YouTube And Demonetization: The Hammer And Nail Of Content Moderation

from the not-so-easy dept

Last week we had a story about a bunch of Pokemon YouTubers discovering their accounts were dropped after YouTube confused their discussion of "CP" (Combat Points), thinking it might actually refer to a different "CP": child porn. The accounts were reinstated after a bit of an outcry.

It appears that this was part of a larger effort by YouTube to deal with a variety of problems on its platform (and, yes, its platform has problems). But some of the resulting stories suggest that YouTube is so focused on "demonetization" as a tool that it's losing sight of alternatives. The Pokemon story appears to have actually been part of a larger effort to respond to claims that child predators were using the comments of certain, perfectly normal videos of kids to, well, do bad stuff. The whole thing is pretty sickening and horrifying and I have no interest in going into the details.

As the controversy over this -- quite reasonably -- gained attention, some pointed out that these videos with exploitative comments were, in many cases, being monetized with big brand name ads appearing next to them. This type of complaint is... not new. People have been complaining about brand names appearing in ads next to "bad" content or "infringing" content for many years. Of course, it's pretty much all matched by algorithm, and part of the problem is that because people are gaming the system, the algorithm (and YouTube) hadn't quite caught on to what was happening. Of course, the outcry from the public -- especially about the monetization -- then resulted in advertisers pulling all their ads from YouTube. And, whether it was the advertisers leaving or the general public outcry (it was almost certainly both, but I'm sure most people will assume it was the advertisers bailing that really made the difference), YouTube went on a big new effort to pull ads from lots of videos.

And in doing so, it created a brand new controversy. Just as this started, a mother named Jessica Ballinger complained on Twitter that YouTube had demonetized videos of her 5 year old son. YouTube responded on Twitter, noting that it was because of the comments on the video, obliquely referencing the stories discussed above.

Of course, this immediately created a new kind of backlash as people (rightfully!) pointed out that disabling monetization of a video based on the comments on that video just seems to empower and encourage trolls. Want to harm a YouTuber you don't like? Just post a sketchy comment on their videos and, boom, you can take away their money.

And, to be clear, this is not a new thing for Google. Just last month we noted that the company has a similarly silly policy with Adsesnse and blogs that have comments. If Adsense decides that some of your user-generated comments are "bad" they might demonetize the page that hosts those comments. As with the stories above, this is mostly to appease advertisers and avoid the sort of (slightly misguided) screaming about "big brand ad appearing next to awful comments." We found that policy to be silly in that situation, but it's even more ridiculous here.

As Dan Bull noted in response to all of this it seems that a much simpler solution compared to demonetizing such videos is to just remove the sketchy, awful, predatory comments.

That doesn't work in the Adsense context, where the comments are out of Google's control, but on YouTube it's their own damn platform. Of course, the reality is probably that YouTube freaked out following the initial reports about the predatory comments, and then did what it could do most quickly -- which was to demonetize any such video that might possibly have such content, before doing a more thorough sweep of the awful comments.

Still, this once again highlights the difficulty, perils, and trade-offs associated with content moderation on a massive platform. Every choice has trade-offs and creates different kinds of problems. And between the speed with which people freak out about stuff and the scale that this is happening, you get situations like this where people (rightly!) freak out about the awful thing some people are doing in the YouTube comments (with the associated freak-out about how the videos are monetized) leading to YouTube to rush to demonetize... leading to a freak-out from others who were demonetized for totally innocent videos, where they had done absolutely nothing wrong. You can see how these choices may get made to deal with that situation, and still end up in a kind of messed up position.

Of course, demonetization is a perfectly reasonable tool for YouTube to use in some cases. Soon after the mess described above, YouTube also demonetized a bunch of quack anti-vaccine videos, which had also resulted in people being reasonably upset about the kind of nonsense that was showing up in their YouTube feeds (and making these anti-science quacks money). But, again, it's likely that there's a cat and mouse game going on here, and filters of questionable quality. It won't surprise me to find out that (1) anti-vaxxer conspiracy nuts figure out ways to get around this monetization block and (2) perfectly innocent videos get de-monetized (while I haven't heard of any yet, it wouldn't surprise me if -- for example -- a legitimate news report about the anti-vaxxer movement might get caught up in the flow).

Again, there's nothing wrong with YouTube or other platforms making these kinds of decisions, but they're not easy decisions and they (1) make mistakes and (2) have unintended consequences that are worth watching carefully as well. Right before YouTube did that demonetization, another story was making the rounds about how Pinterest took an even more extreme position in basically blocking all anti-vax content and searches on its platforms. Especially given the latest stories of measles outbreaks caused entirely by gullible anti-vaxxers, there's a perfectly reasonable argument that Pinterest is doing the right thing here. But... as others like Christina Xu noted, this kind of move is kind of difficult to separate from Chinese internet censorship.

Indeed, it would not surprise me in the slightest to see stories appear in the Chinese media before long pointing to these examples of why it is taking the right approach with the Great Firewall of China and its free speech suppressing censorship. After all, the Chinese have done it in the past with other, similar, stories.

And, thus, once again, there's a key point to make in all of this: anyone who thinks there are "easy" choices here is wrong. There is not. Almost any choice has massive problems and potentially huge consequences -- including the choice of doing nothing at all. And while many people use this to argue that it is a bad look for the internet platforms, it seems a stronger argument is that it's a bad look for humanity. These platforms are reflecting humanity, including some pretty awful humans. And society hasn't been able to stop some humans from being awful, terrible people with awful ideas, and it would be unfair to suggest that internet companies should magically be able to step in and solve that problem with hamfisted tools like "demonetization."

Filed Under: comments, content moderation, demonetization, free speech, youtube, youtube comments
Companies: google, youtube


Reader Comments

The First Word

On the flip side, if left without a moderated option, kids will generally turn to the unmoderated options available to them.

YouTube Kids has a reasonable goal: find the cartoons, songs, educational videos, and video game walkthroughs (if that doesn't count as an educational video!) that your kid wants to find without having to always review the video yourself, or outright forbidding them to access YouTube for its levels of profanity, sexuality, politics, or gore that are not necessarily appropriate for 8-year-olds.

Having grown up with parents who were very strict about the violence content in what I watched as a kid, I can attest to the vast amount of effort they had to spend curating TV. Not everyone has a stay-at-home parent who can devote close to 10 hours a week making sure they're giving their children cartoons closer to Cyberchase than to South Park and that their educational TV isn't over-dramatizing the horrors of World War II.

It's better for the parent to have some of that curating already provided for them. They have a list of videos that are likely to be unoffensive, and they can trust that they'll be similar in content to ones they've already reviewed. And when the kids get old enough to browse the net with less supervision, they can browse the videos themselves, with the parent secure in the knowledge they're extremely unlikely to come across the curse-laden rants, graphic gore, or softcore porn that are completely fine for adults browsing YouTube to make decisions about.

