood development etc. I'd wager there are much much more effective ways of improving quality of life, e.g. improving community life, reducing working hours, reduce economic inequality etc. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf
_hardwaregeek 7y ago
This is literally a Silicon Valley plotline. Right down to COPPA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5QUZMNLT3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5QUZMNLT3M
asd234h4 7y ago
Hey dang, Quit posting unsubstantiated comments. If you're going to comment, please post thoughtfully and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't do that, please don't post until you can.
freediver 7y ago
The fine feels as a millionaire got fined $200 for the same violation.
Zenst 7y ago
Will this create a new virtual 18+ wall before you can view/access content/services. Not that it is illegal by any law to offer such services to those younger, just that the lawyers and the accountants sat down and concluded that the risks can outgrow the rewards. Be interesting how the industry and various platforms navigate this whole area, but I'm mindful that they may well just cut them off period as just less hassle for them.
- Youden 7y ago
  I'm not sure of your age but I grew up with the internet and this "18+ wall" has already existed for a long time. I don't think I know anybody who didn't lie about their birth year on a signup form at some point to get around an age check.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    That's kinda the point, the whole age verification avenue has no credibility and personally I've lied for privacy reasons as why do you need the day and month if the year is 18+. But the area of concern I was raising was such walls being used for no other reason other than risk liability exposure dictated by liability insurance costs. That with age verification systems that are that do credable checks being an area of growth thru demand. Such systems will become easier to implement and the ability to just lie, becomes much more complicated. Hence people being cut off, not thru legal reasons, but for effect - accountants. That's the worry I was raising.
thathndude 7y ago
This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. But on top of that, it’s $200m into the black hole that is our dysfunctional and bloated federal government. How do The Impacted children whose privacy was violated actually benefit. It’s all ridiculous.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. > Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. No, it isn't. A company's valuation is not money in the bank. The proper comparison is to profit.
  - notyourday 7y ago
    Proper comparison is the reaction of a CEO - if the CEO responds by firing the upper management->product management responsible for the part that caused the fine then the fine got a point across.
    - true_religion 7y ago
      It’s okay for a fine to be insignificant. Parking tickets are insignificant fines too, but in aggregate act to control parking behavior. What’s needed is better enforcement, not more stringent fines.
      - notyourday 7y ago
        Not at all. Those who have cars and can afford the fine consider parking fines to be a cost of doing business. Get a ticket, pay it on the web. Now if the car is towed that becomes a problem because just pulling out a credit card does not fix it.
        leetcrew 7y ago
notyourday 7y ago
That number is missing two zeros for it to be anything other than a mosquito bite

199 points by arctux 7y ago

14 7y ago

I for one am glad at this though I am sure the fine could have been exponentially larger. The fact that YouTube can go here and say their platform is only intended for 13 year olds and up is a joke. Their are thousands of shows targeted directly at my kids. I can even clearly hear one video my kid likes to watch starts out with saying “look kids” so tell me how that is not directed at kids. I use an adblocker but when I go to my moms she doesn’t have it set up on her iPad. The kids shows are bombarded with ads for adult products like cars or you name it. They are marketing towards kids and I can’t stand it.

