Then these weird videos started showing up. We took youtube away for exactly these videos that are mentioned in this link.
These are targeting children and it's sick.
It's entirely possible the videos made this happen, or at least helped, but some kids just develop that stuff crazy-early. My daughter saw little video content before age two, and very little Youtube, but achieved all the same in the same timeframe with only basic work on our part. It was natural for her—she broke a 200-word working vocabulary by 14 months, could already count sets of things under ten, could name most letters of the alphabet, and so on. By age 2 she sounded like your average 4-year-old. Youtube had nothing to do with it, and we barely had anything to do with it. That was just her.
My son, on the other hand...
I'm from Sweden btw
Many Europeans told me they learned English from watching TV as children.
I replied that sounded like the most inefficient method of teaching ever devised. Not what he wanted to hear :-)
She has no access to YouTube anymore, which is a bit sad because again there's a lot of good stuff there.
Honestly - the image of grown men in thongs and Spider Man masks is disturbing to adults only in a certain context, you could just as well be describing modern wrestlers, whose content is targeted to slightly older children. But how would a toddler be damaged by it?
How would seeing this content actually be harmful to a toddler (1 - ~3 years old?)
I'm not a child psychologist so I may be wrong but I think you need a certain awareness of cultural norms to be disturbed by deviations from those norms, and toddlers might not even recognize what they're looking at, much less know that it's wrong, or why. I suspect these particular videos are more meant to disturb parents than kids.
It also concerns me that exposure to this sort of thing might help them form the impression that the behaviors depicted are within the normal range of interaction.
There is a reason why parent-child interaction is so important in early life. Children imitate adults. They are incredibly impressionable, their brains grow extremely quickly. Yes, you must talk slow and in simple terms to very young children, but they are not just confused idiots who will forget everything they saw when they are older. If you speak with a larger vocabulary, contextually, to a child, they will pick up your vocabulary and they will eventually come to recognize it as having a specific meaning in a specific context.
If a child sees spiderman peeing on elsa, he is either going to be upset and confused, or he is going to take this behavior as normal. This is how socialization works. He is learning from everything he sees.
They’ll use the computing power of a small nation to train their Go-Bot and can instantly identify anything that might belong to Big Content ... but when it comes to basic decency Google throw up their hands.
On the other hand, a user-maintained curated list of channels for children is not something that unthinkable (think of GitHub model, with pull requests and that sort of thing).
Join both things and you get a better alternative to Youtube Kids for concerned parents. I'm even surprised nobody has done something like this, it would be a nice project.
I absolutely believe there's a need for curated content for online video.
I'd love a tv-channel-like browsing experience, with seamless switching (maybe some clever caching behind the scenes).
I find it difficult to believe Google never knew these videos existed, since they appear to be an entire industry based on copyright infringement and gaming their algorithms, one would expect Google to want to kill them with fire. That they are allowed to proliferate can only mean they serve Google's interest for the site - they drive clicks and views.
Whatever other motives there may be for them (personally, I think they're nothing more sinister than monetizing clickbait) I think it's important to remember that Youtube is a business driven by clickbait, and the design of the site reinforces this everywhere it can.
That makes sense of course. In my mind I thought that doing this wouldn't stop them from running advertisements. But I guess it would undermine recruitment of new content creators.
As I understand it, Youtube isn't profitable for Google, and a lot of their decisions wrt their algorithms seem focused on increasingly desperate attempts at wringing some semblance of solvency out of the platform, so I wouldn't expect them to be very willing to work against their interests right now.
I saw how at my local primary school, kids were happily jumping up and down to a song and suddenly there’s a chocolate advert.
Imo the safest way to let kids browse is walled gardens like Netflix Kids. But that would also be unleashing an entire new addiction.
The ideal scenario is parent supervision, but most parents don’t have enough time/patience to sit with their kids everyday. In fact the iPad is meant to be the new babysitter!
It’s quite a problem, this one is.
Besides it is not that hard to download local copies of the videos you want and now you do not even need to be online.
Getting your kid off of youtube is probably a good thing.
Even for slightly older kids, a curated platform is always going to be a safer bet than a moderated platform. It seems fairly easy to find good sources of curated content.
And of course there's just making sure they don't spend too much time consuming media in general. It's hard, but the less they watch the easier it is to be picky about introducing new things.
Maybe our overall perception of quality has changed due to being exposed to crap on the internet, and now new parents believe the stuff on YouTube is fine. And they don't remember the whole world of Sesame Street and alike out there anymore.
For a young kid, the world is a strange and unpredictable place. Which means "scary" in some sense.
Watching a video (that the kid has seen many times before) is actually comforting. The kid can predict what's going to happen next, and is happy when expectations match reality.
There's possibly something similar going on with people on the autistic end of the spectrum, which may explain why they tend to get upset when taken out of their routine.
So my pet theory is that actually the opposite of the above theory is true. Kids rewatch movies that push the boundaries of their reality, in order to gain a better understanding of them. When the novelty wears off they'll move on.
Probably the truth is some combination of both. I wouldn't be surprised if certain times of day, developmental needs kick in and kids want to rewatch movies they don't understand; while other times of day, comfort needs kick in and they just want to see Elsa sing for the 100th time.
I remember re-reading / looking at things more often than I would do today. That is, a few books I liked a lot. Other than that, new and wild was always appreciated, just not so wild to be scary. But still, protection from overstimulation (and danger) is a really important job of parents, especially for infants, predictability to a degree is important. Vital, even. Too much lack of it puts the baby into survival mode so to speak. This is cobbled together from armchair psychology but I'll just say it anyway, I think a roaring sea of non-sequitur events is just about the worst that could happen to a developing brain, it will have to develop shells instead of being able blossom and keep the ability to be sensitive (while developing the ability to, when needed, protect one's own attention oneself). So I agree, it's probably a combination of both. New input, come to terms with it, integrate it, get comfortable, get hungry, get new input :)
When I'm trying to fall asleep, I will almost always put on an episode of a podcast I've heard 500 times. It's more soothing than one of those ambient-noise apps.
But watch a YouTube video of a magic trick, and you'll likely click back and re-watch the critical moment a few times before you've even realized what you're doing. Even if you don't end up understanding what happens, your brain inherently wants to make sure you are entirely clear on what you saw, so it can learn the raw fact that "this is a thing that can happen" and then attempt to reconstruct your mental models and schemas to take that evidence into account.
Kids just need to do that for, well, everything.
That alone explains pop music success.
> Young children love repetition, whether it's watching a video or listening to song lyrics, because it's the best way for them to acquire and master new skills. In order to learn something well, children this age practice it until they get it right, hence the repeated watching.
Oral tradition must provide some survival benefits to be supported by instinct and genetics. My guess is today people only talk about oral history WRT obscure history or religion whereas when it was current technology, oral history was probably used mostly to store hunting and gathering data.
There was a line at the end of some Muppets movie I would watch over and over, as the credits rolled—some nudge to parents like “I bet you wish you were watching this for the first time!”
This is an enjoyable experience for them, it is actually designed to be. This is how you sell tie-ins and make profit, the younger you get them the deeper they're caught in.
