🐱 YouTube’s algorithm is reportedly helping pedophiles find home videos of kids

YouTube's algorithm is reportedly helping pedophiles find home videos of kids

Watching sexually themed content on the platform could lead to videos of children.

www.dailydot.com

YouTube’s algorithm is reportedly facilitating pedophiles by recommending videos of young children to them. YouTube announced Monday that it’s changing its livestreaming policy amid news of the reports.

Someone who watches sexually themed content on the platform could slowly be presented with videos of younger and younger women before eventually landing on videos of children, according to a team of researchers at the Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society

A Brazilian woman was informed that an innocent home video of her 10-year-old daughter and a friend playing in a backyard pool suddenly garnered more than 400,000 views after being recommended to those who had watched “videos of prepubescent, partially clothed children,” according to one of the researchers’ examples.

“It’s YouTube’s algorithm that connects these channels,” research co-author Jonas Kaiser, wrote. “That’s the scary thing.”

After being alerted to the issue, the company banned younger minors, who are 13 and younger, from livestreaming without an adult present.

YouTube also removed several videos and appeared to alter its algorithm, according to the New York Times.

A YouTube spokesperson directed the Daily Dot to its blog post addressing the discovery. The post details the company’s new livestreaming policy and other work to “protect minors and families.”

In March, it disabled comments on videos of children after it was learned that pedophiles were sharing time stamps to sections of video that showed nudity.

“The vast majority of videos featuring minors on YouTube, including those referenced in recent news reports, do not violate our policies and are innocently posted—a family creator providing educational tips, or a parent sharing a proud moment,” the company wrote.

The company also reduced recommendations of “borderline content,” including videos featuring minors in risky situations.

The researchers argue that YouTube refuses to disable its recommendation system altogether on videos of children because doing so would hurt its independent creators.

The issue is not the first related to minors for the website.

The discovery of a “softcore pedophile ring” on the platform by a YouTuber in February led Disney to stop purchasing ads on the site.

A spokesperson told the Daily Dot at the time that it hired child safety experts who are dedicated to catching those who wish to harm children. The company also said it terminates thousands of underage accounts each week to help combat the problem.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Anyone who gives their kid a phone that has a camera and an internet connection are naive and stupid.

Back in the day, even a teen having their own landline phone may have been concerning.

 

[Digital Thunder]

I miss how the internet used to be: never post pictures of yourself, don't give out your real name, and don't tell people where you live. In other words, don't dox yourself. And especially don't dox your kids.

Then came social media and "Web 2.0."

It’s astounding how not even, I dunno, ten years ago this was essentially Internet 101, meanwhile within the last week I’ve encountered people linking their full names on Discord. There’s nothing in the world that justifies having that much of yourself online, so it’s beyond reason why people feel this safe in doing that.

 

[Irrelevant]

That's fair, but I do wonder if pornsite ads sometimes sneak some jailbait in.

I've seen this happen. The private goon porn sites from the 2000s were a source of lots of the homegrown amateur porn and inevitably some of them turned out to be 17 and would get banned. However when the pics would leak into the wider web people didn't know the backstory and I've seen them used in those "local fuckbook" type banner ads even quite recently.

To be fair the girl I'm thinking of looked about 25 and there was always doubt about whether she was truly underage or if it was a made up excuse so she could run off without delivering the private content dumb goons paid for.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

Anyone who gives their kid a phone that has a camera and an internet connection are naive and stupid. Kids are clever enough to bypass age restrictions, but too stupid to be cognisant about what they are posting online or who they are posting it to. A lot of them are also clever enough to know that what they are doing is wrong and make damn well sure within their ability that their parents don't find out. It honestly baffles me that kids are allowed to have camera phones, so much content of exploitation would stop being produced once they weren't able to produce it themselves at the beck and call of silver tongued predators.

Agreed. We're responsible for our children and giving them the ability to post videos or pictures of themselves is also retarded. Just tell them no, what are they going to do?

 

[melty]

I'm getting really tired of these "algorithms helping bad thing happen" headlines. It's a computer program. It's doing what is intended, which is linking people to videos based on their interests. These journalists probably don't realize it's the same program helping them write clickbait about YouTube trends or whatever.
Idk, it's like writing "phone books helping burglers find houses" it's totally missing the point. The problem is pedos and the idiots who post their children on YouTube. Not some lines of code that are not sentient.

 

[Sped Xing]

Shit, pornhub has those ads for "cutegfs" and those definitely look too young. Seems like a problem across the board.

I did see an ad on a porn site the other day that made me say "Oh Christ" and x out. They didn't frog boil me enough

 

[Looney Troons]

Can we get rid of PedoJewTube yet?

 

[CaesarCzech]

The only good pedophile is a dead pedophile. They are scum and deserve the worst. How many peoples lives have been ruined because of pedophiles. And now the world is trying to normalise them. I say kill them all

You could say the same things about SJWs, but the thing is while both are objectively harmfull you only feel comfortable expressing this about Pedophiles, Why ? because its socially acceptable, So let me ask you, are you actually disgusted or are just engaging in social action Those "Insert socially unnaceptable group" are bad ?

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

You could say the same things about SJWs, but the thing is while both are objectively harmfull you only feel comfortable expressing this about Pedophiles, Why ? because its socially acceptable, So let me ask you, are you actually disgusted or are just engaging in social action Those "Insert socially unnaceptable group" are bad ?

