
On YouTube, a Network of Paedophiles Is Hiding in Plain Sight - perseusprime11
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/youtube-pedophile-videos-advertising
======
css
> Enter “twister girl” and autocomplete suggests “little girl twister in
> skirt”

Jesus…

Credit where credit is due, I learned about this from MattsWhatItIs:

[https://youtu.be/O13G5A5w5P0](https://youtu.be/O13G5A5w5P0)

Which is similar to the recent videos PayMoneyWubby has been exposing:

[https://youtu.be/5PmphkNDosg](https://youtu.be/5PmphkNDosg) and
[https://youtu.be/M78rlxEMBxk](https://youtu.be/M78rlxEMBxk)

It reminds me of a darker version of
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate).

~~~
Murdoch
This issue was brought to YouTube's attention by another content creator. They
say they are working to disable comments on some videos and delete some
accounts. Its tough when kids upload innocent videos and it is the comment
sections that become filled with predators.

I do want to say this MattsWhatItIs guy appears to be motivated by attention
and ignored the fact that Youtube was looking into this and continues to push
for people to go after advertisers.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLsYQYHHqoM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLsYQYHHqoM)

~~~
anonymousab
People likely feel that they are not doing (or spending) anywhere near enough
on the problem. Particularly because many of the gripes with YouTube have
gotten deliberately worse, yet the situation with stuff like creepy Elsa
videos (and by extension, creepy comments and suspected pedophile activity)
has not improved for years.

The 'adpocalypse' showed that the best way to enact any meaningful change on
YouTube is to get the advertisers riled up. So that's the lever they're going
to focus on.

I think it's always going to be a double-edged sword at best.

------
ameister14
I run ads and have for the last year or two systematically removed any
placements involving youtube channels related to children - anything with
toys, games, kids, etc. I have done this because after demonetizing a number
of videos Google has apparently decided that children's content was ideal for
advertisers; it was safe.

This was wrong, but clearly nobody in their ads department actually used the
targeting systems.

There is no way for L'oreal to remove their ads from channels with disturbing
comments automatically. They would have to individually find and exclude these
placements and build their lists like I have, and I believe they probably have
underpaid and either overworked or incompetent people running their targeting
so that's unlikely to happen.

To be honest I believe ads should not be shown on children's youtube channels
at all. Further, rather than reporting a video, I'd like channel creators to
be able to report comments and get people banned from commenting on the site
as a whole.

------
zamalek
But they can figure out when a video has copyrighted music at 1% volume in the
background.

~~~
mschuster91
Because that is a trivial task as the question "is there licensed music in the
track" is binary and _really_ easy to do given a large enough number of
fingerprints.

Detecting if there is a child in the video is more difficult, but do-able with
current ML models. Now, however, determining _why_ there is a child in the
video - if it is a family "fail" video or pedo material, for example - via AI
is about as impossible as trying to distinguish between satire, hate speech or
propaganda via AI. It's not possible at all, as AI will for the near future
totally lack context.

This distinction will require humans, and this is something not viable at all
for fb, youtube, twitter & co, as it is a huge cost... the saving of which is
offloaded to society though in form of e.g. undermined democracies or
psychological trauma in sexual violence survivors.

~~~
antris
They already have an AI to detect these videos: the recommendation engine
mentioned in the article. These videos aren't difficult to find.

~~~
NathanKP
The recommendation engine doesn't know what the content is or in what way it
is similar, it just knows that people who view this video often view this
other video. On the bright side the recommendation engine grouping all these
videos means that once YouTube identifies one video as inappropriate they can
easily use the recommendations to find and delete all the other videos that
are also being viewed by the same pedos.

~~~
shkkmo
> On the bright side the recommendation engine grouping all these videos means
> that once YouTube identifies one video as inappropriate they can easily use
> the recommendations to find and delete all the other videos that are also
> being viewed by the same pedos.

That is exactly the point, they have this ability and are not using it. Not
even to disable comments.

------
freeflight
This is yet another of those "Omg pedophiles everywhere!" hysteria cases where
people are too busy being all freaked out without actually looking at the
facts.

Ain't helping that the guy who "discovered" this claims it is some kind of
"YouTube wormhole" you supposedly fall into and never ever can escape from.
Even tho he pretty much did everything to make the results come out as they
did (fresh YouTube account, using a VPN, looking up content that's already
considered as "soft-core" for many users).

But the reality is that these videos show nothing illegal or really that out
of the ordinary. The fact that some people derive sexual pleasure from them,
is something that can never be stopped unless you introduce something akin to
mass-scale thought/mind-control.

