Firms Ditch YouTube Ads over Predatory Comments on Videos of Children

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Big brands are pulling advertising from YouTube and Google after their ads were found to be displayed against content being exploited by pedophiles. Despite YouTube promising to take an “even more aggressive stance” against predatory behavior, the confectionery giants Mars and Cadbury, the supermarket Lidl, Deutsche Bank and Adidas have led a wave of brands removing advertising from YouTube.

There are estimated to be tens of thousands of predatory accounts evading protection mechanisms to leave indecent comments on videos of children. Some videos are posted by pedophiles and many are innocently posted by youngsters. Some of the comments are said to be sexually explicit, while others reportedly encourage children posting the videos to perform sexual acts.
 
So Adpocalypse continue apace . . .

Of course videos that have even a whiff of purpose-made pedophile content should themselves be pulled, but if they're pulling ads from videos that feature children in innocent situations, yet the comments are full of sick freaks viewing it in a disgusting light, well that sucks.
 
Mars and Cadbury advertising to children is predatory already. Sugar is on par with tobacco and alcohol for the dangers it presents to young people but it's still unregulated and perfectly legal to advertise directly to children.

Maybe just restrict comments to mod approved on children's content then? I've seen lots of sites that don't allow unmoderated comments.
 
There's so many disgusting comments back and forth on social media these days you think someone would actually enforce that under 13 = no access without parental consent. They should totally strip the apps down for kids like having no ratings systems because no child should even be concerned with achieving fame online before they're emotionally mature enough to understand the risks. I really see no societal benefit of anyone that young having the ability to publish their own Instagram/Snapchat/Youtube/etc content directly. Throw it into a secure queue and let the parents approve whether it gets posted or not. If they're genuinely some child prodigy with musical/art/science/etc talent then generally the parents would be willing to help edit/upload their content and screen the comments they are receiving from other users.
 
If you are in management think of who runs the day to day marketing for any organization. We just got a "wonderful" new bd gal and in her first week failed rse. Twice. After I fucking told her she failed. These people are smooth talking morons. The fact all these orgs pulled off is likely cause senior management saw where these morons were putting content.
 
“Government intervention is vital to protect children from the moment they sign up to social networks, rather than waiting until social networks deem it the right time to act,” he said.

“We need a set of rules enshrined in law to make social networks design protections into their sites, and we need an independent regulator to enforce those rules. That also means fining social networks when they fail to protect children.”
Click to expand...

Yaaaaa ok there buddy, "think of the children" has gone far enough.
 
Seems parents don’t want to be parents anymore.

It’s easier to hide them from the real world instead of teaching them how things are.
 
Logan321 said:
Mars and Cadbury advertising to children is predatory already. Sugar is on par with tobacco and alcohol for the dangers it presents to young people but it's still unregulated and perfectly legal to advertise directly to children.

Maybe just restrict comments to mod approved on children's content then? I've seen lots of sites that don't allow unmoderated comments.
Click to expand...

To be fair to sugar, it like almost all things is not bad, it is the abuse of sugar that is the problem. Best case in point to hide its abuse is big food lobbying to keep the 'recommended daily allowance' off the nutrition facts on food products. If people see (maybe they will) that a single can of soda exceeds your daily allowance of sugar, they might be aware of how much they intake. The body likes sugar and we naturally get it mainly from fruits, a persons ability to process it is another matter and could cause issues that normal processing wouldn't exhibit.

But this is all a huge can of worms with conspiracies of Big Food and Big Pharma at the heart of it. Vegetarians make a very good argument about how meat plays a big roll in diabetes, but I do like meat, just try not to eat to much of it like everything else, everything in moderation is fine. Tobacco and alcohol as well I guess, but the moderation must be very little, and that sure the hell doesn't happen.
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
There's so many disgusting comments back and forth on social media these days you think someone would actually enforce that under 13 = no access without parental consent.
Click to expand...
Even better, instead of those idiotic 'yes I'm over 18' buttons to enter adult websites, we should have some type of math problem or science question to be solved (alright, maybe even a history question; they'd have to answer it in a certain amount of time without leaving the web page so they couldn't just google the answer; leave the page, and you get a different question when you come back!). Hey, a 'Solve for x' might actually lead to kids getting a better education, all in the pursuit of porn. Do that, and we might even see a jump in STEM students.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top