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.
I mean, personally I would like to see a behind the wheels test every 5-10 years too. I know too many people who I think are entirely incapable of following the most basic safe driving rules (like checking blind spots when changing lanes, buckling up before starting to drive or yielding to pedestrians when exiting a parking lot). But such a law would probably be deeply unpopular with the population.
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?
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.
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.
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.