Because before it was YouTube videos or the Internet it was plain old children
underwear catalogs printed on paper and without these, or YouTube videos,
those people would just do a Google picture search of "childrens underwear"
and get unlimited pictures of children in equally revealing poses as in those
YouTube videos.

What to do about that? How to "fix" any of this? Particularly in an age where
becoming a "YouTube personality/influencer" is increasingly peddled as some
kind of viable choice of occupation for younger people and even children [0]?

[0] [https://www.businessinsider.de/ryan-toysreview-7-year-old-
ma...](https://www.businessinsider.de/ryan-toysreview-7-year-old-
makes-22-million-per-year-youtube-2018-12?r=US&IR=T)

~~~
warent
First, there is, in point of fact, a network of pedophiles on YouTube as
demonstrated by the article. Your comment is twisting it into "Omg pedophiles
everywhere!" hyperbole for what reason?

The seriousness of even a single case of pedophilia or child exploitation
cannot be overstated. Not only is it ethical and moral to take it very
seriously, but it's also the logical action because children are our future
and if they are healthy and happy then the human race is healthy and happy.

There is no fixing the problem, but we can mitigate it. The first step would
be, apparently, to educate the public because comments like yours still exist
which is deeply concerning. The second step is up for discussion of course,
but perhaps it would be useful to ban children under the age of N from
appearing in videos for more than T amount of time or perhaps ban altogether.

~~~
tcd
Yet, I find it funny when people also say, in the same breath "omg governments
using children as scapegoat for censorship".

Which is it? If you think you can have a 100% success rate you are horribly,
stupidly mistaken. You WILL get innocents caught in the crossfire, you WILL
see videos removed that are okay, and people WILL cry censorship.

People are demanding a flawless system, that never makes mistakes, that has
100% accuracy to be developed and released in the next week, and yet, we need
a "free and open internet" otherwise Reddit gets angry and puts up hundreds of
"net neutrality" posts.

Oh, what's that, Article 13 wants upload filters? BOO!! Yet they may catch
this type of content.

Nobody likes that idea because it'd "ruin" the internet.

Which is it. This problem can ONLY be fixed with upload filters, potential
censorship and mistakes which will affect a number of legit videos.

That okay with you? People seem pretty mad at youtube for their content ID and
DMCA, just check r/videos.

This would increase 10 fold with any further automated system designed to
attempt to filter certain categories of content.

People will have channels deleted and potentially their Youtube 'careers'
ended by a machine. But r/videos hates this.

~~~
james_s_tayler
Problems and solutions have a relationship that is many to many.

A problem may or may not have a solution or many solutions. And solutions have
a relationship not just to the problem they solve but also the problem or
problems they create.

This fundamental meta-problem is a problem to which there is no solution. This
is why we argue. This is why we fight. This... is why we politick.

------
dawnerd
Some of these comments here are disgusting. I thought HN would be better than
this.

YouTube could start requiring validation for uploaders before they’re
monitized or allow comments. Require a credit card on file or something.
That’d likely help cut down on spam too.

~~~
giarc
I believe you can only monetize once you have 1000 subscribers.

However, I think you should re-read article. The problem isn't the video
uploaded, it's the commentor.

~~~
dawnerd
I meant youtube themselves shouldn't monetize unless they're certain that the
content is advertiser friendly. They have no problems cutting legit youtubers
off from ads, so why can't they also kill ads for uploads from children? It's
just been creating problems for them.

~~~
giarc
>It's just been creating problems for them.

It's also been creating a cash cow for them. I also think there is just too
much content being uploaded for them to accurately determine if the video is
advertiser friendly.

------
INTPenis
Speaking of pedos hiding in plain sight; around 16 years ago there was a
Verizon bust in Canada of some pedo networks. One such network of sites fled
to a new web host that had not heard of the preceding events.

They came to their new host as a BSD consultancy firm. It wasn't until the new
host stumbled upon their HTTP traffic that they noticed some strange domain
names. And later found a whole network of message boards setup for "people"
talking about grooming children for sex.

On the surface it was a legitimate business, under the surface it was
horrible. They were kicked out of their new hosting and looking at their
domains a few weeks later they had found a new home with PRQ. :(

This youtube stuff is also sad because these kids are uploading their videos
with no other intent than to have fun. And now someone has to explain to them
that their videos will receive special treatment because of sickos online.