I can see the argument being made now: "it's not good to let parents shield their children! they'll only let their kids watch things that reinforce creationism/fit their racist views/are too overprotective!"

I'm not talking about that level of powerful curation here. I'm talking about the same difference that already exists between G-rated and R-rated movies. I'm talking "which of these videos talks about the history of the Mongols without showing men having their arms ripped off", and "which of these gameplay videos is filled with helpful tips without being filled with the wonderful vulgarities of Ireland?"

And if someone wants to make the argument to "just forbid Youtube altogether, it's not good for them!" then firstly, I feel sorry for your lack of knowledge about the quantity and quality of free educational material and children's programming available on YouTube vs. the quantity and quality of free educational material and children's programming available anywhere else. I've seen it as a teen and as an adult. YouTube and sites that rely YouTube presentations (Khan Academy, for one particular example) blow away the competition.

Secondly, just as with content producers finding that piracy increases when they make it harder to buy or watch their content, the chances the kids will search out ways to watch stuff on youtube and be exposed to the inappropriate content increases when access is blocked altogether, rather than allowing them to watch the more decent stuff they're probably more interested in watching anyway.

Right now, YouTube is mainly PG-13-only. If they can make a proper Kids site, it'd be helpful to parents who want to make sure their kids are watching age-appropriate content, but have more important things to do for their kids' wellbeing than to spend their evenings judging Baby Shark, the Doodlebops, public domain documentaries, and Pewdiepie wannabes.

—Qwertygiy

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    hij (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 8:14am

    They also decrease incentives to police people's own content

    Google keeps decreasing the amount of money people earn as well as raising the bar for people to be able to earn money. In doing so they decrease the incentives for people to keep their own content Disney clean on the odd chance that some big advertiser will use their channel. The relationship between content creators and the provider is no longer a partnership. It is looking more and more like the way the big music labels treat their labour.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:11am

      Re: They also decrease incentives to police people's own content

      It always has been. Multi-Channel Networks (MCNs) like Machinima and Defy Media used to be critical to get monetezation at all. But because of that, it built up the MCNs as powerful middlemen.

      When Youtube was shamed into sharing monetization, Copyright became the new big concern for content creators. Given the horrible communication between YouTube and creators, these MCN middlemen YouTube encouraged were often the only means of being big enough to be heard. MCNs became an important thing for a large YouTube relying on ads to have, because MCNs had the tools and resources to really challenge attempts to wholesale reupload content.

      YouTube is a distributor that only cares about you if you pay several legacy middlemen to access it. They have been known recently to try to ban creators who advertise that they monetize outside youtube if they also don't qualify to monetize on youtube.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:27am

        Re: Re: They also decrease incentives to police people's own con

        I've never had an issue with YouTube, nor was I "plugged in" to any MCN or anything else, and that didn't stop me from making a decent amount of money on videos that weren't that difficult at all to make.

        UGC is the problem, particularly the (U)sers, who cannot be counted on to behave properly, and whose behavior results in these outcomes. Kind of like how pirates caused Article 13.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 12:07pm

      Re: They also decrease incentives to police people's own content

      This is because more and more people are trying to cash in a little too late. Google is just a neutral marketplace that gets as much money as it can from advertisers, and pays 68 percent of that to the creators. Quite a good deal since the videos are also free ads and the need to host them on one's own site is eliminated. Same for Patreon actually.

      Uploaders can moderate their own comment sections so this shouldn't even be an issue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 8:23am

    'We're not saying you have to be the bad guy, but...'

    As Jim Sterling noted in one of his recent videos it seems YT is trying to shift the blame/responsibility because they're too spineless to take a stand here.

    If the problem is the comments, then YT could remove the comments or even disable them entirely if it so chose to, however since that would leave them as 'the bad guys' that are shutting down the ability to comment they instead dumped it all on the channel owner, such that they either risk their videos being demonitized by allowing comments, or play it safe and block them.

    If the problem is repulsive comments, then great, remove those comments, by punishing the channel for the comments they not only create a perfect way for slimy people to screw over channels they don't like/feel like harming by leaving repulsive comments and watching said channel scramble, but also put the channel owners in the position where they have to be the bad guys unless they want to risk what could be their main, if not only, source of income due to an action by a third party that they had no control over.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bruce C., 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:48am

      Re: 'We're not saying you have to be the bad guy, but...'

      Not only would it make Youtube the "bad guys" but viewers love their ability to comment on videos. I suspect removing comments entirely would reduce views/ads overall as people lost interest.

      Wanna know what would really help? If YouTube had some viable competition. Twitch had to respond to competition from Mixer and Youtube streaming in positive ways. A competitor to YouTube could

      The trouble is that word "viable". At this point, it would take a pretty hefty capital investment and the gonads to take on Alphabet in all its $700B-plus glory to get to that point.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:18am

        Re: Re: 'We're not saying you have to be the bad guy, but...'

        I always thought GoPro buying Vimeo might create that type of competition.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:13am

      Re: 'We're not saying you have to be the bad guy, but...'

      Not spineless. I'd say "aware".

      By setting a precedent of YT taking blame/responsibility, they assume liability, opening themselves up to lawsuits.

      The US is a ridiculously litigious society. And lawyers head for the biggest pockets they can find.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:28am

        Re: Re: 'We're not saying you have to be the bad guy, but...'

        By setting a precedent of YT taking blame/responsibility, they assume liability, opening themselves up to lawsuits.

        I mean responsibility for axing the comment section, something that, if they were sued over, would get laughed out of court by any judge who hasn't recently taken all the blows to the head.

        They're asserting that the comments are the problem, and holding the channels responsible for it(even when the owner of said channel actively moderates it), such that the only real safe response is to axe the ability to comment, something that YT could do themselves if it's really such a problem, but that they're offloading to the channels so that the channels, not YT, are blamed for blocking comments.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 4:25pm

        Re: Re: 'We're not saying you have to be the bad guy, but...'

        If YouTube wasn't already in the habit of deleting user comments that it believes violates its terms of service, you might have an argument. But... they already are doing this.

        There's no reason they would be gaining any more liability for deleting a comment believed to be linked to child trafficking than for deleting a comment merely believed to be harassing someone.

        In fact, the lovely SESTA gives them even more reason to want to delete these sort of comments rather than let them stay online...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:30am

    YT is going to be much to busy with the latest panic of suicide instructions spliced into kid videos...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:45am

      Re:

      Which has an altogether simpler solution: either get rid of YouTube Kids, or restrict it to videos from vetted and trusted sources. Yes, that's going to mean a lot less content...but that's kind of the point of YouTube Kids. Taking the same scattershot, algorithmic/reactive approach to moderating content on YouTube Kids as they do on YouTube proper results in YouTube Kids having exactly the same problems as YouTube proper.

