Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
YouTube started treating all videos designated as "made for kids" as liable under COPPA on January 6, 2020, [22] resulted in some videos that contain drugs, profanity, sexual content, and violence, alongside some age-restricted videos, also being affected, [23] despite YouTube claiming that such content is "likely not made for kids".
YouTube has suggested potential plans to remove all videos featuring children from the main YouTube site and transferring them to the YouTube Kids site where they would have stronger controls over the recommendation system, as well as other major changes on the main YouTube site to the recommended feature and auto-play system. [128]
A contractual undertaking not to trade is void and unenforceable against the promisor as contrary to the public policy of promoting trade, unless the restraint of trade is reasonable to protect the interest of the purchaser of a business. [2] Restraints of trade can also appear in post-termination restrictive covenants in employment contracts.
YouTube Kids has faced criticism from advocacy groups, particularly the Fairplay Organization, for concerns surrounding the app's use of commercial advertising, as well as algorithmic suggestions of videos that may be inappropriate for the app's target audience, as the app has been associated with a controversy surrounding disturbing or violent ...
The broadcast of educational children's programming by terrestrial television stations in the United States is mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under regulations colloquially referred to as the Children's Television Act (CTA), the E/I rules, or the Kid Vid rules.
The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is contrary to principles of public policy.
Justice Russell Brown, in a concurring opinion, argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it effectively denied Heller access to justice and was therefore contrary to public policy. [21] In Harry v. Kreutziger (1978), [22] Harry was a First Nations Aboriginal with a congenital partial hearing defect. A commercial fisherman ...
Many people also label behaviour which is deemed contrary to prevailing norms for social conduct as anti-social behaviour. [3] However, researchers have stated that it is a difficult term to define, particularly in the United Kingdom where many acts fall into its category. [4] The term is especially used in Irish English and British English. [5]