The side effect is that it is destroying their attention and impairs their self-development and cognition.
Also the human brain is a sucker for a good story, before screens and videos, kids were addicted to bedtime storytelling and could ask being told the same story a lot of times.
I presume there's something bad about the new videos but it's not obvious for the rest of us.
Although actually, huh. Maybe it's a little more organized and is just a general memetic malware scam; con youtube's algorithms into putting your junk which was generated in 0.4 seconds onto a few million screens and pocket the ad revenue.
The point is, it might not be any more malicious than anything else that advertisers do on a daily basis, if they were just auto-tweaking the videos to optimize for revenue and hey, presto, colorful crap topped the list. After all, it's just an impartial algorithm.
Kinda makes you think about all the other stuff we happily let advertisers get away with, huh?
I think the real issue is that online advertising platforms are allowing this to happen and charging advertisers for it (even though these views/clicks are often not valid – whether they're people who click a fake 'Download' by mistake or kids under 13).
I remember some time ago watching a video discussing weird flash games and videos with the same sort of pain-and-comfort themes that some of these videos have, also including Disney and other licensed characters, and also the oddly repetitious and low quality "children's videos" related to (and possibly spun off of) toys (lacking violent or otherwise disturbing content,) likely just attempts at clickbait. These would pop up in compilations of "weird Youtube channels" from time to time, no doubt driving traffic to their channels, and making them aware of their potential virality.
So it may be impossible to know, at this point, what the reality is behind this content because a lot of it may well be attempts to cash in on a meme.
To be honest I'm not sure what's worse -- that or the child molester angle.
In a world with private key encryption, sending a message on a weird video on youtube via antiquated cyphers seems less plausible than bot generated comments from a lexicon that increase a videos profitability.
If I was to infer a conspiracy, it would be that the some people are putting easily deciphered insidious messages on the videos purely for their own entertainment. The videos themselves are a simple cash grab, some of which are very weird and those are the ones we end up discussing.
This works until they should be old enough to know about strange and stupid content.
My kid was watching an official kids channel inside the YouTube Kids app (I honestly don't remember which, but it was affiliated with a local TV channel). I have the parental control settings configured - and I had to snatch it off him when I saw a red band title card come up in the ad break. Turned out it was for the IT remake.
Couldn't believe it, but lesson learned. This needs serious work.
I signed up for YouTube Red for a free month of no commercials and it was great. I'm wondering if maybe YouTube is doing this to nudge parents into signing up for their premium service to avoids disturbing ads during kid viewing time. $10/month really isn't that bad and I'm considering just having it part my monthly digital fee schedule.
As an English speaker in Denmark, half the adverts I see on YouTube are from the same company, offering English writing review. Others are either luxury cars or in Danish (broadband, holidays). I don't think it would be Denmark's style to have an HIV thing on YouTube.
For those who don't know, it was a TV documentary series that would air everyday between the 1st and 24th of december, and would typically follow a child worker in the 3rd world. Boys working in mines. It was shown during the kids programming on national TV. I distinctly remember the story of a young girl who weaved carpets for a living and was about to loose her job because her boss thought her new born baby took too much of her time - a baby he was the father of!
Our children do not stand a chance.
They do but it requires the parents ban any and all media with advertising.
Imagine grey market viagra emails stomping on human cukture, forever.
Sometimes I use a browser in a context where I have my ad-blocking shields down (someone else's system, a browser after an upgrade briefly trashes my config), and it's disturbing to me that despite being fully armed with HN-grade world-weary cynicism and the fact that I've been online for coming up on 25-ish years now (starting with BBSes before I could get on the Internet proper), that Taboola crap still sometimes takes conscious effort to not click on it, because it's that good. Goodness help me if they were any good at delivering what those articles promised, because what usually saves me is remembering that it's just straight up a lie. To be clear, this is still a sub-second process in my head, but it still disturbs me that they can get even that far.
I have two children, 9 and 6. I find myself wondering how long it's going to be before I can trust them on the Internet at all; is the necessary competence receding at a rate greater than one year per year? Ten years ago I would have confidently said "no", and my primary threat model would have been "don't do stupid things that get you computer viruses". Now it's ads, and this sort of crap.
• No junk mail addressed to anyone under 16 years of age.
• No TV advertisements directed towards, or meant to catch the attention of, anyone under 12 years of age. Additionally, in TV shows aimed at children below 12, there can be:
1. No commercials preceding or following the program, nor any commercial breaks in the program itself.
2. No product placements of any kind.
• People or characters from TV shows aimed at children below 12 are not allowed to do any product endorsements, in any context.
• All the above rules for TV shows also apply to the internet.
• Commercials aimed at anyone under 18 are not allowed to directly instruct the child to buy, or to ask anyone else to buy, the product.
• Commercials aimed at anyone under 18 can not be disguised as anything else; it must be clear that it is a commercial and nothing else. This includes in-app advertisements, which are therefore not allowed.
In the case of Sweden there's a TV license funded broadcaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveriges_Television
I wonder how this is handled when the ad context is implicit. Isn't Spiderman's image, for example, always an implied advertisement for Marvel, his movies, action figures, and whatever cereal box he is appearing on this month.
Cereal is less of an issue in the first place (that's a very US thing, didn't even know it existed till I moved to the US when I was 10), but you just don't find brands associating themselves with characters from movies/tv shows.
The closes you get it Sinterklaas/Zwarte Piet on seasonal items and Santa Claus.
Action figures are something you have to get at a specific toy store. Large "super store" like WalMart/Target/others don't really exist. I can't go buy a couch at Albert Heijn. I don't go buy a TV at Aldi. In the US however going to Walmart for electronics is as normal as going to get groceries.
What? You mustn't have any children. There is cereal of Frozen and Moana here, Paw Patrol sprinkles, k3 stuff (forgot which), there's various franchise stuff in the dairy section, ... That's not even counting the non-food section in supermarkets. Next time you're at albert heijn, take a good look around.
Kellogs' products are on the bottom, only two boxes have child-appealing designs.
There was nothing worth photographing in the dairy section. One product was designed for children (cheese stick thing). A chocolate milkshake had a cartoon logo, but it has probably had that logo since 1950.
You don’t get a TV at Aldi in the US either, and many (most?) Walmart stores don’t sell groceries
I think it's more of a "why did bots and inattentive parents fuck it up for the rest of us."
The main complaint is that Youtube Kids (an explicitly kid-friendly subset of youtube, with its own app and parental controls) is being targeted in this way. I assume "the rest of us" are not generally using this version of youtube.
Think about it: scientific consensus is pretty clear that the content makes no difference there should be no exposure to any kind of screen for kids under 6, then maybe a tiny bit until 10-12.
I see that it is used for the object of a verb, and whoever for the subject of a verb, but I am a bit confused here, because here it is the object of "downvote", but the subject of "doubts", so I am confused.
In the sentence "I will look at whomever Bob greets.", I think I understand why it is "whomever", and in the sentence "Whoever enters the room next, they will encounter a surprise.", I think I understand why it is "whoever" and not "whomever", but in the case of your sentence, I don't know what the rule is.