      Obviously there's no way to vet every video that's uploaded to YouTube. But at least vetting every source that's allowed to post to YouTube Kids is an attainable goal; it would greatly restrict the content available there, but that's the entire point; it's supposed to be a restricted subsection of YouTube content.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:08am

        Re: Re:

        Agreed. A million upvotes to you, sir.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:25am

        Re: Re:

        Here's a better idea: actually pay people to curate the content instead of whining about how much content is available to view.

        Google seems to be in a position of wanting its cake and eating it too, and that's just not going to happen when the company's earning relies on advertising dollars.

        This will always be the priority.

        I'm calling it now: within 2 years, YouTube will remove the comment section completely.

        *puts up a box of donuts.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Tin-Foil-Hat, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re:

        There's also this thing called a parent. The results of research show that screen time is negatively correlated to many cognitive performance milestones. Getting rid of YouTube kids would be a good thing and failing that parents need to supervise what their kids are doing. The parents that want to use TV and computers as babysitters are the ones that bitch the most when the babysitter does a lousy job.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The same parents who wanted to sue McDonalds for making their kids fat?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Thad (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:39am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The results of research show that screen time is negatively correlated to many cognitive performance milestones.

          Research shows the same thing about overparenting.

          There's a happy medium between paying no attention whatsoever to what your children are watching and looking over their shoulder at all times.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Qwertygiy, 26 Feb 2019 @ 5:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          On the flip side, if left without a moderated option, kids will generally turn to the unmoderated options available to them.

          YouTube Kids has a reasonable goal: find the cartoons, songs, educational videos, and video game walkthroughs (if that doesn't count as an educational video!) that your kid wants to find without having to always review the video yourself, or outright forbidding them to access YouTube for its levels of profanity, sexuality, politics, or gore that are not necessarily appropriate for 8-year-olds.

          Having grown up with parents who were very strict about the violence content in what I watched as a kid, I can attest to the vast amount of effort they had to spend curating TV. Not everyone has a stay-at-home parent who can devote close to 10 hours a week making sure they're giving their children cartoons closer to Cyberchase than to South Park and that their educational TV isn't over-dramatizing the horrors of World War II.

          It's better for the parent to have some of that curating already provided for them. They have a list of videos that are likely to be unoffensive, and they can trust that they'll be similar in content to ones they've already reviewed. And when the kids get old enough to browse the net with less supervision, they can browse the videos themselves, with the parent secure in the knowledge they're extremely unlikely to come across the curse-laden rants, graphic gore, or softcore porn that are completely fine for adults browsing YouTube to make decisions about.

          I can see the argument being made now: "it's not good to let parents shield their children! they'll only let their kids watch things that reinforce creationism/fit their racist views/are too overprotective!"

          I'm not talking about that level of powerful curation here. I'm talking about the same difference that already exists between G-rated and R-rated movies. I'm talking "which of these videos talks about the history of the Mongols without showing men having their arms ripped off", and "which of these gameplay videos is filled with helpful tips without being filled with the wonderful vulgarities of Ireland?"

          And if someone wants to make the argument to "just forbid Youtube altogether, it's not good for them!" then firstly, I feel sorry for your lack of knowledge about the quantity and quality of free educational material and children's programming available on YouTube vs. the quantity and quality of free educational material and children's programming available anywhere else. I've seen it as a teen and as an adult. YouTube and sites that rely YouTube presentations (Khan Academy, for one particular example) blow away the competition.

          Secondly, just as with content producers finding that piracy increases when they make it harder to buy or watch their content, the chances the kids will search out ways to watch stuff on youtube and be exposed to the inappropriate content increases when access is blocked altogether, rather than allowing them to watch the more decent stuff they're probably more interested in watching anyway.

          Right now, YouTube is mainly PG-13-only. If they can make a proper Kids site, it'd be helpful to parents who want to make sure their kids are watching age-appropriate content, but have more important things to do for their kids' wellbeing than to spend their evenings judging Baby Shark, the Doodlebops, public domain documentaries, and Pewdiepie wannabes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re:

        Only because it makes complete sense is the main reason I expect them to not to do it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    dfed (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:41am

    I think a better way to think about this is not that Youtube wants to improve itself and grow the platform, but that Youtube has cornered the performance art of punching oneself in the crotch using the heads of their content creators.

    Be sure to like, subscribe and ring the bell so you can see them punch themselves in the crotch next time!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:44am

    Because moderating the comments is hard.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Killercool (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:21am

      But some channels ARE moderating- and still getting hit.

      The mother referenced in the article got this tweet from YouTube when she was demonetized and complained:

      Just to be super clear, we're not saying anything is wrong with the actual video and thank you for doing a great job moderating the comments section. These recent actions are due to an abundance of caution related to content that may endanger minors.

      Moderation is hard, yes, but YouTube's new policy also makes it pointless.

      Why put in more work for no reason?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:58am

    How about YT allowing advertisers to blacklist videos or channels? Also, it should be possible to allow people to turn off comments from YouTube being shown in their browser.

    However the bigger problem is those people who want something they do not like destroyed, and who will not use any filter capabilities that would protect them from seeing such things. They have the authoritarian/censor mentality: "I do not like it so nobody should be able to see it".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:05am

    Yes, because it's a good idea for 5 year olds to have comments enabled on their YouTube channel...

    What in the living f**k...

    Both the parents AND YouTube have completely dropped the ball and lost the plot here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:08am

    The makers of the videos could have disabled comments themselves if monetization were all they cared about. Telling an advertiser you can't control where the ads wind up is a good way to lose that advertiser.

    The real problem is trying to have bots do jobs best left to humans, in an attempt to cut costs. That business model doesn't seem to be working.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Robert Schwartz, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:11am

    So the woman was monetizing her 5-year old kid because ....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:21am

    I can't have any sympathy for anyone who's complaining of losing ad revenue from YouTube.

    Those complaining are in the top 10%, the high earners, where ad blocking can literally means thousands of dollars.

    For everyone else, we're talking pennies, maybe dollars, lost.

    A business wholly run by advertising is not a business. Ad revenue should be just that: revenue.

    That One Guy brought up Jim Stirling, the master at using the Content ID system against companies fighting for "infringement" dollars, but this is also a creator who does not monetize his YouTube content.

    If more would stop focusing on the ad revenue and start, you know, actually running a business, none of this would be an issue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:52am

      Re:

      How do you suppose the legacy radio and television industries operate? Where do you think the income for vast swaths of the internet comes from? Without advertising, providing services would be a net loss for a great many would-be companies. Without advertising the internet would become a desert wasteland where only companies already at least somewhat successful without the net would offer their services on the net. Everyone else would die off.

