Anyway these sorts of issues are the reason I dont automatically sign up to movements who believe in no regulation of internet video.

In In the UK and from what Ive read, the EU are taking steps that will effectively make internet advertising as accountable as television broadcasts. But quite how publishers on the net will be held to account is another question – these systems are used to having to deal with a limited number of commercial partners in media distribution etc companies, who are already setup and used to having to comply with government regulation of one kind or another. Theres no reason why the likes of Youtube should also eventually come to fit within these systems, but the lack of geographical barriers and general sizze & diversity of the internet make this a challence. I suppose they can always target the companies who make the products that are advertised.

I think that here in the UK, where culturally we have a huge drink problem, the rules about TV advertising of Alcohol have some stricy clauses, such as not overglamourising drink, not pretending that it makes men sexually appealing to the opposite sex, not encouraging ‘irresponsible’ levels of drinking, etc. However as some of those things seem pretty core to the methods used to make advertising work, there seems to be quite a lot of flexibility in the system.

I dont know what its like in the USA, but here in the UK, issues such as protecting children on the internet from porn, seem to have been handled by placing responsibility firmly in the hands of the individuals to police how their children use the net. The rationale, compared to the hands-on regulation of TV to protect the kids, seems to be that TV pushes stuff into peoples homes, wheras people are more ‘in the driving seat’ when it comes to the net. Whether this is valid or just a useful fudge in the face of realities like never being able to impose time-of-day restraints on the net, and so having limited powers to proactively protect due to technological realities of the net, remains to be seen.

Presuming Google/YouTube are not deriving any revenue from these corporate advertisers (who are getting a free media buy to boot), why protect their corporate freedoms?

But, if Google/YouTube are accepting “paid advertising” and profiting from companies who are regulated to not pitch their products to Minors, then, they must make some effort toward self-regulating.

Think of the Games industry (non-public space that brought on the wrath of many) and forced self-regulation. Would be nice if Google/YouTube were pro-active in being responsible when it comes to exposing minors to corporate/for-profit regulated substances.

Except metaphorically.

You raise a good point….