Could you (or anyone else) please explain it to me?
> Rule 1. The presence of whoever or whomever indicates a dependent clause. Use whoever or whomever to agree with the verb in that dependent clause, regardless of the rest of the sentence.
> Give it to whoever/whomever asks for it first.
> He asks for it first. Therefore, whoever is correct.
This problem is exasperated by the fact that phones/tablets are particularly well-suited to, and popular with, young children. Children like to carry things around.
I have installed a ublock origins on a few dozens of android devices of all kind and it always works like a charm.
Unfortunately though, it does not work globally.
My guess is that is an instance of poor diversity within the team that set the early direction for YouTube. Maybe a team with a higher proportion of parents respresented might have made different decisions.
Most of the programmes on BBC iPlayer now have the option to turn subtitles on. I think a very rare, old, program that does not have it. As the standards state MUST
The standards are clear.
4.1. Full-length scheduled programmes and their associated broadcast subtitles MUST be made available online through iPlayer.
If what you have in mind is to target kids while they have not yet developed their mind to the point of dealing with advertising then this is something they should be exposed to.
I tend to be of the first mindset.
I read it last night after the wife recommended it ... and wow.
The article seems to say "back when I was a kid, my parent entertained me with contentless saccharine trip from sources we trusted (Disney et al) but now contentless saccharine trip is autogenerated (duh duh duh) and who knows what effect that is going to have on 'developing brains'"
And would suspect, contrawise, that if there's a problem, it began at the point when the TV became the primary babysitter for modern children and things escalating to youtube is a step but a less significant step than this.
Edit: OK, the complaint is video moving from simplistic saccharine junk to the same thing with violence. I get that this is the step that disturbs parents lazy/busy enough to consign child rearing to video but controlling enough to think kids will parrot whatever they see. I would still see consigning kid-hood activity to video as where the damage comes. But maybe "that's just me"
I think the problem with the crap the author finds is that – it is nonsensical. These videos addict kids by triggering their innate desire to seek out novel/scary situations and explore them. This instinct exists so kids learn about the real world around them, as quickly as possible. But when kids watch videos with no sense, no logic, and no relation to the real world, their brains learn and reinforce nonsense. It delays their development while reducing their attention for more wholesome – and more boring – exploration of the real world.
Kids' brains are amazingly plastic, they have amazing memories, and they ruminate sometimes for months on novel/strange concepts. Watching, say, Peppa the Pig eat her own father even once can have a profoundly negative effect on a young child.
Absolutely parents should not let YouTube babysit their children. But a child watching, say, Sesame Street, will tell you about how Oscar helped Elmo do such-and-such, or Grover had a bad day and Big Bird comforted him, and they'll apply that to their own life. A child watching Marvel character heads buried in sand will prattle on about random creatures' heads buried in things, and will fail to apply that lesson to anything in their real-life experience.
EDIT: Not to imply e.g. Disney is flawless – remember Dumbo's pink elephants?
Alice in Wonderland is a book set in illogical nonsense. The world is illogical, the characters are illogical, but the story is cohesive. That is what makes Alice in Wonderland so wonderful.
To contrast, what we are talking about are generated associations between familiar things. Instead of Alice in Wonderland's illogical nouns and cohesive story, we have familiar nouns and illogical story.
Alice in Wonderland took us on an unfamiliar trip, and made its strange self relatable. These videos are the reverse: they take relatable things, and shove them together in incohesive, unrelatable, and sometimes frightening ways.
I haven't read the book, but given that it's based much more on wordplay as a means of humor (and therefore the exploration of what is, and isn't, sensical in the real world -- the core of humor) than on... algorithmic garbage..., and that it's intended for 8-13 year olds (the ages of its first audience) rather than 2-6 year olds (the target audience of nursery rhymes etc. that the videos in the article are based on), it's somewhat tangential to the point that I and the article are trying to make.
It seem illogical that a sense stream of images would innately dangerous by itself. Indeed, most of the things that a child sees at a young age are senseless to the child even if they have a logic to them. Moroever, a child is going observe a senseless stream of images whenever an adult begins channel surfing in a determined manner.
That analogy is flawed. Children don't learn to speak by listening to each other babble. They learn by listening to adults speak in cohesive, logical sentences.
> It seem illogical that a sense stream of images would innately dangerous by itself.
If it causes the child to ruminate on a nonsensical topic, it is. Children have very limited time to learn about social norms and human behavior.
> Moroever, a child is going observe a senseless stream of images whenever an adult begins channel surfing in a determined manner.
You seem to misunderstand the amount of time children spend watching adults change television channels, versus say, literally anything else that occurs in their life.
Human sociality needs to be boostrapped. Kids watching this all-day-every-day are /definitely/ gonna grow up funny. Why do you think daycare costs more than a mortage?
If kids TV in the US is genuinely no better than the pap on YouTube, then you guys need to picket the FCC until something radical happens.
My bigger concern is that we are happy to let automation take jobs while talking about UBI as the solution. Does no one but me see a connection here? This is a way for people to make money using automation in the face of fewer regular jobs being available due to automation. If people need money and can't make it some other way, duh, they turn to doing this stuff.
In another skit, a girl want to play with all of the other kids. She tries to take away one child's toy, but he gets angry, and pushes her to the ground. She runs away, and finds her magic wand. The magic wand turns a red toy into an evil red ghost. The kids shoot at with guns until it pops. The magic wand creates a green ghost. The kids shoot it. Wand creates a pink ghost. The kids shoot it. Wand creates a yellow ghost. The kids shoot it. The girl runs away.
There's also no continuity or story between the skits. In one skit, the Joker sneaks into someone's house and kidnaps them. In another, he's a good guy, changing all of the watermelon into rainbow watermelon.
TL;DR: Shell out for PBS. Don't let your children watch this.
You know how machine translation is often hilarious when it produces word combinations that wouldn't even _occur_ to a normal humanmind? We think it's funny because we're _aware_ of the difference between normal word sequences and word salad. Small children are not aware of the ways in which these algorithmically-generated videos are, well, weird. Who knows how children's minds react to these supernormal stimuli?
It seems unlikely.
Autogeneration is done for quality but for quantity. Humans have been crafting "high" and "low" brow content for a while and while I might call low brow content trash, I recognize very specific talents and strategies go into things like horrible jingles, it seems unlikely the marketeer could make something with more of qualities they're after just by accident.
When I was young, quite a long time ago, guns and military toys were huge - obviously that implied violence and it all went into my brain.
I would expect that the extreme flexibility of a child's brain would tend to allow them to select between the huge variety of things they're exposed to. And thus I'd suspect the worst part of modern child rearing is the things children aren't allowed to do, such as play outside in the part by themselves (insert horror stories here).
It gets weirder when you have the live action stuff with kids' favourite characters murdering and raping each other. Somebody put in actual effort to put some of that stuff together. Other animated pieces are just a bad accident.
