Dutch man needs CPR, but YouTube shows ads before tutorial
myprivacy.dpgmedia.nl
myprivacy.dpgmedia.nl
I would encourage everyone to get CPR certified as it can save lives in your home, with your friends and at work. Especially those with children should get and remain CPR certified. Also consider buying an AED [1] for your home and encourage your workplace to install AED's on each floor and get at least 10% of the staff CPR certified. AED's are super easy to use and most models will literally talk you through how to use them. There are usually discounts for training larger numbers of people and the trainers will come on-site with everything they need. The safety management teams should also find out if having {n} percent of people CPR certified will lower their corporate insurance.
Some CPR training companies can also do advanced CPR training including one or two days of on-site advanced didactic training. The knowledge provided by these courses can save lives especially when emergency services are delayed or otherwise busy with others and this knowledge can be used anywhere.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_external_defibrillat...
If they're evaluating at least some content for either accuracy, compliance, or veracity, then the implication is that content that isn't warned against is "trusted".
I'd argue that if YoutTube is going to inject opinions on trustworthiness of information, they should make it clear what content they're evaluating and what they're not so people don't make the mistake of assuming YouTube is a reliable source of information.
Also, I don't want FAANG companies anywhere near medical health practice. It's bad enough with their stupid disclaimers on COVID and vaccine matters. It's not their place to be dictating these sorts of things.
If I've positioned myself to be the single place people know to search for such things (through extremely dodgey business practices, no less), then boo-hoo, I have responsibilities too now.
It's like choosing between having or not having addictive features for kids even if the law doesn't say anything about it.
They might not be legally obligated, but it would be responsible to handle this case better.
Getting CPR certified is a good idea but if you get into a situation where you need to give CPR and you don't know or you panic and forget everything you've been taught then a YouTube video is likely better than nothing. You can't retrospectively get trained at that point.
Calling emergency services is preferable, but people panic and don't think clearly, emergency services are sometimes overloaded or not available, someone might have a device with internet but no phone capabilities... and no matter how or why you end up looking for CPR advice on YouTube it's better to show the video without adverts.
> I would encourage everyone to get CPR certified as it can save lives in your home, with your friends and at work.
It's curious to me that on one hand, you're very willing to cut YT slack and say that we should only criticize them for acting in explicitly illegal ways...yet you are willing to encourage individuals to take the responsibility to save the lives of the people around them.
Why shouldn't we also encourage YT as an organization to take steps that could conceivably save lives? It would likely be a nominal effort given Google's scale, and could have a huge impact.
Not to discount the value in individuals getting CPR-certified! I just think an action at YT's scale has the potential to be a large lever--relatively minimal effort for a potentially large impact.
I'm thinking of carrying an AED around in my car for others just in case. What's a good budget one to buy?
Check with a lawyer in your region/state before doing this. Good Samaritan laws are not universal worded the same and my not cover things like using your AED or providing medication to others. Most of these laws would cover performing basic CPR. It's awful, I know. If you have someone with you have them call the emergency number for your region and note the time you started CPR. If you are trained in your workplace to use AED's and you are part of a workplace safety team then you would be advised if you are protected to use the AED on coworkers.
What's a good budget one to buy?
For personal AED's I would read all the negative reviews on Amazon as makes and models come and go. Mine isn't even sold any more so it's probably time to replace it.
Sounds like a great plan to create competition and better overall products....you're suggesting we incentivize bad business.
This is utter BS, because we know they have the tools to boost or suppress individual channels, so YT needs to vet existing channels, and flag them as ad free or important for search. A channel and video that comes to mind is the Red Cross' CPR instructional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eRwgM2Pa4o
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/youtube-will-put-ads-on-non-...
The following Youtube video will never display ads, by contractual agreement.
Gotye - Somebody That I Used To Know (feat. Kimbra) [Official Music Video]
We shouldn’t punish folks or companies for doing something good just because they aren’t doing it even better. “No good deed goes unpunished” is not supposed to be a rule we intentionally follow! That’s the path to insanity, yet it seems like many people unironically believe it.
This person called emergency services and then went on youtube. They didn't ask for instructions and the emergency service didn't think to offer it.
Like what? Call 112/911/999.. and then what? Car drivers here have to pass a first aid course, but that could have been decades ago. Except for waiting 10+ minutes for an ambulance, what do you expect people around the suffocating/dying/bleeding person to do?
Yes, youtube wasn't made for that, neither were phones made for watching videos, but since everyone has a phone and phones can show videos, and videos can show the "first aid with X" video, people will use them for just that.
To get any drivers license in Germany, you have to get first aid training. It is an ~8-hour, in-person class. It teaches the law (failure to render help is a criminal offense, as it should be), and a specific workflow. It does not start with calling emergency services; that's step 3). It does include checking vitals and when to do what. Every single student gets hands-on experience doing the stable lateral position, helmet removal an CPR (chest compression and mouth to mouth resuscitation).