ty38 7y ago
> the fine could have been exponentially larger. 200,000,000^2 is 4e16, which is more wealth than exists in the entire world. Which exponent did you mean?
- cududa 7y ago
  Exponentially larger on a per user basis
cududa 7y ago
Why in the hell are you being downvoted for saying YouTube targets children?
- techntoke 7y ago
  Because children have these things called parents, that are allowing unrestricted access to a platform that they failed to read and follow the terms and conditions of. There is also a YouTube kids app, specifically geared towards helping filter child-appropriate content and advertising policies. I'm personally no fan of YouTube myself, as it constantly recommends channels and videos that I have no interest in and that I often find to be despicable based on my actual interests. I loathe that it does this, but I have the choice of not using it. What would you prefer... Every site you going to require that you sign in and verify your identity before being able to use the service, and sign some type of agreement that you won't let a minor or child access it? Same goes to cigarettes and alcohol by the way.
  - dang 7y ago
    > children have these things called parents Please don't break the site guidelines by being snarky and taking threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - techntoke 7y ago
      Sorry
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Youtube Kids doesn't work. It doesn't have the content that children want to watch, and it includes content that is not suitable for children. Other organisations manage to provide ad-supported video content with very few problems. You can sit a child down in front of UK Channel 4 or ITV children's content and know that the ads won't be for alcohol or gambling or horror films, and you'll know the video will be age appropriate. There are content creators on Youtube who target children. There are children who want to watch that content. There are parents who'll allow their children to watch the content. All we need now is for Youtube to not place horror film ads in that content, and not to start recommending videos to the child where people are yelling "DIE YOU FUCKING $racialslur".
dmix 7y ago
Isn't there a YouTube kids version? I'm not a parent so I've never used it and I've been curious since I also see that Netflix had a cordoned off sections for kids too. I'm not sure if these are sufficient content and feature wise? Also is there any parental consent thing going on here as well with how YouTube words it? I remember seeing plenty of adult ads as a kid watching TV at night time watching with my parents. The morning kids shows and kids channels always had ads for children of course. Id imagine it's in YouTubes interest not to show kids adult ads as well, most adults probably aren't sitting around watching the same shows with them to make the adult ads useful.
- ryanjshaw 7y ago
  There is but it is not free from very disturbing issues (search for 'elsagate'). Also YouTube Kids has no quality controls. It uses more bandwidth, due to our hires tablet display I guess, than any other device in our household. Very annoying when on capped LTE on a trip.
  - mav3rick 7y ago
    You can set video quality to a lower res.
- jan_g 7y ago
  There is and any parent giving their phone/tablet to young kids should at minimum make sure it's YouTube Kids they're watching. It doesn't have ads or comments section, for example. As for its content being sufficiently filtered or not - nowadays I think it is. We, the parents, should of course try to minimize the amount of time our kids spend with youtube or in general with phones/tablets/TVs.
namewasmypw 7y ago
YouTube is a video hosting platform. It targets whatever the people who upload videos target. Stop clutching your pearls and start being responsible for yourself. The "please think of the children" rhetoric has the effect of ruining it for the rest of us, and it's especially frustrating when the subtext is "because I'm not willing to think of the children myself." If you want a website you can let your kid use with unfettered access and no supervision, go use one of the sites that claims to provide that.
- dang 7y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN?
  - namewasmypw 7y ago
    Can you highlight which part of my post was a personal attack?
    - dang 7y ago
      > Stop clutching your pearls and start being responsible for yourself
point78 7y ago
Cartoon nursery rhymes directed at as low as even 1 year olds will sometimes have ads popup for a tv show containing drugs and guns. Completely inappropriate! EVERYTHING that deals with children whether directly or indirectly is strictly regulated, and rightly so. Television programming as an example, for 70 years only permits certain ads to be displayed on children's shows. YouTube should be regulated by the FCC in regards to this and very easily can have a checkbox for advertisers and providers to check that says the content is for under 13 or not.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Yes. I've complained to the UK regulator about gambling ads placed in children's content and they are paying attention. They say it's hard because YouTube forbids (because COPPA) anyone under 13 from having an account, which means those children use their parent's accounts, and so the demographics used by the advertisers are skewed. However, they did take action against every single gambling company I complained about because the ads were placed against children's content.
- izacus 7y ago
  > Cartoon nursery rhymes directed at as low as even 1 year olds will sometimes have ads popup for a tv show containing drugs and guns. Completely inappropriate! Does that still happen if you actually pay for the service via Prermium subscription? Or only if you want to use it completely free and paying nothing?
  - point78 7y ago
    Free. Just like public broadcasting system is free and when watching Sesame Street an ad for The Wire (Or whatever came up) will not happen.
midev 7y ago
You need to be a parent and not expect regulatory fines to watch your children. You've identified a problem, you've identified the cause, and now you need to do something about it within your household. You're literally talking about a video you let your child watch, while bemoaning the FCC needing to step in. > The fact that YouTube can go here and say their platform is only intended for 13 year olds and up is a joke The joke is that you understand YouTube is for 13 year olds and up, and you still allow your child on there. Personal responsibility needs to come first. > They are marketing towards kids and I can’t stand it. What kind of home router do you have. I'll show you how to block YouTube. Your mom can do similar things at home. There are plenty of blocking solutions out there. Which ones have you tried?
- point78 7y ago
  Completely wrong, everything targeted at children (for decades) is regulated. If your kid is watching Sesame Street on PBS and an ad for The Sopranos appears - that does not happen for a reason. Uploading cartoon nursery rhymes and having an ad for drug trafficking come up is idiotic.
  - johnisgood 7y ago
    It very may well be regulated, sure, but what is completely wrong exactly? Parents are responsible for their children! Is this incorrect? We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      We don't want a society where parents have to helicopter their children. We want a society where parents can give their children gradual access to freedom. > We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes. This is a completely different problem. Content is made for children. Those content creators don't want unsuitable ads in the content. The children enjoy watching the content. Those children don't want unsuitable ads. The parents are happy for their children to watch the content. Those parents don't want unsuitable ads. All YouTube has to do is give content creators a checkbox: "Is this content aimed at people under 18?", then not place ads for gambling or alcohol or horror movies etc against that content. YouTube needs to be aware that regulation is coming, and they're not going to like what the EU will impose.
wolco 7y ago
I thought having an account required 13 or over but to view a public video there are no age restrictions.