Maybe leave the videos alone and teach kids not to answer strangers online
instead?

~~~
barbecue_sauce
BSD as in Berkeley Software Distribution?

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
Business. Sustainability. Development.

I think... "S", could be for Services.

------
giarc
Lines like this tell me the author has no idea how advertising works these
days "The videos are also being monetised by YouTube, including pre-roll
adverts from Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Fortnite, Grammarly, L’Oreal, Maybelline,
Metro: Exodus, Peloton and SingleMuslims.com."

These companies don't choose to advertise on these videos specifically.
Youtube is just placing the ads there based upon the viewer etc. I imagine
there are some exceptions for high profile youtubers and companies that pay
directly to display their ads prior to their videos, but the accounts in
question don't likely fall into that category.

~~~
chillydawg
Companies do not get to play that card in their defence.

They know full well they are scatter gunning and that some small percentage of
their ads will end up next to/in front of awful content. They know this -
they've seen it happen time and time again. They continue to do it because
it's cheaper to do so and occasionally take some PR flack and then blame
Youtube.

Ultimately - your ad, your problem. If you value your brand so poorly that you
don't care where you advertise, this is what happens.

~~~
giarc
My issue is that authors often try to name and shame the companies as if they
had some say. Companies should definitely reach out to Youtube or their
marketing company to correct the problem but every single advertiser could
have their ads shown before that video. That's how the ad network works.

~~~
behringer
They are at fault because they choose to pay youtube to be placed in front of
videos designed for pedos.

There are plenty of advertisers that pay the content creators directly for in-
video ads, there's already a model where you can choose exactly what kind of
content you want your ad featured in.

I'll say it again, these advertisers are choosing where to advertise.

~~~
giarc
>They are at fault because they choose to pay youtube to be placed in front of
videos designed for pedos.

See, this is factually incorrect. Companies are paying Youtube to place their
ads in front of viewers that are most likely to convert/in their target
audience. A company generally doesn't say "Place my video in front of youtuber
X,Y,Z."

~~~
behringer
No, they're just saying "Place my ad in front of x,y,z, even if it's a
pedophile, even if it's a child watching elsa pooping on spider man, or even
if the videos flagrantly infringe on copyrights.

~~~
giarc
The video isn't a pedophile video... the commentors are. Perhaps you haven't
understood the problem here. These are harmless videos where creepy people
identify small scenes where you can see something.

~~~
behringer
And what about the point?

------
duado
Well, I can guarantee you that YouTube will solve this problem. Why? Because
major advertisers are pausing all advertising on YouTube. The only leverage we
have against the Internet giants is their money supply.

------
jl2718
Stop monetizing kids.

~~~
908087
As a result of a few close friends having children, I was recently introduced
to certain channels run by parents who seem to have had children specifically
to be used as youtube props. It's pretty sad.

It's probably safe to assume child "influencers" have an even rougher road
ahead of them than many child actors did. I wonder how many or few of the
parents who are making a living doing this are putting money their children
earned them aside for their children? Based on the sizes of the houses and
pools in the background rapidly increasing over time in a couple channels my
niece watches, I'm guessing not many.

------
matz1
So, do you want them to ban all child video ?

~~~
chooseaname
Yes.

And keep parents from uploading them too:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/when-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/when-
kids-realize-their-whole-life-already-online/582916/)

~~~
micah94
Many of the children are uploading the videos themselves.

~~~
cwkoss
Youtube should enforce their own terms of service then.

Can a minor legally grant copyright to another entity by accepting TOS?

------
glglwty
Pedophilia has always been an execuse for taking over people's rights. Good
thing tor isn't targeted this time.

------
fencepost
Possibly in response to this article coming out, Youtube also ramped up one of
their other things that has popped up in the past - auto-flagging videos with
"CP" in the video title, removing channels and in at least one case completely
locking associated Google accounts (without apparent human involvement).

This hit at least two of the highest-profile Pokemon Go Youtubers this past
weekend with videos related to the "Combat Power" of virtual monsters.

------
unclebucknasty
The somewhat overt nature of this brings a question to mind:

We know that our social networks have been invaded by foreign adversaries to
sow chaos and division. Is there any research as to whether they've also
sought to undermine us via promoting the degradation of our moral values as a
society?

At a minimum, it would reduce our moral standing in the world, and potentially
produce a numbing to or higher tolerance for other types of moral deficiency
in which they might seek to engage. In general, it would be demoralizing to
see this constant stream of depravity in your own culture.