Same in slovenia... but do you ever have to renew it? Or do you pass it at 18, and then forget everything in the next 10, 20, 30 years?
I would welcome mandatory refreshers every 5 years. Not just because people forget, but also because the best practices (legal and medical) can change over time and people should be kept up to date.
In California, DMV requires renewing the drivers license every 5 years, which requires a simple vision test and a knowledge test about the rules of the road. The knowledge test can now be substituted by a ~90 minute at home online training (short videos and quizzes). I think that would be a great model for first aid refreshers as well.
(On the other hand, to be fair, the mandatory trainings are mostly from an era where emergency services weren't always instantly reachable by anyone. And there isn't _really_ a reason why the drivers license in particular should require first aid training; accidents can happen anywhere.)
Going to a site/app that rolls ads before videos should never be your first choice in an emergency situation.
Assuming you can get connected. Youtube may well be more available depending on your location.
> Going to a site/app that rolls ads before videos should never be your first choice in an emergency situation.
People often panic in emergency situations and complex thinking goes out of the window. I don't blame anyone for needing to know how to do something quickly and reaching for the tool they use most regularly.
>Oude Vrielink ran with his neighbor, called 112 and immediately wanted to start CPR.
> Because he had no experience with that, he searched for an explanation video on YouTube.
There is a serious gap in this storyline that needs to be addressed. Why was he left to his own devices after having made the call?
That kind of disposition is as bad for society as the kind that praises corporations and says they can do no wrong, and between the two types, you get a lot of truly terrible ideas that need countering on a recurring and frequent basis. In a competitive information environment, the side which refuses to defend what they deem to be “obvious” will erode over time.
Case in point: YouTube doesn’t even make the list for places I would recommend to learn CPR; it’s a for-profit entertainment website before it’s anything else–which is fine for what they want to be. The Red Cross is always at the top of the list though because they’re in the business of saving lives, which is what they want to be.
So if you go to the American Red Cross website, there’s this: https://www.redcross.org/get-help/how-to-prepare-for-emergen...
Third link on the homepage scrolling on my phone. That gives you some simple instructions on CPR, a video which isn’t playing for me because I can’t bring up the playback controls on my phone (they should fix that, it’s crap like this that makes people turn to YouTube in the first place), a zip code search field to find where you can get in-person training, and apparently there’s also an app which I went ahead and installed to my phone which provides you additional instructions and education on how to deal with various kinds of emergencies you might encounter.
Attack the corporations, but focus your efforts.
Attacks are currently used to get many emotional responses and make people will engaged, but they don't make any body act or learn.
This is a waste.
Choose one topic, like "Apple use slave labors" or "Google spy on everyone", and keep at it for a few years.
The rest is just distraction and energy diffusion.
The figure you want is Net Income on page 30 of this publicly accessible document from the SEC’s website: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204423...
$59,972M (~$60B).
Still a nice sum of money, but it doesn’t need exaggeration nor misrepresentation.
A $1.4T should generate at least 2*(10 Year Treasury Yield) or 8% or $110 Billion in profit.
Else, shareholders can simply buy 10-Year-T to earn risk-free profit.
So Google isn't generating enough profits at the current economic conditions.
As soon as you require qualifications to help, you’ve now effectively outlawed good samaritans. I can see YouTube’s lawyers deciding to ban first aid advice on their platform if lawyers or regulators get involved (or even if the PR situation gets out of control).
And this isn’t some absurd hypothetical. At my work, they’ve gotten rid of all first aid kits in the buildings. You’re supposed to go to the clinic if you get hurt because they want to make sure the incident can have the correct paperwork done. This isn’t even a for-profit company that I work for, this isn’t to maximize profits or anything. It’s bureaucracy run amok, in the name of worker’s comp or OSHA safety or liability, the situation was made objectively less safe.
So don’t punish YouTube for this. Outrage at YouTube for this is going to make the problem 10x worse by cutting off first aid instruction on YouTube, and that’s not an exaggeration. Not every problem can be solved by drumming up outrage.
We are criticizing YT. Nobody is proposing "punishment."
> So don’t punish YouTube for this.
Wasn't suggested.
Seems like you're using this as a jumping off point to discuss other, largely unrelated, things. You're also using the term "outrage" in a way that makes me think it is a trigger word for some kind of in-crowd.
Every Good Samaritan law I know of specifically says that we avoid punishing people trying to help provided they weren't trying to benefit. Try to help someone and make a mistake? Generally, AIUI (IANAL) you're unlikely to be held liable. Offer to help if they pay you and mess up? You get to be liable. Showing ads is a profit motive; if YT wants to be a Good Samaritan they can do it without ads.
Disclaimer: IANAL so I could be wrong about the legal bits, but I think the ethical basis works.
I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion this is a morally justifiable action to take. It sounds like you just want a party to blame for your own ineptitude and lack of personal responsibility.