      Think before you speak.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:32am

    Addendum: Just read news PewDiePie supports YT's decision.

    I'll grab the popcorn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Doc Piper, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:32am

    I noticed today that many of the kid videos have had their comments disabled by their creators. Comments on videos need to go away anyway. They have been and always will be a cesspool of trolls, marketeers and idiots.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 10:38am

      Re:

      What about all those channels where the comments section is useful, with fewer trolls than camp out on this site?

      The problem with one size fits all solutions to problems is that they end up doing vast amounts of damage to innocent parties.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:50am

        Re: Re:

        Maybe you missed this part so I'll repeat it:

        disabled by their creators

        This isn't one-size-fits-all. It's an option each creator can choose to apply to each video they post. The control is already in their hands. They just don't want to disable comments because comments are "viewer engagement" and more viewers = more money.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 4:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          And you went on to say:

          Comments on videos need to go away anyway.

          Which is what my comment addressed.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 7:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The control is already in their hands. They just don't want to disable comments because comments are "viewer engagement" and more viewers = more money."

          So, exactly like the newspapers and other such whining about Google - they can do everything they claim they want to happen with the tools they already have, but since they know that will lose them money and whine that Google has to "do something" rather than take responsibility.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:21am

      'Be careful what you wish for.

      They have been and always will be a cesspool of trolls, marketeers and idiots.

      Including yours? If you think comments should be removed because they might be infested with trolls and idiots, that also means that if you should happen to want to say something, well, you're out of luck, you just demolished the very platform you would have commented on.

      I don't think anyone who's waded into a YT comment section is going to argue against the idea that it can be the Mos Eisley of places at times, but the problem with axing it entirely is that it's very much a case of tossing the baby out with the bathwater; sure you got rid of the bad, but you also got rid of any potential good along with it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    seedeevee (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:17am

    What About Those

    "these anti-science quacks"

    Is it possible to be "Anti-science" and not be a quack.

    Asking for a friend.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:44am

      Re: What About Those

      Is it possible to be "Anti-science" and not be a quack.

      Quite. You can only be a "Quack" if you are pretending to give medical advice. You can be anti-science and be a Fundie, or a Trumpetor, or belong to other groups that don't like to hear about evolution, a round earth, global warming, etc.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:45am

      Re: What About Those

      No, but you need a noun for the adjective to modify. "Anti-science quacks" is redundant; so are "anti-science nuts", "anti-science whackjobs", "anti-science zealots", etc. But what other noun would you put there? "Anti-science individuals" and "anti-science people" are a little less redundant, maybe, but they lack panache.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 12:25pm

      Re: What About Those

      What created God?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2019 @ 6:27am

        Re: Re: What About Those

        Well let's start with this: "God" typically refers to the Judeo-Christian God.

        Religion itself is ever-evolving in nature.

        Given that context... Personally, I'd say the idea of a supreme deity (which is also found in much older religions) combined with the many persecutions (both for and against the religions that use this god) and time.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:39am

    What ever will these parents do now that they can't use their children as monetized youtube props? Why even have children at that point? How will they afford to continue replacing their SUVs with the latest models every year?

    More importantly, how will poor little Google get by if they can't suck up ad revenue from pedophiles?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 12:24pm

    What's really funny is that colleges have online classes and discussions where no one ever insults anyone, due to threat of academic sanction/expulsion. It suggests a strong deterrent would work wonders.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 1:11pm

      Re:

      An online college class run by a private entity for a low number of people who paid a significant sum of money to take the class and be allowed access to said discussions is entirely different from an open platform that is freely accessible to literally billions of people, where anyone can sign up, upload content, and participate in any discussion they want and say almost anything they want, all for free.

      I would say your analogy is comparing apples to oranges, but even that is too similar. The difference here is more like comparing a submarine to a picnic at the beach.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 7:45pm

      Re:

      It suggests a strong deterrent would work wonders.

      In what way does that suggest that? Are online classes open to spammers? Do people sign up for online courses so they can tell everyone about their low-cost mortgage and prescriptions?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 12:26pm

    A hay stack of needles...

    and looking for a needle in a hay stack..

    There isnt allot to do about much of this.. Think about someone going DEEP into YT, and posting a msg on an OLD video, posted 10+ years ago.. Can you see, scanning the trillions of comments from the past, every few days to see if some idiot is using them to send msg's to others??

    Waiting for a NOTE on the entrance to the sites... WE are not liable for what other say/do in this area...Please be aware that Humans are strange/stupid/weird/complex/Devious/and allot of other things you may not like.. You religion/ideal/concepts/faith/anything else, has nothing to do with this, except you get to see how Complex the world really is.. so, dont complain to us if your feeling are hurt, your sensibilities are shamed, you conscious is peaked, or anything else, WE will remove the things that are BEYOND stupid and to weird to be understood. The world is filled with allot of people with defferent ideals then you... If we tried to protect everyone from everything they THought was bad/evil/stupid/... you would not have a channel to even talk on...

    So be aware, we are trying to keep up with 5 billion people all trying to express and comment on everything..

    thank you for your patience..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 1:17pm

    And while many people use this to argue that it is a bad look for the internet platforms, it seems a stronger argument is that it's a bad look for humanity. These platforms are reflecting humanity, including some pretty awful humans. And society hasn't been able to stop some humans from being awful, terrible people with awful ideas, and it would be unfair to suggest that internet companies should magically be able to step in and solve that problem with hamfisted tools like "demonetization."

    Seems to me that the problem with these platforms isn't with the fact that they're reflecting humanity, but with the fact that they're providing a distorted reflection of humanity; while social media is great at bringing like-minded people together, it also tends to funnel ALL people down the same rabbit holes over time. When those rabbit holes are filled with the worst of what humanity has to offer, that's not good for everyone.

    But neither is it good for everyone to be isolated into cliques or fed media based solely on their personal preferences.

    So yeah; this is not a solveable problem. But it's an issue that can be mitigated in many different ways, and the lens the companies hosting the services use to set up that mitigation will have a large impact on shaping social discourse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 4:17pm

      Re:

      but with the fact that they're providing a distorted reflection of humanity; while social media is great at bringing like-minded people together, it also tends to funnel ALL people down the same rabbit holes over time.

      No it doesn't, its just that all of the noise about social media is made by those who seek out the offensive so that they can attack that with which they disagree.

      The Big social media sites are a world size town, full of differing districts pubs and clubs where various groups of people meet. Some are genteel and refined, and some are hangouts of ruffians, and many are somewhere in between. If you do not like a particular group, move on and find one that you like.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Thad (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 7:27am

        Re: Re:

        If you do not like a particular group, move on and find one that you like.