echelon 7y ago

As I understand it, YouTube remains unprofitable to this date. What game is Google playing at here? Creators are unhappy with the strong arming, users are displeased with the ads and the comments and, well, everything. Parents are unhappy with the creepy videos targeting children. YouTube music is a travesty and is likely to fail like all the other half-baked Google products. YouTube gaming... is dead. Now they're getting fined for something they could have easily avoided. What in the hell is Google doing, and why do they suck at this so bad? I can imagine so many better product experiences. Why can't they get their act together?

mav3rick 7y ago
Yeah right. The competition is doing so well. Try running a video hosting service within the frameworks of the law. It's still the most popular service by a longshot. Classic HN being delusional again.
- echelon 7y ago
  Reddit, Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Twitch Edit: Facebook, Twitter
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    You do realise that Disney, HBO and Netflix are one-way distributors right? They don't even belong in that list.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      We're talking about monetised, profitable, video content aimed at children. These other companies can manage it. YouTube can't, but importantly YouTube wants it both ways - they want to include content that targets children without providing any of the protection that parents expect. And that expectation isn't unreasonable. We don't want parents who helicopter every waking hour of their children's lives, we want to give parents some freedoms to allow their children to explore and grow.

um_ya 7y ago

With all the complaints against Youtube, I don't know how they can still be so out of touch with everyone. It's almost as if they're doing it deliberately. They're begging for competition to take over their unprofitable business. Nobody wants to step up.

pjc50 7y ago
It's a two sided market; the player with the largest catalog wins. Youtube has also negotiated the copyright minefield extremely well - starting a competitor would have to deal with takedowns.
- dmix 7y ago
  A competitor who finds a way to deal with copyright better, has a sane advertising policy that doesn't randomly demonetizes people, with a patreon system built in, and has a modern UI (YouTube has a lot of room for improvement) it could possibly compete with YouTube. A whole lot of major YouTube channels who are constantly attacked by false copyright claims or have to push product placements due to no ads would love to push users to a better platform. So marketing wouldn't be impossible. They could also push privacy and fine tuned data controls which helps with kids. There's enough of a market for two to exist. Maybe with some type of semi decentralized platform approach so individual hosts who deal with copyright poorly can take the hit, making the system more resilient. Chrome style apps and mobile clients could be the interface and the ad/patreon system is controlled by the primary software developer but the rest is an open protocol with a linear license for non commercial stuff (at least non commercial as far as not competing with the monetization platform). The network effects of managing the ad buyers, subscriber accounts with credit cards and one click subs could stave off the competition without fully controlling the full video network and hosts.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    It's a chicken and egg problem: users won't switch platforms until their favorite creators switch over, and the creators won't switch over if nobody's there to watch their videos.

ct520 7y ago

Love it

ummonk 7y ago

Why did every top level comment here get downvoted? Did this get brigaded by Youtube / Google employees?

dang 7y ago
Not as far as I can tell. Many of the comments in this thread have broken the site guidelines and/or are not particularly thoughtful. Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvotes or making insinuations about brigading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

wongarsu 7y ago

I must say I'm perplexed how every single top level comment is downvoted. This isn't normal.

dang 7y ago
The topic turns out to be unusually emotional and many of the comments in the thread are pretty bad.

dang 7y ago

All: this seems to be quite a provocative topic, as with many submissions that involve children and parents. If you're going to comment, please post thoughtfully and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't do that, please don't post until you can.

classics2 7y ago

That’s nothing compared to their ad revenue, not even a notable one time loss.