SJWs are as harmful as Pedophiles? You need a break from the internet, friend. Go outside, breathe the air, meet a girl (an adult one), anything other than stewing over the actions of a bunch of retarded zealots.

 

[Absolutego]

I'm getting really tired of these "algorithms helping bad thing happen" headlines. It's a computer program. It's doing what is intended, which is linking people to videos based on their interests. These journalists probably don't realize it's the same program helping them write clickbait about YouTube trends or whatever.
Idk, it's like writing "phone books helping burglers find houses" it's totally missing the point. The problem is pedos and the idiots who post their children on YouTube. Not some lines of code that are not sentient.

Too many people think coding is wizardry and think computer "AI" programs have any semblance of human intelligence instead of being extremely literal toddlers operating at lightspeed.

You could say the same things about SJWs, but the thing is while both are objectively harmfull you only feel comfortable expressing this about Pedophiles, Why ? because its socially acceptable, So let me ask you, are you actually disgusted or are just engaging in social action Those "Insert socially unnaceptable group" are bad ?

Holy random tangent batman! You seem to have a bit of a fixation.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Can we get rid of PedoJewTube yet?

YouTube is part of Google, so it could go down if Google does.

Any big company can go down though, however unlikely it may seem. Remember Blockbuster Video?

 

[Immortal Technique]

Sure it's creepy, but why post videos of your kids online anyway? And if you don't want strangers looking at your children in a kiddy pool, then why not private that shit?

Narcissist shit parents thinking they're gonna "make it big" with a family-type youtube vlog because they're getting views. All a while facilitating pedos (which they're probably aware of), but they are getting those sweeet sweeet views. They no have problem sacrificing their children for clicks while simultaneously complaining about it.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Narcissist shit parents thinking they're gonna "make it big" with a family-type youtube vlog because they're getting views.

Ah yes, just like that recent case in Arizona where that "mother" pulled her kids out of school for years, forced them to act in YT videos, and abused them when they didn't do what she wanted.

Trying to be "internet famous" has become a cancer.

 

[Zero0]

That's fair, but I do wonder if pornsite ads sometimes sneak some jailbait in.

It's just photoshop.

 

[BoingoTango]

Sure it's creepy, but why post videos of your kids online anyway? And if you don't want strangers looking at your children in a kiddy pool, then why not private that shit?

Because a lot of people don't live on the internet and their first thought is "Oh this is cute. My kid is cute. Other people will think this is cute. AND THEY'LL CLLAAAPPPP"
They don't expect a mainstream site like Youtube or Facebook to be full of pedophiles and shit (which it is, but not everyone pays attention to the internet like us spergs do). Sure their wrong and stupid, but don't treat it like its their fault for innocently doing something, because some limpdicked pedo steps in and does limpdicked pedo shit.

 

[Terminus Est]

You could say the same things about SJWs, but the thing is while both are objectively harmfull you only feel comfortable expressing this about Pedophiles, Why ? because its socially acceptable, So let me ask you, are you actually disgusted or are just engaging in social action Those "Insert socially unnaceptable group" are bad ?

Pedophiles are disgusting monsters that are the cause of life long psychological trauma, suicide and various other things that happens to a person. So fuck you if you think it's "cool" to hate pedophiles right now. Pedophiles have always been and will always be scum that needs to be removed from this earth

 

[Looney Troons]

Ah yes, just like that recent case in Arizona where that "mother" pulled her kids out of school for years, forced them to act in YT videos, and abused them when they didn't do what she wanted.

Trying to be "internet famous" has become a cancer.

I find it funny that there is a ‘gaming disorder’, but parents that have a camera on their children 24/7, constantly uploading their every action to social media are considered of sound mind.

 

[Ruin]

Everyone here is courageous and brave for defying society and going "pedo bad!"

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Everyone here is courageous and brave for defying society and going "pedo bad!"

Oh shit, thanks for the reminder.

I officially also think pedophiles are bad. Also murderers. And rapists. I know this may not be popular, but I think we should try to prevent those people from doing the bad things they want to do. And if they do those bad things, I feel they should be punished.

Close call, someone might have thought I wasn't virtuous.

I have wondered about this idea before. You're OK with this picture of your kids existing in a bathing suit or whatever. You're ok with strangers seeing it even. But if one of those strangers looks at it with sexual intent, suddenly the child is victimized? It just seems weird. I get the reaction, I'd probably react the same way, but the moment you put any picture out there you should assume, no matter what it is, some fucking weirdo is gonna masturbate to it.

 

[moocow]

I'm getting really tired of these "algorithms helping bad thing happen" headlines. It's a computer program. It's doing what is intended, which is linking people to videos based on their interests. These journalists probably don't realize it's the same program helping them write clickbait about YouTube trends or whatever.
Idk, it's like writing "phone books helping burglers find houses" it's totally missing the point. The problem is pedos and the idiots who post their children on YouTube. Not some lines of code that are not sentient.

I agree completely. They shouldn't be complaining about (or adjusting) the algorithms. They should be using their output to identify and ban the pedophiles. It can't be hard to construct (or just duplicate) a profile with the same "browsing habits" and use that to search for other videos such people are likely to view, then snare the people who actually follow up on the algorithm's recommendations. That and it's obviously helpful in identifying videos that are attractive to pedophiles in the first place.