It seems kind of circular. Somebody writes an algorithm to try and take advantage of kids' love for popular cartoons. It grabs keywords, phrases, characters, tones, sound clips, etc. It puts them together into a short (or too long) animated video. The YouTube algorithms pick up on some common tropes and then those autofab end up in kids' watching queues, they end up getting enough views because they keep kids numbly watching (not knowing what it is their taking in), other groups start noticing and decide exploit the algorithms in the same way. At least that's how it appears to me...
There’s a very distinct internet marketing subculture, and for some reason it’s always had a lot of cross over with script kiddies and semi technical Wordpress marketers.
The net is vast and infinite and funnels the human id.
Autotegenerated content will never be a clean feed until machine
Or to put it another way, teach your kids to talk with you if they see or experience something icky.
Autogenerating content targeted at kids is "systematic abuse for profit" in the same way that Disney holding focus groups is "abuse". The content is clearly entertaining to kids, or else there would be no economic incentive to create it.
The algorithm occasionally picks up some nasty troll content by accident (hence degrees of separation). It is clearly unintentional as it goes against the financial interests of the channels.
This is a long way from "zomg illuminati bot conspiracy subliminal evil content child abuse".
- Surrealist gibberish videos made with cheap render assets that feature whatever will show up in kids’ content search (thus a predominance of Marvel and Disney characters)
- Gross-out and violent troll videos that imitate the surrealist gibberish videos well enough for the algorithms to think they’re kids’ content
- Live-action content that tends to include borderline child abuse in the name of “funny” content (for example, children vomiting or visibly in pain)
Kids love things that make them slightly uncomfortable. A feeling they get a lot more often than adults. A feeling most adults avoid.
> Adult themes repeat themselves throughout these videos. They're subtle, and require interpretation which makes our analysis vague, but they are too pervasive amongst videos of different channels, countries of origin, and even advertised content that I cannot help but suspect a correlation. :Imagery of fear and life-threatening circumstances. :Medical play, roleplay or real, involving pregnancy and needles. :Ideas of dominance and power, submission. :Magic, wands, spells being used negatively on others. :Acting on an unconscious party, non-consent. :Visual innuendos and gags and even inappropriate touching. :Naughtiness and misbehavior conducted in secret. :Showers and bathroom imagery. :Colored plastic balls! In every video, regardless of content. :Kids eating inordinate amounts of things for no reason.
> I am 20 with no children but am definitely a scared soccer mom at this point. Having first hand experience with being a Kid On Youtube and now being an Adult With Trauma, I think a lot of people aren't thinking about the severity of the effects of these videos on children, and I'm thinking that's probably because a lot of people in this sub are older and didn't get to experience being a kid on youtube w little/no parental supervision.
> Tons of people are saying "well, I saw porn as a kid, and im fine." That isn't the point! The point is /all of this is already kid targeted/. Seeing porn as a kid on my own accord/exploration did nothing bad to me for the most part. Seeing screamers on kids videos, as a kid? Totally fucked me up. Seeing early-stage elsagate-esque videos as a kid? Not so much, but that's only my experience, and the technology to make videos like this wasn't really available yet. The long term effects are serious and traumatizing and there's more to do w the issue than just "well, its BAD PARENTING" (or, alternatively, people saying the kids watching these videos are "just bad kids". also, not all parents care about being bad parents. just throwing that out there.) Youtube provides a direct service of "you want to hurt kids? well, heres your platform." and it's always been like that. even when youtube wasnt that big. people have been reporting kid-targeted screamers for yearssssssssss and nothing gets taken down. and there are people that want to make this content. that is /incredibly scary/ and exploitable, even if these videos are just a case of "AI gone rogue".
> I watched those Elsa, Spider-Man, The Joker and Maleficent videos for over 4 hours and I lost count how many had steady themes of kidnapping there were, normalizing being tied up and injected with REAL SYRINGES. One especially disturbing video showed a live girl no older than 6 being held down against physical discomfort while a blurred out syringe seemingly penetrated her butt while she lay on her stomach. Mind you all of this is taking place while cheery music is being played couple with laughter and the actual live screaming of the child present in many of the videos.
Spend one hour watching skipping around in videos (it's not like you would be able to refrain from skipping anyway, and if you can go one hour you can stomach a lot more than I can, and that's from someone who saw people getting sliced up on stileproject in 2000). Then do some very superficial math. Then see if you just want to shrug it off.
I wouldn't watch it myself so just hearsay.
> What was the disturbing thing?
Sitting a child in front of YouTube is now essentially equivalent to running a fuzzer / AFL on an infant mind. Who the hell knows how the human brain will react?
It makes sense to me that systems which randomly throw things out and react to clicks of kids with not much superego quickly fall into dream-logic. Isn't this roughly the canonical explanation for how dreams work anyway?
I wonder if the result would be different had I started out with different preferences, or if The Algorithm pushes everyone to the same place (cheap music for Spotify)
I was exposed to tons of super-weird stuff on TV an the internet (adult swim, fat-pie, etc) and so were most of my friends growing up. I don't think it was problematic for any of us.
When you're a kid and something feels disturbing, you turn it off. Our society really doesn't give kids any credit for being autonomous and resilient.
Most of all, I don't like that one corporation has the power to "crack down" on a whim about what's appropriate for kids to watch on a global scale.
Agreed, to some extent.
> When you're a kid and something feels disturbing, you turn it off
One of the arguments made in the original Verge article on this from February is that young children don't actually behave this way. In fact, if they did, this wouldn't be an issue, since the videos wouldn't be watched, and the motivation for making them would be gone.
I love mildly disturbing, uncomfortable and awkward entertainment. Salad Fingers and others were some of my favorite things when I was 12 or so. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. But the children this article mentions are much younger than that.
She also saw some odd nursery rhymes on youtube, but those didn't seem to annoy her.
Not all kids are the same, but I agree with the OP that we should maybe give the kids more credit.
My little brother watched "fist of the north star" with me when he was 5, where people literally explode and evil guys routinely lick blood off their blades, and he still grew up to be a balanced person, as far as I can tell.
Your little brother grew up just fine doesn't mean my (hypothetical) kids will grow up fine.
I don't care that the content is violent per se. Whatever. We're robust against that. What I do care about is how the content is inhuman and engagement-optimized. We, as humans, are as defenseless against that sort of thing as the Dodo was to hunters.
Unless I take you wrong, do you claim that a child that watch cartonish spiderman forcing himself on Elsa, will end up child molesters or murderers themselves, then I would love to see some statistics, other that the fact your argument sounds reasonable on its face.
Common-sensical dismissals of something are often just a way of declingin to address an actual problem. I find it really easy to think of contexts in which kids keep watching this stuff even though they don't like it an its scaring them. You might not have done it, but you might not have any experience of autistic spectrum disorders, for example.
It's like saying people should just ignore trolls on the internet or any of many other nominally helpful cliches that actually dismiss the concerns of people who are dealing with problems.
Do you realize these are the "most popular" child videos on YouTube? Gosh, the fact that these people are making money off of it is proof that "kids" are watching these videos, and are apparently not capable of "just turning them off".
Yeah right, maybe that happened to you. I'm not confident my (hypothetical) kid watching these videos can turn them off, at all.