Seems it would be potentially very effective and consistent with other lines
of attack we've seen.

~~~
jerf
Not much need to hypothesize, it's sourced to the point Wikipedia has an
article on it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures)

Wikipedia does not explicitly call out moral warfare, but if you keep Googling
on that term you can find a lot of chatter about it, of various levels of
veracity. It's only a baby step beyond what is very firmly established; I
don't find it hard to believe.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Yeah, I'm familiar with active measures in general. What you referenced is the
well-publicized piece I mentioned.

I'm specifically talking about the morality line of attack, and whether there
is similarly _well-documented /sourced_ discussion of same (that is, beyond
random Googling for which results might also include disinformation).

~~~
jerf
There is stuff that passes my credibility filter for "probably true", and it
comes up early in the web searches, specific statements about specific
policies from first-hand sources of people in the relevant positions in the
cold war, or at least I've seen no challenges that they aren't who they say
they are.

The people/entities who would publicize this and make it "officially official"
have every motive in the world not to, so you're not going to find something
like a 60 Minutes report on it or anything. (I think that for all the
"officially official" sources casually commit lies of commission all the time,
their true power is in the lies of omission.)

I have to apologize for the vagueness, but the HN gestalt would not
particularly care to examine the details of this matter too closely. It would
result in... nontrivial cognitive dissonance.

------
Udik
Although I understand that the comments section under the videos can be
problematic for various reasons, what is the intrinsic issue with people being
turned on by kids videos? It's probably the worst sexual preference to have in
terms of societal acceptance, but as long as it doesn't cause any harm to
others- i.e., it's limited to watching innocent youtube videos- it seems
perfectly fine.

~~~
sam0x17
It's true that a lot of people go literally insane when they think about
pedofilia. Hate to break it to you guys but just like there exist plebty of
straight males who aren't rapists, many of the people with attraction to
minors never act on them.

While many of these youtube comments are toxic and/or also constitute
harrasment (which I don't condone and nor does the law), there are plenty of
examples of legitimatly harmless expression (fanfiction, forum discussions and
articles about attraction to minors and how to deal with it, etc), that are
the subject of unimaginable amounts of hate and censorship online, where said
hate and censorship is being conducted essentially on the basis of sexual
orientation. Some companies (notably medium and reddit) are protective of this
speech, while others (notably youtube/google) are not.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation.

edit, in reply to "on what do you base that notion?"

What makes you _question_ that notion?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

> Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation)

ctrl+f "pedo" no hits ctrl+f "minor" no hits (that are relevant in this
context) ctrl+f "child" same as minor, however this:

> There is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that early
> childhood experiences, parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events
> influence sexual orientation.

We know that sexual abuse as a child is a factor in being pedophile, no? So
that also fits.

And not addressed at you, how come just basically "playing dictionary" and
stating what should be obvious earns downvotes? What is going on here? This
isn't the first time I'm getting a quite pungent vibe around this subject,
e.g.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168928](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168928)

(oh nice, I got throttled so even though I wrote this reply 2 minutes after
that question, so instead of replying to it I had to make it this edit
instead)

~~~
sam0x17
If I was a betting man I would say that in 50-100 years it will be recognized
as one (obviously it will still be illegal to act on it, but it will at least
be scientifically regognized). So far scientists have found it just as hard to
categorize neurologically and genetically as sexual orientation. There are
some themes, but nothing obvious enough to justify its current DSM
categorization. Prejudice is what keeps this from happening and will likely
delay things for a long, long time.

~~~
PavlovsCat
That's like saying a table is actually a chair, we just find it hard to
categorize it as such. It's saying nothing.

~~~
sam0x17
One implication would be that it should be LGBTQP instead of LGBTQ, (or M for
MAP, maybe). There would definitely be implications.

But to the general point. Pedophile literally means people that are sexually
attracted to minors. Full stop. It doesn't mean child rapist, and there are
minors who are pedophiles and know they are as early as 11 and have to deal
with society's bullshit eating away at their conscience their whole lives even
if they never do anything wrong. The reason for the negative perception is
that you only end up hearing about the rapists because the other ones are too
busy not doing anything wrong and keeping their orientation a secret due to
stigma.

The current DSM criteria is a result of this bias. Not long ago homosexuality
and bisexuality had the same treatment in the DSM (listed as disorders), and
transgenders are still classified as having a gender identity disorder. So
being labeled a certain way in the DSM means nothing when it comes to sex,
because it's basically political at this point, and tons of researchers and
psychologists realize this but say nothing. Those that do often can't publish
their studies because bias is so ingrained in every facet of society and
academia.

Also I upvoted you, because it's a good (albeit annoying and ultimately wrong
in my opinion) argument. On HN generalizations in the form of short comments
always get downvoted. It's dumb but that's the way it is.

