It sounds like this is due to COPPA complaints because a lot of kids watch youtube videos and apparently they are not supposed to, but if youtube was found culpable then everyone would because COPPA is a mess.
It's not their problem that kids are violating TOS.
Maybe parents shouldn't let youtube babysit their children.
I have been thinking more about dopamine or motivation and satisfaction in myself. I get it, satisfying that craving with any one thing too much is bad. Having satisfaction for that craving always on demand is bad. That satisfaction comes in many forms some which people say are "bad for you" some "good for you" some people disagree (in any category: exercising, eating, socializing, mind altering substances, television, youtube, social media, work, video games, reading, etc.)
Not very many people get a high from boredom, so a good measure of it probably fits in a good life, but that has its limits too.
Whenever I hear too many people have the same opinion about something "bad for you" that can't be explained without hand-waving I get very suspicious.
They do not possess the mental capacities or world experience to be able to handle arbitrary videos. And the fact that it's arbitrary is exactly the issue. My young siblings watch YouTube, and I will say the best children's content on YouTube is better than the best children's content that was available on TV in my team. There are amazing channels out there with ethical, educational, entertaining, wholesome content I wish I had access to when I was their age.
Children's cultural consumption must be curated by the parents or a trusted party. YouTube will take kids down arbitrary rabbit holes that can take them to violent, political, radical, targeted, or even genuinely disturbing videos. Adults can contextualize what they see, or disengage, and even then we see the negative effects. Subjecting children to that is not just bad parenting, it's bad in the sense that dystopia is bad in science fiction. It is poison.
If WaPo or any other news publication decided to turn off ads out of moral obligation to prove a point, they'd be digging their own graves. You're essentially arguing that they should commit economic suicide if they truly care about ad tracking. Our culture isn't willing to spend as much on news content as we do Netflix, and that's just a sad reality.
Facebook, Youtube, etc. OTOH have built very profitable advertising systems that form the foundation of their entire business. They fully control these ad networks and all their data. And in this case, it sounds like YouTube may have violated COPPA, which is a totally different level of moral failure than choosing to put up ads.
Why, at this rate, Jeff Bezos might have to shut the Post down in... 6.3 million years.
I pay for several, quite a few people do.
News publications aren’t like this at all. They’re embedding Adsense or some other third party ad widgets, probably at the direction of management. They’re serving whatever that black box ad API returns, which could be a lot of things. I haven’t really looked that hard, but are you aware of an ad network that pays comparably to Google that pledges not to track people? It’s kinda hard to imagine that such a thing exists, given the ad industry’s pervasive encroachment on privacy.
Also, most publications I’ve interacted with don’t have technical stakeholders at the executive level, and web developers are a back-of-the-house role. They’re not nearly as technically capable as a YouTube
Call me cynical, but what makes you think people subscribing to more politically-oriented publications are doing it because they want truly something accurate and not because that publication confirms their biases?
But I'll emphasize my previous point again: newspapers would die without online advertising revenue. Even with online ads, publications around the country are being sold at record low prices and shut down or kneecapped by private equity groups. I highly encourage you to read up on the financial landscape of news in 2019, it's terribly grim.
Massive contraction is occurring the industry, prompting major consolidation of media groups. Companies like Digital First Media acquire large collections of papers and immediately fire half of the newsroom, and this is happening nationwide.
I get that it's so easy to point fingers at news orgs for using online ads, but they didn't really have a choice. When companies like Google and Facebook took control of the distribution and access of content, newspapers became their customers in order to stay alive.
The user would be better off privacy-wise by not reading the article.
They could still have ads but why add tracking?
Maybe next up: only debt-free people/orgs are allowed to talk about deficits?
(Sure, journalism, like most other professions, can use introspection, including the topic of how tracking works, but if there's any case that something needs to be said every time the topic of tracking comes up -- and it's not clear that it is -- that should largely be an editorial call.)
These writers aren't actively implementing the advertising software. They're not "following orders" in anything with respect to ad tracking simply by being a contributor on the platform. At worst, they're complicit by working for the company that utilizes it. Frankly though we all complicit in this stuff one way or another even if there's the illusion that we aren't by some degree of separation.
(EDIT: Deleted irrelevant argument)
> "YouTube has a huge problem,” said Dylan Collins, chief executive of SuperAwesome. “They clearly have huge amounts of children using the platform, but they can’t acknowledge their presence.”
Children is a countable noun. I think saying "huge number of children" is better. For contrast money is a mass noun. "generating huge amount of money" would be appropriate use for that term.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
I'm trying to make my mind up about SuperAwesome's ethical position here. On the one hand, they're investing their own resources into the groundwork for an investigation that could lead to better protections for children; on the other hand, they could benefit massively from a situation where YouTube is forced to use a product like theirs universally, rather than the current situation where they sell their product to individual channels/brands. On the other other hand, SuperAwesome benefiting from this situation makes them more able to protect children on platforms other than YouTube; on the other other other hand, there's something weird about this not-quite-extortion.
Will we see consulting firms in the future offering "we will find your competitors' obscure GDPR violations and help you form nonprofits to report them to authorities and lobby for the prioritization of those cases"? Is this the world we want to live in? In a world where corporations have the power to shut down competitors with regulatory madness, is this the optimal balance of innovation and regulation to maximally increase [insert utility function here]?
Update: To finish the thought, neither Google nor SuperAwesome are neutral when it comes to pursuing objectives that also help others besides themselves.
You mean industry policing itself? Sign me up. I'm skeptical it could work as well as you describe though.
So because they cannot justify exclusion of people based on age, they violate everyone's privacy equally.