Can you please not claim "censorship", "evil corporation", "global scale", "alarmist", and look at this issue directly? GOSH, these are objectively bad issues, and why can't you just not let children see them? Not everyone out there is trying to "brainwash" your kids. The world is a better place without these videos.
These are bad videos. Children should not be shown these videos. I applaud YouTube for "censoring" these things.
If you're the kind of parent that feels "this is censorship", "no one should tell my kid not to watch these videos", and "my kids are totally okay with watching these videos", then I really think you need some serious help.
I am only hearing the exact same moral panic arguments given about Elvis’s hips.
Just because you don’t like something and can’t understand why someone else would, doesn’t make it bad.
You are just too old to see the value in things your child likes. It’s a tale as old as time.
You’re very insistent these are bad but I don’t really see why. I would consider many of these absurdist works of art, yet we don’t cover children’s eyes from the likes of Pollock.
"5 years old and watching Spiderman rape & murder Elsa" is never something you should let a child watch. I'm sorry, but this is not something Pollock would ever cover. This is child pornography level of stuff. Or, are you saying that is also something perfectly fine for any audience?
I'm really amazed by the mental gymnastics one has to perform to compare these videos to Pollock and Rock and Roll.
Or this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15674305
Or how about this medium article? https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-in...
Many people have presented their case on this issue. In this thread or elsewhere. Please don't pretend they don't exist by saying "Explain the actual harm. Enumerate it." Where's your proof that these videos are harmless or even beneficial to children?
not only creators of such content should get jailtime, youtube has to pay fines for each child-minute streamed even if it drives alphabet into bankruptcy.
I don’t mean to be accusatory, but I wonder what scale we’re using when we’re saying that this sort of content is “harmful”. I doubt people are implying that watching these videos will turn kids into psychopaths.
A lot of claims, both in the original Medium article and in this thread, are made on the effects disturbing content has on humans.
I am not saying that these videos are something we should allow, but let's get our facts straight on its effects first.
This is the real problem. We need to break the platform monopoly ASAP.
Thats the problem with somebody else filling the homescreen. I never saw it that way.
So what kind of homescreen would be best for a kid?
I remember the show being a wonderful subversive work of art. I also remember it being nightmare fuel when I was as old as 11. If a young child ends up watching a Ren & Stimpy equivalent just because YouTube recommended it, or more likely, watching something just as edgy but without the quality -- that too is a problem.
You were a sheltered, sensitive child.
The last line of defence is depending on toddlers flagging their videos? Here's your golf clap, YouTube.
If you have young kids, be careful on what you allow on their devices (ipads, xbox, iphones, etc).
Just the other day, I noticed a young kid (~9yo) watching some type of porn on an iPad, while the parents were paying attention the other kid play softball. I told the mom and she freaked out.
What I am doing for my own kids lately:
-Enable Parental control on their devices, so they can't install, delete or modify any the apps.
-Force a Family Filter through DNS: OpenDNS, Norton, CleanBrowsing ( Lately I have been using CleanBrowsing - https://cleanbrowsing.org - as it enforces SafeSearch + Safe Youtube by default.
-Disable Flash & Java.
-Install an adblocker.
-Check their browser histories from time to time to see whats up. They are all pretty young (under 10), so didn't learn how to clear history yet. I wish there was a way to prevent cleaning up history on the ipad.
Any other things I might be missing?
Gives you some good insight on where their priorities are.
Here's a reddit thread from 8 months ago
or a tv report on how its being called out on twitter 4 months ago
A lot of what monetisation did was encourage spam, or content quality just above the spam threshold. Meanwhile, patreon (though obviously which a much smaller footprint) seems to encourage the kind of content youtube should want to encourage.
What I meant by just above the spam threshold is just a mishmash of content thoughtlessly cut together to match a keyword result, game the "up next" suggestion engine and/or draw clicks through shameless clickbait.
Hope you're learning to enjoy cable TV again, folks!
People like Philip Defranco, while still pointing out the damage YouTube is doing to the ecosystem, monetize outside of YouTube to maintain control of their product. If the people you watch don't have a Patreon / Sponsors / merch, they are willingly submitting to the YouTube monetization algorithm. It feels kind of entitled to want to get money from YouTube ads, but not produce content that those advertisers are willing to place ads on.
No, YouTube takes a cut of their ad revenue. YouTube isn't a charity, it's a business.
> It feels kind of entitled to want to get money from YouTube ads, but not produce content that those advertisers are willing to place ads on.
Advertisers historically haven't really cared much about language. This whole mess was triggered by ads on a terrorist video iirc.
YouTube lets anyone upload videos to their site for free. All of the ad revenue is theirs, as they have the direct relationships with the advertisers. They give content creators a cut of YouTube's ad revenue, not the other way around. When creators manage their own connections to advertisers (sponsors, native, merch) YouTube doesn't get a cut.
Yes, YouTube doesn't charge you to upload a video.
> All of the ad revenue is theirs, as they have the direct relationships with the advertisers.
All of the money goes _through_ YouTube but it doesn't belong to YouTube. There's a (formal, legal) agreement between YouTube and creators that predetermines how much of that revenue belongs to YouTube and how much belongs to the creator.
Yes, that is the cut that they give the creator. Not the cut that they take from the creator. Advertisers are not talking to hundreds of thousands of creators, they're talking to YouTube. They give YouTube money and YouTube places advertisements on videos. The value that YouTube provides is necessarily greater than the portion of the advertising revenue they keep, otherwise creators would host their videos on their own sites / DailyMotion / Vimeo. And some creators do host on those sites, because they've decided that they aren't getting more value out of YouTube than elsewhere, that's a decision they're always free to make.
My understanding is that YouTube sells billions of dollars of advertising against this content and keeps quite of bit of that money for themselves.
Of course, this is not a super close analogy, because you wouldn't be gaining anything by giving me a lunch.
I think a closer analogy might be barter, maybe? Or, here is an odd analogy that might fit fairly well, but which maybe goes against the point I was trying to make:
If one person wants to interact with a pet dog, because they like dogs, and another person wants their pet dog to be taken care of for a while, so the first person agrees to take care of the other person's dog for a while. This case does seem to capture a fair bit of what is happening, but it seems like it makes sense to call it "for free".
Here is a variation on that idea though, which seems a little closer, but a bit less clear cut:
What if the person who is taking care of the dog for a while also said that they were going to enter the dog in a dog show (and that maybe if they got prize money they might share it with the dog owner), and that the owner of the dog was pleased by this idea. This would be a quite strange situation, so maybe intuition based on this example might not be the best guide to other things, but my intuition in this case is that it seems like it seems a bit more strange to say that they are doing this for free, though it would still be technically true.
(The dog show is analogous to showing the video(the dog) to other people, and the prize money is analogous to ad revenue, in case that wasn't clear.)
I don't know.
In the firearms/gun rights communities, it seems like the prevailing opinion is that YouTube is specifically targeting them based on political bias.
I've not really considering it much, but your comment makes me wonder if their issues are part of a much larger pattern.
No IKEA doesn't want to put an ad under your video of your daughter's first AR-15.
