Yikes! Google Kiddie YouTube a Target
April 12, 2018
I thought Google and its kiddie YouTube had figured out how to show age appropriate videos to children. If the information in the story “Child Advocates Ask FTC to Investigate YouTube” is accurate, the GOOG may face some PR challenges. Nothing is quite as volatile as an online advertising site displaying videos which can be perceived as inappropriate. Because the write up is branded “AP” which once meant Associated Press, I am unwilling to quote from the write up. If my understanding of the assertions in the “news” story are accurate, I recall learning:
- “Child advocate groups” — no, I don’t know what outfits these are — want Google to be “investigated.”
- Google apparently profits from showing ads to children. (Who knew?)
- Google has an app but it is not too popular with parents. (I don’t know who does not use the app because the AP story did not tell me as I recall.)
- Google has channels aimed at children. One of these may be named ChuChuTV. (Nifty spelling of “choo”.)
- Advertisers can get access to children but if the child says, “Googzilla, I am not 13” some content is blocked. (If I were a child, I would probably figure out how to get access to the video about unicorn slime pretty quickly.)
Among the entities I recall seeing identified in the article are:
- Georgetown University law clinic
- Jeff Chester, The Center for Digital Democracy
- Josh Golin, Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood
- Senator Edward Markey
- Juliana Gruenwald Henderson, an FTC professional
- Kandi Parsons, once an FTC lawyer
What’s missing? Links, examples of bad videos, data about what percent of kiddie YouTube programming is objectionable, and similar factual data.
I don’t want to be suspicious, but regardless of filtering method, some content may be viewed as offensive because subjective perception is not what smart software does well at this point in time.
In March 2018 I was appointed to a Judicial Commission focused on human trafficking and child sex abuse. My hope is that the documents and data which flow to me do not include assertions without specific entities being identified or with constraints that make me fearful of quoting from these documents in my writings.
After 50 years of professional work, I am not easily surprised. Therefore, I am not surprised that online ad vendors similar to Google would focus on generating revenue. I am not surprised that videos vetted by smart software may make mistakes when “close enough for horseshoes” or “good enough” thresholds may be implemented for decision making. I am not surprised that individuals who spend time watching kiddie videos find content which is inappropriate.
Perhaps follow up stories from the “Associated Press” will beef up the details and facts about Google’s problems with kiddie YouTube. Quotes from folks are what “real” journalists do. Links, facts, and data are different from quotes. Make enough phone calls, and one can probably get a statement that fits the “real” news template.
Net net: I think more specifics would be helpful particularly if the goal is to find Google “guilty” of breaking a law, wrong doing, or some other egregious behavior. For now, however, the matter warrants monitoring. Accusations about topics like trafficking and child sex abuse and related issues are inflammatory. Quotes don’t cut it for me.
Stephen E Arnold, April 12, 2018
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