It's not the responsibility of a tech company to save your life, nor should it be. Mandating something like this is just asinine.
People never know they are going to be put into life-saving situations until they actually are in one.
It would be good for YT to learn from this incident and flag all emergency tutorial videos to be ad-free for all.
Like many channels it used to just be a 'second channel' for lower quality/didn't make the cut/not expected to be popular sort of videos, at least by my viewing and understanding. But more recently his 'main' channel has focussed on the woodworking, and random stuff has been almost entirely the experiments (sometimes bridging the gap with woodworking, like testing woods or glues in various ways), electronics, etc.
Not to say the main channel isn't great, just only if you're into watching woodworking on YouTube perhaps, whereas I think most people reading HN comments would generally enjoy 'random stuff'.
Insert at index 0 something like: I agree completely, so many otherwise enjoyable channels are worserned for me by this sort of thing. One I do enjoy immensely however, not least because it is devoid of nonsense and gets to the point, is Matthias Wandel.
What if it's not wrong exactly, it's just really bad instruction, it's confusing and takes too long. Maybe it's accidentally confusing or misleading. Maybe it's _old_ and best practices for CPR have changed in some way since it was created.
Is YouTube liable for allowing such a thing? I mean, legally we know that _currently_ there are probably a variety of reasons they aren't, and it's anyway a different question _legally_ than of putting ads before a (presumably high-quality?) CPR instructional video.
But ethically? I think this example shows... it's kind of crazy to hold YouTube responsible for making sure someone succesfully gets access to an instructional video on CPR in the moment of actually needing CPR, _and_ that eliminating ads before CPR instructional videos would actually just be _part_ of that if we did consider them responsible. They'd also have to make sure that someone searching actually found a correct and high-quality best practices instructional video, right? Which also seems unreasonable. I think it's unreasonable to expect that YouTube should provide emergency material in the urgent moment of need, that's not what YouTube does.
Seriously though, call emergency services and they will walk you through CPR while sending help. YouTube is not an emergency service.
pornhub also didn't help me learn how to perform CPR. should we be outraged about that too?
Many of these will be unsuited for emergency use. For example the Red Cross CPR video someone else linked to takes almost two minutes to actually get to doing CPR. That's longer than the sum of the lengths of the video in the article and the ads.
It might be a good idea to have some videos specifically aimed at people who need to learn right away to deal with a present emergency (for a variety of things, not just CPR).
Searches for "emergency" or similar should not include those videos in the general results but instead should have a notice at the top of the results saying "If you are dealing with an emergency right now click here" which would take you to a page where you can click on what kind of emergency you are dealing with and it gives a curated list of videos, along with text instructions.
Definitely still worth attempting, but my point is that complaining about the ads on youtube for this use case is silly.
This is an article about heart attacks.
To anyone reading this: do not fear, I believe your life is worth more than $10/month even if others do not.
https://www.tiktok.com/@thesleepyparamedic/video/71845069597...
"It looks like you are looking for emergency assistance. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or usefulness of any of our community uploaded videos in the case of an emergency situation. If someone is having an emergency, we recommend calling your local emergency service at: [number] instead of looking for help here"
They even show adds on channels which have not reached the viewership metrics required to apply to be allowed to monetise your content in the first place.
The only difference in these cases is YouTube keeps all the advertising revenue generated.
The video would have to be reviewed before receiving said ranking.
I couldn't imagine a lot of uploaders would abuse this as they wouldn't get paid.
Of course the question is, what's in it for Google? You've probably noticed when you search a disease, it provides a nice result with graphics and dialogs. Although I don't know if they'd be interesting in preserving that image over to Youtube, as that place is a cesspool for content creation, whatever that means...
Why? And what other platforms "should" do this? Do phone OSs have to have CPR videos embedded for quick access?
Seems clear to me these are edge cases that certainly do not warrant legislation. The world has much bigger problems to work on.
Might even make sense to stream it to some central AI service so we can ensure that it really gets triggered?
Similarly, if you want to own the worlds information, you have certain responsibilities because people will go to you in an emergency.
Because during an emergency, someone shouldn't have to watch an ad when accessing life saving information. That would drive anyone mad.
>And what other platforms "should" do this? Do phone OSs have to have CPR videos embedded for quick access?
Not quite sure where you're going with this speculation, but I wouldn't exactly call a medical emergency an "edge case", maybe that's just me.
You don't ask book stores to provide quick access to medical books in case of an emergency.
College lectures, cooking videos, work out instructions, car repair instructions, guitar covers, I could go all day.
It is a video sharing platform, and the most popular one at that. Entertainment might be the most popular use case of the site, but it's still a tool for accessing information.
>You don't ask book stores to provide quick access to medical books in case of an emergency.
Of course not, the person would be dead before you got there lol.
My whole argument is that YouTube is very often used as a tool for quickly accessing information, so it would be really beneficial to provide something that could save lives, what is the problem with that? From a business perspective, it might even be a good PR stunt.