I used to think the NRA was nuts, then I saw that there's no negotiating with the other side. Gun owners only stand to lose, and have consistently had their rights destroyed. If they didn't have a persecution complex, they wouldn't be paying attention.
They absolutely have not, and this formulation illustrates the extreme positioning that the NRA has fostered for you to adopt.
If you think the NRA stands for gun owners' rights more than the profits of the manufacturers, explain their response to the Philando Castile murder.
The only NRA response I found echos what I first thought. Gun pointed at you? Don't move a single bit unless exactly directed. I figured that out in real-time, because I'm not going to trust some stressed out cop to stay chill. Particularly more if I appeared to be part of the highest crime demographic. It's still unfortunate and the cop should have had more training perhaps. But I guess I'm falling for propaganda.
That's because they like to be victims. It's all about the narrative.
If you look around you see this happening broadly. You see a lot of people concerned about it who don't even mention politics.
> Lauren Southern (/ˈsʌðərn/; born 16 June, 1995) is a Canadian far-right political activist, book author, and internet personality associated with the alt-right. In 2015, Southern ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Canadian federal election. She worked for The Rebel Media, a far-right online media company based in Canada, until leaving in March 2017.
She also tried to physically prevent refugee rescuers with a far right "identitarian" group
Now she doesn't sound so innocent and the reason for YT decision seems pretty clear and uncontroversial
Conservatives love to push the idea that they were targeted purely for being conservative. Look at the reaction around Damore, for example. It's all about how conservatives are being oppressed, how you can't trust the media and tech because they hate conservatives.
People also need to realize that the alternative is massive amounts of ad dollars simply being removed from YouTube altogether. The demonetization drive came from advertisers' outrage over the lack of control over where their ads appear. Without the demonetization push, they start pulling out en masse and everyone loses out.
They're effectively sacrificing an entire genre (Gaming) at the alter of advertisers. A great way to lose the very content that brings advertisers and viewers to the platform in the first place.
Some serious double think right there.
What a shitty fucking law.
Fast? People have been complaining about this for ages.
Abroad In Japan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5lMM160etI
Philip DeFranco: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOa6PA8XQtQ
Sid Alpha: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe5eODFxwy0
Reddit has a lot more examples https://www.reddit.com/r/all/search?q=demonetized&sort=top
But Google doesn't want to risk the PR nightmare of admitting that they no longer want 99% of their userbase poisoning the well for the 1%, so they use pretexts like demonetizing content to encourage them to go elsewhere.
It's probably not true, but Google either seems to be fantastically inept or malicious at this point, when it comes to their interactions with content creators and their UX.
It started when some big advertisers made waves about their ads being placed on "extremist" videos on YouTube. Some quit Google's network at the time, too. To beg them back, Google essentially started removing anything that might upset those big advertisers. Like anything at all.
The "demonetization" actually came a bit later when there was backlash against those removals from users, so it was Google's way to "compromise". It wouldn't remove the more "sensitive" (but not extremist) videos, but it would demonetize them without much thought.
There is actually a really simple solution here that nobody wants to talk about.
DO NOT MONETIZE YOUR VIDEO
It's probably the only thing they can do, but it really is an awful way to treat people who should be your partners.
I have been pretty selective with Netflix shows because some of them seem pretty repetitive. I had high hopes for Word Party ( http://nypost.com/2015/07/01/netflix-to-stream-kids-word-par... ) when I first heard about it but it is honestly the same 3-4 songs repeated over and over in each episode. Instead we prefer to let him watch shows for slightly older kids that involve better story-telling and more complex concepts. E.g. We Bare Bears in Hulu is great.
I've noticed that 2d animation content is often much better than 3d and I think the medium post corroborates it.
For at least 6 months we have forbidden our 3 year old to watch YouTube because he ended up at some (harmless, but totally braindead) Spiderman nursery rhyme video and I figured he would be caught by bad algorithms.
Sometimes the 7 year old wants to be nice to his brother and searches for spiderman. He knows they shouldn't watch violent stuff, but it feels like a drug somehow to watch autogenerated content at all.
I'm a child of the 80's, and many of the cartoons I watched still hadn't been censored of their racist imagery.
I don't believe it harmed me, though oddly enough when I play Cuphead, I do occasionally expect a caricature of someone in blackface or stereotypical japanese to show up, simply because the game shares it's art style with Max Fleischer era cartoons.
That's very hard to know though. We all have unconscious stereotypes.
Probably not a threat, but Youtube channels are really only protected by the strength of their owners accounts.
For netflix et al, not only is the content curated, the content is created by known companies.
If they had instead aimed to make Youtube more similar to Adwords in terms of trying to show content-relevent ads on the right content, much of this wouldn't have become an issue later on with people basically spamming Google and the wrong ads showing up on irrelevant content.
For example, you probably have a friend that you would trip to create a hilarious pratfall, knowing that he won't feel deeply hurt by it, because he understands your intention and might have done the same thing given the opportunity even though you both really like each other. My mom is the other kind of friend who you would never ever do that to, because she could only imagine that your intention was to hurt her and make her feel bad. Trolls feast on that kind of blindness. My mom is old enough that she's beyond being able to be hurt by the internet, but now I have a couple of nieces under three, and I can't imagine what the internet will be like for them if they take after her.
Its fine if they do not want to offer a product for children, but when you do offer something for children you take on a massive responsibility.
Youtube admitting the mistake and fixing it is the only answer they can give of course. But it is a major point that they should responsible in the first place, so responsible that a journalist isn't needing to write a story on this.
The problem is centralization. There is only one YouTube, and therefore YouTube is responsible for way too much.
Almost no-one has questioned whether these videos are indeed harmful to children.
The top comment is a Medium article that sensationalizes these videos to the point where I was afraid the video would destroy my brain a-la Snow Crash.
I'm picking up a lot of "please think of the children" and "you would understand if you had children," and comments that read like a call-to-arms for a moral outcry.
On the other hand, there's almost no introspection about what OTHER things (that don't make adults strangely uneasy) might still be detrimental to children. if I'm being uncharitable, I might quote Neil Postman's view of Sesame Street: “Parents embraced “Sesame Street” for several reasons, among them that it assuaged their guilt over the fact that they could not or would not restrict their children’s access to television.
I think you are sensationalizing the article. What exactly is there to be skeptical about? The article simply brought up a point that many of us are unaware of.
The problem is that YouTube is something of a monopoly, and that what is explicitly made for very young children is not what any of us would expect. It's simply important to be aware of that fact.
Then feel free to question it. Since this refers to a large body of videos, make sure you did your homework. Just some random things from the top of the pile if you will (but it's a big pile and frankly, even just the amount of very messed up things on the surface doesn't exactly make me want to measure out this particular ocean in full detail, I am scared less of watch lists than just poisoning my own brain or making myself sad for no reason or rather, with no constructive outcome -- but at least I'm not gonna be the guy/gal you chose to be, who hears a sea gull sample on the radio to tell us off for being fascinated by marine life)
Though I agree with you in that this hardly is some magical line beyond which stuff becomes harmful, but it's a very high concentration of it. We let marketing instill "brand loyalty" in kids, now they use cartoon figures and brands babies are likely to know to groom them for other purposes:
We live in a world where people physically throwing out poisoned bait for dogs is a thing. So apart from ad revenue or considerations about pedophile cults, even "just" producing this stuff en masse for the "fun" of destroying minds is a real possibility. You can roll your eyes at that, but when it's this big and obviously laced with known themes of abuse and methods of grooming, that says nothing about the issue and all about your superficial knowledge of it. Why would the reaction to something you can't even be bothered to actually look at "alarm" you either way?