        And what happens when the ruffians follow you home?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 8:17am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Individuals and groups on the big social media sites have the ability to allow or block named individuals from posting on their pages or in their comments. Not perfect, but there is control their if only people would learn to use it, like some groups have.

          Also, if you want a more moderated experience, there are some moderated Mastadon, Diaspora, PeerTube and other distributed systems out there, and you can also spin up your own instances to control your own experience.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Thad (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 8:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Individuals and groups on the big social media sites have the ability to allow or block named individuals from posting on their pages or in their comments. Not perfect, but there is control their if only people would learn to use it, like some groups have.

            Not much use against a targeted attack.

            Also, if you want a more moderated experience, there are some moderated Mastadon, Diaspora, PeerTube and other distributed systems out there, and you can also spin up your own instances to control your own experience.

            I'm a big advocate for abandoning the big platforms and going back to the good old days of the distributed open web. But "if you don't like it, just don't use Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/etc." is a pretty reductive solution to a serious problem.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 9:52am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              But "if you don't like it, just don't use Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/etc." is a pretty reductive solution to a serious problem.

              If you do not like the pub, cafe or club, go elsewhere is a standard solution, rather then demanding that the pub.cafe or club change. Besides which, many people manage to make use of those sites without any problems by being selective about who they associate with. To use a real world analogy, some parts of town are to be avoided, but that does not mean that the whole town, or even the majority of the town is bad.

              Expecting open sites to moderate to your standards is a high risk proposition, as that increases the demand that they are also moderated to other people standards. Going down that road will destroy those sites usefulness.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Thad (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 10:20am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                If you do not like the pub, cafe or club, go elsewhere is a standard solution, rather then demanding that the pub.cafe or club change.

                If somebody at a club threatens physical violence against you and management shrugs and says "if you don't want people threatening your safety, then go somewhere else," do you think that's an adequate response?

                Besides which, many people manage to make use of those sites without any problems by being selective about who they associate with.

                Victim-blaming.

                To use a real world analogy, some parts of town are to be avoided, but that does not mean that the whole town, or even the majority of the town is bad.

                Strawman.

                Expecting open sites to moderate to your standards is a high risk proposition, as that increases the demand that they are also moderated to other people standards. Going down that road will destroy those sites usefulness.

                Having a site develop a reputation for unchecked harassment and griefing ain't so great for its usefulness, either.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 10:45am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  How much of that reputation is due to the natural bias of new reporting, here bad things make the front pages, often with the bad emphasised, while the good things are rarely if ever reported..

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Christenson, 26 Feb 2019 @ 1:27pm

    Moving the problem out to the edges

    As has been noted on Techdirt a gazillion times before, moderating at scale with a small human team is between difficult and impossible in the presence of trolls.

    So the real issue is how to crowdsource the job...yes, harvesting more free labor!

    But, for Youtube, why not let a video's "owner" moderate their own comments, with some rules about what happens when the owner does nothing??? Now, when a video starts getting "bad" comments, the owner can take action. If a particular owner is always promoting bad comments, or a particular user is always getting moderated, much more reasonable actions become possible.

    This still leaves the more difficult case of "Techdirt decries the favorite example of a horrible video", but it seems to make some progress on the problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 4:53pm

      Re: Moving the problem out to the edges

      But, for Youtube, why not let a video's "owner" moderate their own comments,

      Easy enough for a small channel, but almost impossible for a large channel. A common complaint as a channel grows is that their are many more comments than the channel owner has free time to look at. They often end up scanning the top level comments, and looking into threads that are of particular interest or relevance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 5:33pm

      About that...

      But, for Youtube, why not let a video's "owner" moderate their own comments, with some rules about what happens when the owner does nothing??? Now, when a video starts getting "bad" comments, the owner can take action. If a particular owner is always promoting bad comments, or a particular user is always getting moderated, much more reasonable actions become possible.

      Yeah, nice idea, however as Killercool pointed out the person in the article did exactly that. The YT people that contacted her admitted this. And she was still penalized for 'allowing' bad comments to slip through.

      They've essentially put channel owners in a lose/lose situation, where moderation doesn't matter because if anything slips through they'll still get hammered(which, given they stand to face the same thing should Article 13 pass you'd think they'd be a bit more sympathetic to...), such that the only safe option is to disable comments entirely, a choice YT is too cowardly to do itself.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 1:58pm

    Vaccine injury court

    According to the U. S. Gov. the Vaccine Court, which operates without a jury, has paid out over 4 billion dollars to those injured from vaccines.

    https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html

    Vaccine Injury Compensation Data

    Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $4.0 billion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bobo, 26 Feb 2019 @ 2:38pm

      Re: Vaccine injury court

      "The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. In the majority of cases, vaccines cause no side effects, however they can occur, as with any medication—but most are mild. Very rarely, people experience more serious side effects, like allergic reactions."

      "Being awarded compensation for a petition does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the alleged injury..."

      "According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2017 over 3.4 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 6,094 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those 4,172 were compensated. This means for every one million doses of vaccine that were distributed, one individual was compensated."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 2:14pm

    Side effects of vaccines not required to be given

    Health professional are not required to inform parents of the side effects of vaccines BEFORE they are administered. Nor afterwards.

    Here is an example from VA.

    § 32.1-46. Immunization of patients against certain diseases.

    B. A physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, pharmacist, or local health department administering a vaccine required by this section shall provide to the person who presents the child for immunizations a certificate that shall state the diseases for which the child has been immunized, the numbers of doses given, the dates when administered and any further immunizations indicated.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 5:29pm

    What bothers me about all of this that advertisers will only mass-pull their ads from YouTube and only YouTube. It happened with the first "Adpocalypse" and it's happening now. On Facebook and Twitter, ads and promoted tweets get served up against some of the most vile content imaginable, and yet you never hear about companies taking a stand against them and pulling all ads from there. It rings of hypocrisy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 11:13am

    Pro-vax on youtube, anti-vax comments

    Here we have a pro-vax video on youtube with anti-vax comments in Today's news:

    Anti-vaxxers causing measles outbreak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdlqA_Jg0w

    For example: "Immunization cause autism and auto immune disease"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 11:26am

      Re: Pro-vax on youtube, anti-vax comments

      I won't click on that for obvious reasons, but does it consist of blatant bullshit based on a debunked study by a single quack on one side and factual evidence on the other? Or, is it the more subtle "the government admits vaccines aren't 100% effective" angle rebutted by reasons why that's still far less dangerous than the original diseases?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 11:32am

        Re: Re: Pro-vax on youtube, anti-vax comments

        Are you afraid to click on a pro-vax youtube video that just appeared in the google news feed today?

        Titled: Anti-vaxxers causing measles outbreak

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 11:45am

    Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what to do?

