
YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations - arctux
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/technology/youtube-childrens-privacy-fine.html
======
dang
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.

------
thathndude
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
> 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
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
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
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.

~~~
zapzupnz
I don't believe for a second that this represents the minority. One might be
tempted to conjure reddit-like images of Chads and Karens who park their cars
where ever, when ever, and for however long they like, but the majority of
people aren't like this.

~~~
notyourday
[https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/Parking-
Violat...](https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/Parking-Violations-
Issued-Fiscal-Year-2018/a5td-mswe)

That's 11.7M violations for fiscal 2018.

~~~
zapzupnz
And? What does a page full of data tell me? At a quick glance I can see a lot
of violations made repeatedly for the same licence plate; there's no data on
whether certain violations are made multiple times by the same person with
different vehicles; it's not easy to tell what kinds of violations there are,
how much of each, and which are easy to get tickets from unscrupulous parking
attendants or which would require actual lack of action by the vehicle's
driver or owner… this isn't evidence of anything.

The population of New York may be only 8.5 million, but that doesn't make 11
million infractions an indicator that the majority of those people are the
sorts of people to accept parking fines as the cost of owning a vehicle.

~~~
notyourday
This actually illustrates that the same license plates get tickets i.e.
getting parking tickets is the cost of doing business.

~~~
zapzupnz
That doesn't say anything about whether these people represent the majority,
which was my point, though. Not sure why those stats should matter to me.

------
dgzl
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.

~~~
longtom
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.

~~~
lotsofpulp
I feel the opposite. Based on how people (and myself) behave, humans love to
prioritize short term dopamine hits with long term costs. Whether it be
children addicted to YouTube, people addicted to sugar and inactivity (see
obesity), refreshing Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/instagram/Hacker News for new
bits of information, etc. We’re even willing to trash the planet if it gives
us the satisfaction of living in single family homes with parking and some
land for heavily fertilized grass.

As a species, humans are getting better at using our susceptibility of the
short term pleasures to operate businesses, but the long term effects are
probably not going to be desirable.

~~~
longtom
The points you are raising (addiction) seem to be somewhat unrelated to what
was being discussed (inappropriate content).

Of course addictions are bad, but do you have any data supporting your claim
that technology has increased the number of addicts? People vulnerable to be
drawn to short-term dopamine hits have always existed, whether to food,
gambling, or actual drugs.

~~~
etse
There are many negative responses to inappropriate content, and with regards
to the subtopic of "breaking", addiction is one. Addiction can exacerbate
other responses such as depression or anxiety, but I wouldn't rule it out as a
response.

As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are technology
addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a sufficient
logical claim.

Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience
of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences?

~~~
longtom
> As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are
> technology addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a
> sufficient logical claim.

No, because those people may have engaged in other unhealthy lifestyles if the
technology didn't exist.

> Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience
> of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences?

Yes, I've linked some in a comment below.

------
classics2
That’s nothing compared to their ad revenue, not even a notable one time loss.

~~~
warent
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
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
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
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
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.

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

------
14
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.

~~~
midev
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?

~~~
etse
How is demanding fines not being a parent? They are not mutually exclusive.

The comment about moms blocking YouTube is a bit ridiculous. Seems hard to
believe likelihood of finding one could be higher than the likelihood of
finding a kid who can work around it.

~~~
midev
One should come before the other. You should parent before calling for
regulations.

> The comment about moms blocking YouTube is a bit ridiculous. Seems hard to
> believe likelihood of finding one could be higher than the likelihood of
> finding a kid who can work around it.

It is not hard to block domains at the router, and restrict the devices your
child has access to. Of course they might use a friends, or find a way around
it. But the OP is literally talking about overhearing the video on the couch
and not doing anything about it.

That's why I asked what they tried...
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOTyUfOHgas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOTyUfOHgas)

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

------
_hardwaregeek
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)

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

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

------
um_ya
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
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
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.

~~~
wongarsu
Sure, just build a video streaming website with good UI, a good
recommendation/discovery algorithm, it's own avertising network (that is able
to compete with YTs excellent personalized ads while having a more creator-
friendly policy), spend more on human review of copyright claims than YT,
establish a revenue share system for creators, as well as a system to pay
monthly pledges similar to YT channel memberships or patreon (of course both
need to comply with laws and regultions of all major countries), and have the
budget to finance multiple months of video streaming and encoding servers.

There's space in the market, but I don't think anyone is willing to pay for
that after so many others failed.

~~~
dmix
This is a perfect project for a successful entrepreneur who wants to solve a
hard problem just like the Duckduckgo founder.

This is the type of hard problem I'm getting more and more interested in.
Someone has to bring the future open and privacy oriented Web about some day.
The current model is broken and the early Internet showed us what is possible.
Web 2.0 brought none of the democratization it promised largely because of the
old world model it attempted to deliver it with.

Plus none of the things you listed are hard. Technical problems are easy, it's
the market and growth that's hard.

I'm personally focused on Reddit, mostly theoretically atm, but YouTube is
something I've considered as well.

~~~
Eli_P
> Web 2.0 brought none of the democratization it promised

It introduced formula "If you're not paying for a product, you _are_ the
product", while in old world model delivery of value is more about
givers/takers ratio.

~~~
vkou
Web 2.0 didn't invwnt anything. Plenty of pre-web services expect you to pay
them, and also sell you. Cable TV, for instance.

------
echelon
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
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
Reddit, Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Twitch

Edit: Facebook, Twitter

~~~
pjc50
None of those compete directly with user-uploaded content of arbitrary length.
Vimeo and Dailymotion are the nearest competitors.

~~~
8note
doesn't Facebook do that?

~~~
yoz-y
Do people go to Facebook directly to just watch video from their non-friends?
Is it even possible? Genuinely asking, I haven’t used FB for quite some time.

~~~
krapp
Yes, people go to Facebook to watch videos.

However, I think it's too restrictive to only consider platforms to be
competitors of Youtube only when the use case is analogous, and it's incorrect
to imply that Facebook can only be competing with Youtube if their users
exclusively use it to watch videos.

Any platform that supports video streaming is potentially competing against
Youtube. The specific use case of the platform is irrelevant, only scale and
mindshare matter - the degree to which people spend time there rather than on
Youtube.