No, I didn't watch most of these videos either. The titles are enough. "bad babies playing doctor toys put an enema song nursery rhymes for children". Thanks. And actual real human beings dress up and play weird [<-- that's an euphemism, it means what they actually do show in the videos, not what people read into it, or other things that have been previously called "weird" in other contexts] things, often in mansion like houses with flashy cars in the driveway.
This is a specific phenomenon. We don't really fully know what's going on and who does it why or bandwagons what. Which we aren't exactly to blame for, having asked for none of it, but at least making a better job at taking it seriously than you. Whatever it may remind you of, it's only what it actually is. Look at the actual specific stuff or don't. But nevermind parents, just as a human being I would tread lightly here before informing myself better.
> that sensationalizes these videos to the point where I was afraid the video would destroy my brain a-la Snow Crash.
The video? As in singular? How do you make the connection from you watching one full video (since most are above 10 minutes I doubt even that) as an adult to the harm that might be done to children ranging from 0 to infant who might watch hours and weeks of them being "sensationalized"?
How many hours of these videos across how many individual clips and accounts have you seen? Would you let your kids watch these things unsupervised, if yes, for how long per week at most? These three questions should be the entrance requirement to take part in this discussion, because if you belittle this without even having actually looked it, well, don't put that on yourself. Because it reads like people who belittle or rationalize atrocities that happen under their watch and with their implicit support. "Detrimental to children" in light of these videos, and their sheer amount, is like calling mass murder "not very nice".
I don't even have the foundation to do my homework; I'm not a psychologist.
I watched several of the videos. I can't say they kept me up at night (but that doesn't mean anything in the context of the discussion). I have no idea by what mechanism these would traumatize children; perhaps someone more familiar with child psychology could think of something similar? If these videos are completely unlike anything before them, any conjecture is meaningless. I'm in no way saying that they are or are not harmless.
I'm more concerned that any knowledge that can be gleaned about this phenomenon is being buried under emotionally charged moral outrage
> We live in a world where people physically throwing out poisoned bait for dogs is a thing.
> As in singular?
I mistakenly mixed my tenses, I said "videos" and then "video." My apologies.
> "Detrimental to children" in light of these videos, and their sheer amount, is like calling mass murder "not very nice".
To be clear, are you comparing the effect of these videos on children to 'mass murder?' I can't make heads or tails of your analogy.
As a thought exercise, there are a lot of commonalities between these videos and the average commercial that plays at 8pm:
- 'sheer amount'
- revenue makers
- children might watch hours of them if unsupervised by parents
- people think they will destroy the minds of the youth using some unexplained power
- mass murder for young minds (unverified)
Well, you just watched a bunch. You didn't watch the theme of drugging and raping people, mutilation, dissociation, murder, incest, blood, and on and on and on, over a stretch of TEN THOUSANDS of videos, produced in concert by hundreds of channels.
You basically are comparing the effect of you as an adult watching a few videos \* with toddlers aged 0 to x, the more neglected of them watching who knows on them, on a site where the people who create the tech to make this happen by itself reside, enabled by the company that is owned by our favorite future shaping company. This isn't obscure, this isn't at your doorstep, this is in your house, and this is how seriously you take it.
You at least know that neural pathways are still formed when outside the womb, and how crucial the first few years are for brain development and the whole life? You're not a psychologist, you say? You are a human being and therefor amateur psychologist by default, you are literate, and you have internet access. There is no excuse.
Even just the fact that they might overhear adults, some of them pointing out that abusing children on purpose is wrong, and others excusing their own apathy with the shoddiest sophistry they can drag up, could be damaging for a child. It might consider that a viable option, instead of the fucked up thing it is.
\* (a few 30 or 60 minute long ones? I doubt, so what does several even mean? this is like someone talking about microplastic and bioaccumulation and you sniffing your fleece sweater saying you don't see a problem, and expecting to be delivered everything on a silver tablet instead of getting off your own butt, and that's generous, and seeing how we're not talking about harm nobody could have foreseen but deliberate assault, automated and on a mass scale, I simply don't feel burdened to convince you. I have to organize with those who don't need convincing (because they don't need to be pushed to take a closer look, and don't easily give up because they know the energy their child can have getting glued to things), to bring this to the attention of parents, and the rest can sleep with their conscience and their response to the question how they reacted when someone said there is something here, it's really really fucked up, please leave your convenience and attention span at the door and stand with me for long as this issue that others unleashed on us against our will takes. How could I ever break bread with these people ever again before, you know, clearing this up? You weren't there when it was against toddlers and when all it took was to cut back on your regular entertainment for a week to get up to speed. Will you be there if worse things come? Or side with the abuser even quicker, having conditioned yourself to do so in "little" cases like this? This is a historical moment and like all of them, those on the wrong side are totally unaware during it, and make up even more BS afterwards. Been there, done that, this issue is too big, too easy to research (just put it on autoplay and do chores and wait until you get really disturbing vibes, no need to bother yourself with reading a book about abuse or brain development), and targets too defenseless people. You think I'm abrasive and maybe really nasty, I think that I replied at all was generous. After all, if you can get over being offended for calling you out, it contains information and constitutes another chance, as does every free minute of every day from now on. Over and out.)
So, by logic, if a child hasn't been taught to read and write by the time they're 3-years-old, they will never recover, they will always be less successful? That's my excuse then, I'm arguing with you because my neural pathways weren't well formed when I was 2-years-old.
From my experience, most people who claim to be experts on toddler brains aren't neurologists, they're flash card salesmen.
What I'm trying to say is that when we're talking about neurology and psychology, LOGIC is not useful.
But I digress. I can see this hits close to home for you, and that I'm raising your ire by wanting to discuss details when you see a large threat that needs to be eliminated, not examined.
I concede that you may be right on this point. I completely agree, these videos should be removed from Youtube (for several reasons). But that doesn't preclude discussing the videos objectively.
My apologies, and I wish you the best of luck.
Similar to this:
But for www.youtube.com and m.youtube.com (it is actually the same IP).
For example, while there are a ton of real Fireman Sam videos, there are also many that are just an endless concatenation of action scenes from different episodes. It goes on for about an hour, instead of the ten minutes of a regular episode. If you take it away from my kid he gets angry, if you don't he'll probably fall over from exhaustion after a while. And in any case I don't want him to vegitate in front of a nonsensical video for so long.
There are also tons of unboxing videos of toys. There are videos where some guy plays with toys and acts out new episodes with his weird voice. You never know if it is for children, or a satire/joke video for adults.
Then there are just videos that are buggy, stop early, have random parts cropped... etc. and are just frustrating.