warent 7y ago
I agree. There are many people who I've seen say "this is just a warning to other companies" or "this is just the beginning" but it seems like that's always the case. The fact is, the fine needs to be multiples of quarterly revenue. It needs to be so high not to destroy the company, but enough to make it limp and force it to borrow money to make it through. THEN these will be taken seriously. Until then, these aren't fines. These are price tags for unethical, law-breaking behavior, and these companies are more than happy to pay it.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Force them to borrow money? How big a fine we talking in your authoritarian world? How many people's jobs is it worth losing? No. It does not need to be so damn high. YouTube is aware of the warning, and yes it likely deserves another (order of magnitude larger) fine if they do nothing. But arbitrary fines right out of the gate just hurt everyone.
Zenst 7y ago
For a large company, but it does make any new startup/competition go thru a whole extra hoop, which does favour established players.
judge2020 7y ago
Unless they've made huge steps in their profit margins, it's still pretty big consisering they weren't profitable in 2015 [0] and likely still not profitable in 2016 [1]. The only argument you could make is the immense value of user data Google gets from YT to show relevant ads outside of the platform. 0: https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-google-any-money-2015-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-go... 1: https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/ https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-woj...

dgzl 7y ago

To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.

theobeers 7y ago
Yeah. I haven’t found any way of using YouTube that I would consider safe for children. The problems are at a fundamental level.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
longtom 7y ago
I think humans are a lot more robust than commonly assumed. Most of us do not break due to their mere experiences as long as their fundamental needs (food, being loved, goals and so on) are fulfilled. Once these needs are not fulfilled they may be more vulnerable though.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  It is, however, important to take note of how this robustness varies with age, just what proportion of people "most" counts as, and whether the most absolute category of humans "breaking" is most appropriate when we take into account the massive variation of mental states, disorders and the entire field of media effects and child psychology.
  - longtom 7y ago
    But consider for example the link between violent video games and prosocial outcomes. The effect sizes are tiny. The downsides of additional filters will very likely outweigh anything that can be gained regarding mental health and childhood development etc. I'd wager there are much much more effective ways of improving quality of life, e.g. improving community life, reducing working hours, reduce economic inequality etc. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf

_hardwaregeek 7y ago

This is literally a Silicon Valley plotline. Right down to COPPA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5QUZMNLT3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5QUZMNLT3M

asd234h4 7y ago

Hey dang, Quit posting unsubstantiated comments. If you're going to comment, please post thoughtfully and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't do that, please don't post until you can.

freediver 7y ago

The fine feels as a millionaire got fined $200 for the same violation.

Zenst 7y ago

Will this create a new virtual 18+ wall before you can view/access content/services. Not that it is illegal by any law to offer such services to those younger, just that the lawyers and the accountants sat down and concluded that the risks can outgrow the rewards. Be interesting how the industry and various platforms navigate this whole area, but I'm mindful that they may well just cut them off period as just less hassle for them.

Youden 7y ago
I'm not sure of your age but I grew up with the internet and this "18+ wall" has already existed for a long time. I don't think I know anybody who didn't lie about their birth year on a signup form at some point to get around an age check.
- Zenst 7y ago
  That's kinda the point, the whole age verification avenue has no credibility and personally I've lied for privacy reasons as why do you need the day and month if the year is 18+. But the area of concern I was raising was such walls being used for no other reason other than risk liability exposure dictated by liability insurance costs. That with age verification systems that are that do credable checks being an area of growth thru demand. Such systems will become easier to implement and the ability to just lie, becomes much more complicated. Hence people being cut off, not thru legal reasons, but for effect - accountants. That's the worry I was raising.

thathndude 7y ago

This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. But on top of that, it’s $200m into the black hole that is our dysfunctional and bloated federal government. How do The Impacted children whose privacy was violated actually benefit. It’s all ridiculous.

vonmoltke 7y ago
> This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. > Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. No, it isn't. A company's valuation is not money in the bank. The proper comparison is to profit.
- notyourday 7y ago
  Proper comparison is the reaction of a CEO - if the CEO responds by firing the upper management->product management responsible for the part that caused the fine then the fine got a point across.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    It’s okay for a fine to be insignificant. Parking tickets are insignificant fines too, but in aggregate act to control parking behavior. What’s needed is better enforcement, not more stringent fines.
    - notyourday 7y ago
      Not at all. Those who have cars and can afford the fine consider parking fines to be a cost of doing business. Get a ticket, pay it on the web. Now if the car is towed that becomes a problem because just pulling out a credit card does not fix it.
      - leetcrew 7y ago

notyourday 7y ago

That number is missing two zeros for it to be anything other than a mosquito bite