    There is no due process for the vaccine-injured. The manufacturers are immune from liability. When there was due process, the injured won awards.

    If youtube wants to take down content harmful to health, then they will have to take down the supreme court case that upheld vaccine court in the first place, where the judge indicated that all vaccines cause harm.

    The Supreme Court has ruled vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

    See - Dept of Justice:

    4-5.423 - Action Following Receipt of a Vaccine Case

    Any vaccine injury compensation case received in the office of a United States Attorney should be forwarded immediately to the Vaccine Litigation Section of the Constitutional and Specialized Tort Branch for handling. If such a proceeding has been filed in the

    United States District Court or a state court for resolution,

    rather than the proper forum of the United States Court of Federal Claims, similar action should be taken to notify the Vaccine Litigation Section so appropriate steps may be taken in cooperation with the United States Attorney to either dismiss the case, or remove it to the Court of Federal Claims.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TFG, 27 Feb 2019 @ 12:52pm

      Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what to do?

      Quoted from the article you linked:

      "No evidence has been found to support a link between autism spectrum disorders and vaccines,[2] and the scientific consensus is that routine childhood vaccines have no link to the development of autism. Despite this, some parents of children with autism spectrum disorders have attributed the disorders' onset to vaccines, and more than 5,300 parents have filed petitions at the vaccine court. The vaccine court dismissed the suits and ruled that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.[3]"

      Any additional links that don't agree with your stated position you'd like to provide?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 1:24pm

        Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what to

        A panel of a couple of dozen commissioners in the U.S. Government all VOTED to exclude autism from the Vaccine Injury Table.

        https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/NVAC%20Feb%202018%20Summary%20v3_NVPO%20Edits.DT%20RE V_Final_Remediated.pdf

        National Vaccine Advisory Committee

        Additional petitions requested the addition of autism, asthma, and tics.

        Another involved three different conditions: pediatric autoimmune and neuropsychiatric syndrome, pediatric infection-triggered autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder, and pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder associated with group A streptococcus.

        The sixth petition related to experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis and/or acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis. Medical officers provided the Commission with scientific and medical literature.

        Following discussions, commissioners all voted to exclude these conditions from the Vaccine Injury Table.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          TFG, 27 Feb 2019 @ 1:35pm

          Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what

          A panel of a couple of dozen commissioners in the U.S. Government all VOTED to exclude autism from the Vaccine Injury Table.

          Sounds like they were doing their jobs correctly, then.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 2:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts -

            Yep, because there is literally nothing linking autism to vaccines. The one study that did, was found to have manipulated data and the guy lost his medical license over it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 1:19pm

      Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what to do?

      There is no due process for the vaccine-injured

      And why should there be? Every vaccine comes with a disclaimer about potential side effects. Everyone should be well aware of the small potential side effects. If they are choosing not to read the disclaimers before choosing to be given the vaccine, then that's their own damn fault. And if they read them and got the vaccine anyway, then they voluntarily agreed to accept the risk.

      The amount of people who are harmed by vaccines is an incredibly tiny fraction of a percentage of the population, especially when compared to overwhelming majority of people who benefit and are protected from horrible diseases much worse than any potential side effects.

      The manufacturers are immune from liability. When there was due process, the injured won awards.

      Facts and citations please or this is completely false. The injured "win awards" all the time. That's why companies are so freaked out about liability.

      The Supreme Court has ruled vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe."

      The SC ruled no such thing. Stop spreading lies.

      Take your BS elsewhere.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 2:06pm

        Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what to

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZD.html

        RUSSELL BRUESEWITZ, et al ., PETITIONERS v.<linebreak> WYETH LLC, fka WYETH, INC., fka WYETH
        LABORATORIES, et al.

        The issue of "unavoidably unsafe" is discussed in both Scalia's Opinion and Sotomayer's Dissent.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 2:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what

          The issue of "unavoidably unsafe" is discussed in both Scalia's Opinion and Sotomayer's Dissent.

          Nowhere in either the opinion or dissent do either of them declare all vaccines to be "unavoidably unsafe".

          Get your facts straight and cut the BS.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 2:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts -

            On further reading, it's quite clear that vaccine manufacturers are not immune to any and all liability. They are absolutely responsible and liable for injuries or deaths that occur due to:

            design defects, manufacturing defects, and labeling defects ( e.g. , failure to warn)

            However, they are excepted from liability if there was absolutely no way to manufacture the vaccine in such a way that the risk of side effects is not guaranteed. In other words, if you can't separate the side effects from the vaccine at all, you're not liable because the disease it cures is FAR worse than the side effects.

            From the same ruling you linked:

            No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 2:12pm

        Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what to

        Substantial Awards

        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168

        In the United States, several parents sued the manufacturers of DPT vaccines. Even though most public health officials believed that the claims of side effects were unfounded, some families

        won substantial awards

        from sympathetic juries who were convinced otherwise. As a result, most companies making the DPT vaccine ceased production, and the remaining major manufacturer threatened to do so.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 2:23pm

          Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what

          Didn't you just get done saying that the injured don't get any awards? This looks like not only did they get compensation money, they got a substantial amount.

          You might want to try being consistent and posting things that SUPPORT your argument, not DISPROVE it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 2:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts -

            The awards came with jury trials before they started the no-fault vaccine court.
            Vaccine court does not have jury trials.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 2:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular court

              The answer for this is in your previous comment:

              Even though most public health officials believed that the claims of side effects were unfounded, some families won substantial awards from sympathetic juries who were convinced otherwise.

              And from your previous link:

              No evidence has been found to support a link between autism spectrum disorders and vaccines,[2] and the scientific consensus is that routine childhood vaccines have no link to the development of autism.

              So, the logical conclusion here is that the law was passed because a bunch of people who refuse to accept facts and reality were routinely suing companies for things that weren't their fault. Thus, instead of waste the courts' time with a bunch of nonsense suits, they created a special court to investigate these claims based on actual facts and reality.

              I see no problem with this.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 3:56pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular c

                This article from the National Center for Biotechnology Information.
                ...
                The article is evidently from the book shown here, listed in Worldcat.:
                Vaccine supply and innovation
                Author: June E Osborn; Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.
                Publisher: Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press, 1985.
                ...
                Notice that the book was published in 1985, the year before the Vaccine no-fault, no-jury Court was started. It gives details on the vaccine lawsuits and the legal status of the issue before the present era, when the lawsuits were decided by a jury of their peers.

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216813/

                Liability for the Production and Sale of Vaccines
                .
                Cases holding manufacturers or others liable for allegedly defective vaccines
                ...