It would be trivial to hire a couple of students and find and flag all of these videos (though not all mentioned in the posted link). DMCA and copyright would provide an easy mechanism to remove this content. Adult TV shows that are uploaded are removed immediately.
I have a sinister theory about this: This is tolerated by the copyright owners, or at least someone in the content distribution chain. The goal is to frustrate people enough that they will ditch YouTube and buy the DVDs.
I have since started to create a curated list of the good videos, and also moved to a Kodi setup where I can put known good episodes - it helps a lot to control the quantity and increase the quality of what the kid is watching.
These videos are basically electronic drug trips for 3 year olds.
There is no teaching going on, just attention and reward psychology. Any form of structure or coherence is removed, leaving just reward-inducing bright colours and fast movement. I really do wonder what affect this has on the human brain when consumed for hours every day.
Don't let an algorithm-controlled, attention hyper optimised marketplace control what your children see.
I thought YouTube was supposed to be for everyone, not just the same lowest-common-denominator mashed potatoes content you can get from daytime television.
If you are seeing channels die then it's for some other reason than YouTube trying to make a separate kid friendly app.
I say unfairly, because any number of creators can appeal the demonitization and have all of those videos re-instanted... but re-instatated too late to provide any real monetary value to the creator.
I find it hard to blame youtube for that frankly. They're a completely rational actor here. If you decide to tie all your income from a 3rd party platform who doesn't care about you and what you're doing you have to have a contingency plan for when you'll get screwed over. It's the same story with people developing app store apps, except arguably worse because it's more straightforward to monetize your applications without having to rely on ads or 3rd party services.
I think this complaining by big creators is rather pointless because they have nothing to bargain with. Most of them need youtube a lot more than youtube needs them, with the possible exception of maybe a few very high profile youtubers.
As long as Youtube won't have any serious competition nothing will change on that front I'm afraid. The network effect is too strong, you can't just start self-hosting and expect to get a similar exposition.
One example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe5eODFxwy0
I grew up on YouTube, it's just a shame to see what was once such a democratized and "everybody get's in" service has turned into just an Internet TV, browse the home page without being signed in and it's nothing but celebrity shite, clickbait content, and the sort of faux "internet randomness" that marketers crap out in all of it's corporate sanitized glory.
It's just sad. Maybe I've got the rose colored glasses on but it feels way different than even a few years ago.
Anytime an ad was shown on a slightly controversial video, an internet outrage mob would descend on the advertiser saying how dare they provide money to <odious cause>.
Advertisers pressured Youtube for ways to advertise only on non-controversial videos. Youtube responded by demonetizing anything even halfway controversial.
What's the difference? In my mind those are the same thing.
Not too long ago, a large amount of their back catalog was demonetized. It's not 'advertiser friendly' because sometimes even just the presence of a controversial speaker is enough to bring a hate mob down on anyone advertising on a video with them in it.
It's a business, they are going to do things like this to make money.
If you're not paying for YouTube, they have to get money from somewhere and if those somewheres don't want to advertise on non-family friendly content, what are YouTube supposed to do? Go bankrupt on principle?
They could set something up so creators could mark videos as premium, and then people have to pay a certain amount to watch.
Google already has the payments side of things covered from their other services, it really wouldn't be a stretch to add something like this.
Creators are basically having to do this anyway using a different site (Patreon) so Google should look at how to bring that internal to them.
That also neatly sidesteps the whole demonitized for being advertiser unfriendly issue, because the only people paying for various content are people who want to watch and support such content.
Isn't that basically YouTube Red? Which almost no-one pays for...
They killing/changing it:
They need to take responsibility for YouTube proper as well, and not hide behind a ToS. Kids is not even available on the Web as far as I can tell.
Any parent will tell you that you can read your child 199 good stories and 1 bad/scary one, and it's that 1 bad one that gives them recurrent nightmares.
IIRC it was linked to the business model of youtube and that it was an effective way to keep the audience captivated longer hence shown more ads.
This could have been an ideal add-on to the YouTube Red brand. I hope instead their reputation takes a hit from this oversight.
If they just fixed that a lot of the related video spam would go away. Ideally, related videos should come from the channel you're watching the video from. Really frustrating to be watching one video and find out you're not watching a clone account.
Example, Good account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7wAJTGl2gc
What shows on related looks like content from the same guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwGnpaiepCM
Some of this imagery and content can have lasting and damaging impact. Parents should absolutely watch this period carefully and either supervise consumption or have controlled environments.
Why not treat other people with respect and leave them to manage what they do with their own lives themselves instead of trying to force them to do what's best according to an arbitrarily chosen American-left-wing-parent-friendly culture?
Yes, this is children, but parents can manage what media their children consume. Let them make their own choices.
>YouTube says it has thousands of people working around the clock in different time zones to review flagged content.
That's a lot of work, I imagine.
https://youtu.be/3iq1TK3I2vc (explicit language)
I base this on the relatively popularity of crossover fan fiction involving Frozen. Frozen/ROTG is about 500 times as common as Frozen/Spiderman, Frozen/HTTYD about 40 times as common, Frozen/HP about 18 times as common, and Frozen/Thor about 12 times as common.
This is a speedy response?
1. still developing -> adults technically are, too.
2. more naive -> naivete is a function of life experience. there are plenty of naive adults.
how about we just not advertise, at all. this is virtue signaling at its finest. as long as advertising is targeted, children will be targeted. marketers will just make their efforts more opaque.
Youtube is a place where you can monentize content or you have to censor heavily. Pick one.
13 to 18
give authors a chance to categorize their own content.
I guess since most people don't get training in parenting it make sense most people are bad. Shrug.
Try to articulate in you mind why this is bad (looking at evedence). I think you'll find it hard.
It is a known fact that countries with insufficient opportunities to sell legitimate exports are the highest exporters of illicit items. When people are desperate for money and lack respectable opportunities, they lower their standards or they starve.
Edit: In response to your added sentence, so many rich people do all they can to find tax loopholes, I am not convinced that your assertion holds any water at all.
Additionally, I am aware they can fire people at will. But how laws and social contracts get interpreted changes when policies change. Welfare made it vastly more acceptable for women to have babies out of wedlock. It was intended for "the deserving poor" and designed to help poor single mothers at a time when most single moms were widows. The language did not specify widows. It changed the de facto social contract and altered social behavior.
The net result was an increase in poor single moms and an increase in the number of American children growing up in poverty.
Most pro UBI articles are pretty disingenuous. They say up front that UBI is intended to compensate for a permanent lack of jobs. Then they tell glowing tales of how wonderful it will be to have UBI to supplement your underpaid job. They don't actually explore the horror of living in a world with little to no hope of getting a job while inflation erodes the value of UBI.
I don't get it, honestly. The casually dismissive rebuttals here seem to be blithely oblivious to the dynamics I am commenting on and not genuinely engaging those things.
Better than the horror of living in a world with little to no hope of getting a job while also having no income at all.
But I think I am going to throw in the towel on this discussion. It seems pointless. Folks are pro UBI, and let's not let any facts get in the way.