                Summary of the Legal Situation
                ...
                Under well-established legal principles, a vaccine manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by a properly manufactured and labeled vaccine. In recent years, however, a few courts have acted contrary to these principles
                ...
                In general, these vaccine injury claims have been decided on the basis of the doctrine of the duty to warn. This doctrine provides that, prior to the use of an unavoidably unsafe product, the user must be warned of the risks associated with it. In the case of medicines administered by health professionals, the courts generally have placed this responsibility on the health care provider. For vaccines, however, some courts have ruled that the duty to warn resides with the manufacturer, even though the manufacturer is not involved in administration.
                ...
                In two very recent cases (presently on appeal), the plaintiffs prevailed by advancing theories of liability that went beyond the adequacy of the warning and asked juries to rule on the issues of social benefit and harm, and the underlying scientific factors that contribute to decisions to use a particular vaccine
                ...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 10:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regul

                  You need to read your quotes sometimes. They really don't prove what you think they do.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2019 @ 6:31am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regul

                  Umm, you obviously didn't read what you quoted, because it actually disproves your point.

                  For example:

                  Cases holding manufacturers or others liable for allegedly defective vaccines

                  A defective vaccine is different from a properly manufactured vaccine.

                  So....yeah. This just proves me right. Not you. You might want to beef up your reading comprehension skills.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2019 @ 3:10pm

        Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what to

        "Every vaccine comes with a disclaimer about potential side effects."
        True, but the parents do not receive the package inserts from the health professionals who administers the vaccine. In my experience, pharmacists refuse to give out the package insert, or only give out part of it.
        .

        "Everyone should be well aware of the small potential side effects."
        True, but this is not happening. Where are the links on the internet?
        .

        "If they are choosing not to read the disclaimers before choosing to be given the vaccine, then that's their own damn fault."
        Giving the vaccine is not a choice, unless parents just don't take their kids to the doctor. It is legally mandated with exemptions which vary by state.
        There is not legal requirement for doctors to provide parents with the side effects and the package insert. How can a parent choose to read the disclaimer if they don't have a copy to read?

        And if they read them and got the vaccine anyway, then they voluntarily agreed to accept the risk."
        There is a risk that children will be taken into foster care and the parents charged with child neglect if they don't have their children vaccinated. Children under the age of 14 are incapable of contributory negligence, so a minor child cannot agree on their own initiative to accept a risk of vaccine injury.
        .

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 10:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what

          "There is a risk that children will be taken into foster care and the parents charged with child neglect if they don't have their children vaccinated."

          Because there's a far greater risk that they and other children will be needlessly exposed to diseases that can deform, cripple or even kill them if they don't. Unfortunately, some people were lied to by a celebrity so we have to force medical decisions on those who would rather have smallpox return.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2019 @ 6:28am

          Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what

          True, but the parents do not receive the package inserts from the health professionals who administers the vaccine.

          This is false. I'm a parent, every time we take my kid in to get a vaccine, the nurse gives us a sheaf of papers prior to administering the injection that tell us all about what's in the vaccine, what it does, and all the potential side effects and what the statistical probabilities of those happening are.

          In my experience, pharmacists refuse to give out the package insert, or only give out part of it.

          Actively refuse? Then you should report them to the authorities because that is against the law. They are legally required to provide you with that information, whether you ask for it or not.

          True, but this is not happening.

          Yes it is. If they are not then they are deliberately NOT reading the disclaimers provided to them when receiving the vaccine and deliberately avoiding all information related to vaccines. Because you can't just passively go through life and not be told about the potential side effects of a vaccine before you receive one.

          Where are the links on the internet?

          Literally everywhere. Try the CDC for one, Wikipedia for another. A google search for "vaccine potential side effects" should get you all the information you need. If you are incapable of doing a google search, then you have bigger issues than worrying about side effects of a vaccine.

          Giving the vaccine is not a choice, unless parents just don't take their kids to the doctor.

          It is a choice. Hence why we are experiencing a flare up of measles, because parents are being dumb and refusing to get their kids vaccinated.

          It is legally mandated with exemptions which vary by state.

          Some states legally mandate them. It is not in my state and many others. Plus there are exemptions allowed for religious, medical, and personal beliefs. You are literally wrong or lying.

          There is not legal requirement for doctors to provide parents with the side effects and the package insert.

          Yes there is. You're either incredibly ignorant or lying. Do tell us which one it is.

          How can a parent choose to read the disclaimer if they don't have a copy to read?

          If they weren't provided one then that medical professional broke the law and should be reported. Simple as that.

          There is a risk that children will be taken into foster care and the parents charged with child neglect if they don't have their children vaccinated.

          Only in limited circumstances. As stated before, vaccines are not mandated by law and there are many exemptions a parent can claim to not get the vaccine.

          Children under the age of 14 are incapable of contributory negligence, so a minor child cannot agree on their own initiative to accept a risk of vaccine injury.

          A child under the age of 14 also can't drive a car, drink, sign a contract, or a lot of other things. This is completely irrelevant.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 10:36pm

        Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what to

        "Every vaccine comes with a disclaimer about potential side effects"

        Every MEDICINE comes with one of those. Even herbal remedies if sold properly. Welcome to 20th century science, I hope you catch up with the rest of us soon.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2019 @ 6:16am

          Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what

          Just want to clarify, are saying I need to catch up with the rest of us, or the OP who made these anti-vax claims?

          I am aware all medicine comes with disclaimers about potential side effects. Since we were only discussing vaccines, that's all I stated, but yes, I'm well aware pretty much everything comes with a disclaimer these days.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 28 Feb 2019 @ 6:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts -

            Ah sorry, got mixed up in the threading, I obviously thought I was referring to the conspiracy theorist. I'm just used to dealing with their trains of "thought", one of which is that vaccines are inherently poisonous because they're known not to be 100% safe with every patient (usually ignoring the centuries of kids dying due to the diseases the vaccines have all but eradicated until recently.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2019 @ 6:49am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular court

              Ah ok. I thought that's probably what happened. No worries. Thanks for clarifying!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 10:34pm

      Re: Can't take vaccine injuries to regular courts - what to do?

      "There is no due process for the vaccine-injured."

      Way more than there is for the kids exposed to measles, polio and other serious diseases because of dickhead conspiracy theories like you. Andrew Wakefield already admitted he lied to you, why do you still believe his original research (still the only "evidence" you have) and not his "got you suckers" retraction?

      "The Supreme Court has ruled vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe.""

      No they haven't. Why does everything you religiously obsess over have to be a lie?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2019 @ 7:28am

    Tell it to all the parents who have vaccine-injured children.
    I too have a vaccine-injured child.

    google image search - vaccine injured children

    https://www.google.com/search?q=vaccine+injured+children&source=lnms&tbm=isch&s a=X&ved=0ahUKEwi91azQ2d7gAhWLUt8KHa6nDOIQ_AUIDygC&biw=1093&bih=498

    Tell it to the faces of the agonizing parents of injured children who have no voice in Congress, and had to resort to head shaking and gasps at the hearings yesterday when the expert Anthony Fauci tried to deny that the measles vaccine can cause brain swelling at the 42-43 minute mark,

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?458248-1/public-health-officials-testify-measles-outbreak

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 28 Feb 2019 @ 7:45am

      Re:

      Really, your argument is emotional pleas through random images? OK, try a GIS of the kids who suffered from polio, smallpox, shingles, measles, and all the crap you insist they should suffer from before widespread vaccination (or currently in 3rd world countries that don't have such programs). Then, try doing a search for the infection rates before and after vaccines.

      If you're going to try this argument, the pro-vaccination "side" automatically wins under your own terms.

      "I too have a vaccine-injured child."

      That's a hallucination. Remember to take your meds today.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2019 @ 8:17am

      Re:

      Tell it to all the parents who have vaccine-injured children. I too have a vaccine-injured child.

      Fine then. I will. Here goes:

      "Hey, you, parent of a vaccine-injured child. I'm so sorry your child may be one of the rare exceptions of children who have had an adverse reaction to a vaccine, compared to the overwhelming majority who receive the vaccine and have no reaction at all. That sucks. But think of it this way, at least your child is still alive for you to love and care for. If vaccines weren't given out, your child would be dead because they contracted the actual disease instead. All you have to do is look at how many children died prior to these vaccines being invented and compare that to the extreme drop in deaths after the vaccine was widely distributed. So again, I'm sorry your child may have been "injured" but at least he's not dead, which is the only other option."

      Tell it to the faces of the agonizing parents of injured children who have no voice in Congress

      They absolutely have a voice, it's called their Congressman. There's just the small fact that vaccines do exponentially more good than harm.

      the expert Anthony Fauci tried to deny that the measles vaccine can cause brain swelling at the 42-43 minute mark

      can cause

      But it's NOT GUARANTEED to cause it. And in fact, in the vast majority of children who receive the vaccine, there is NO REACTION WHATSOEVER. Trains, planes, and automobiles CAN CAUSE death by spontaneously combusting or smacking into one another. Should we ban those too?

      Life is risk and a constant weighing of risks when presented with choices. If 95+% of children have NO ADVERSE reactions to a vaccine and are subsequently protected from horrible diseases that 100% of the time result in extreme injury, disablement, and death, you bet your sweet arse I'll risk that 5% chance that they might only be mildly adversely affected by it but will be 100% guaranteed to survive all those diseases.

      Get a grip.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TFG, 1 Mar 2019 @ 7:28am

      Re:

      Tell it to all the parents who have vaccine-injured children.
      I too have a vaccine-injured child.

      Then you have a small understanding of the pain that comes when your child is harmed.

      So, as a parent - please tell every parent whose children you are putting at risk with your anti-science nonsense why it is okay that their child might die because of a vanishingly small chance of vaccine injury. Go ahead.

      Tell every parent whose child is at risk of death from the current measles outbreak that is occurring as a direct result of a lack of vaccinations. Go ahead and tell them.

      Tell the children who are currently sick from an easily preventable disease why what they're experiencing is better than a slight chance of injury. Tell them that them possibly dying is the preferred outcome.

      My sympathies for your grief, but don't spread it around.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2019 @ 1:07pm

    FOIA and vaccines

    This isn't the forum for vaccine issues, but it is a forum for issues relating to Freedom of Information and censorship, which affects the thousands and thousands of people who have been helped or injured by vaccines. People ARE science - that is what science means -- you observe what happens.

    Censoring sex workers may result in safety issues. Likewise, censoring information and experiences relating to health care, and those who have received healthcare, is just as much a matter of safety. If people didn't have concerns about it, they wouldn't be wanting to talk about it on Youtube. They would have nothing to gain. Big Pharma and big government do have something to gain. There is a health epidemic going on - one way or the other, and it needs to be addressed. Many parents and teachers are not happy about the health of their children. And they want answers.

    And the truth will come out through FOIA requests, whistleblowers, and communicating in spite of censorship.

    google search - FOIA + vaccines

    google search - censorship + vaccines

    google search - whistleblowers + vaccines

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2019 @ 1:34pm

      Re: FOIA and vaccines

      There are no health downsides to vaccines. There is no science that says there is.

      An extremely tiny percentage of people, due to their own specific genetic makeup, may react badly to certain elements of a vaccine, or it as a whole, but vaccines have been proven to be otherwise perfectly safe for the vast majority of people, and have no adverse affects on the average human body. Indeed, they instead have immense health benefits.

      Moderating content that is actively spreading lies PROVEN to be false by science and that causes harm if people believe it, is completely different than talking about genuine health concerns.

      Youtube can legally leave those videos up or take them down, as they choose. But that's not censoring, that's them saying "hey, this stuff is completely false and we don't want it on our platform.". Having concerns about something, and it actually being true, or even a thing, are completely different.

      There is a health epidemic going on

      Yes, there is. Measles is coming back because people aren't getting vaccinated against it.

      one way or the other, and it needs to be addressed

      If everyone got vaccinated it would be addressed. Problem solved.

      Many parents and teachers are not happy about the health of their children. And they want answers.

      The answers are already out there, and have been for decades. It's not Youtube's or anyone else's fault they are refusing to accept reality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 1 Mar 2019 @ 2:12am

        Re: Re: FOIA and vaccines

        "There are no health downsides to vaccines. There is no science that says there is."

        Well, there is as you go on to note, but it's far, far less than the downside to not being vaccinated.

        I think the issue is one of context. Health professionals will always be looking at the bigger picture. Their goal is to prevent epidemics and improve life for communities, countries and the world.

        Mommy bloggers and the like, however, will only ever be considering one factor - their own child. They will be willing to harm everyone else's child if they think that their own child will be protected.

        The irony, of course, is that when enough of those people start refusing vaccinations, they actually make their own children less safe, especially when they're using junk science and false claims to support their decisions.

        "If everyone got vaccinated it would be addressed. Problem solved."

        Not even everybody. As you said, some people just can't be effectively vaccinated. So, we depend on herd immunity. Anti-vaxxers refusing vaccinations reduces herd immunity and places everyone at risk. We don't need every single person to be vaccinated, we just need people to stop destroying the effect of herd immunity due to paranoid and lies.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2019 @ 4:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: FOIA and vaccines

          "They will be willing to harm everyone else's child if they think that their own child will be protected."

          "Anti-vaxxers refusing vaccinations reduces herd immunity and places everyone at risk."

          How can an unvaccinated child put everyone else at risk? Are you saying that all the vaccinated children are at risk? Are you saying that the vaccines are not effective during an epidemic, so everyone is at risk, even though they are vaccinated?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.