How do you propose to prevent the disasters described in this thread? YouTube have loose standards and virtually no demonstrated ability for enforcement. I'm specifically worried about giving locked down PC to kid with my best effort and still kids getting exposed to content that they are not yet ready to process. How does YouTube enables me to to make sure that kids are protected?
It doesn't. I don't know why this expectation exists; youtube has not shown itself to be trustworthy in this sort of thing. Clearly an alternative needs to be used, like downloading youtube videos beforehand or using something else entirely.
YouTube Kids presents itself as specifically for kids. You don't expect weird fetish porn on daytime kids TV and it's completely reasonable to expect a similar level of moderation for an app that positions itself as an equivalent of that.
Blaming the parents really understates how much YouTube has fucked this one up. YT relies on a wonky algorithm and crowdsourcing to moderate its content at scale but their dirty little (open) secret is that this is error prone and exploitable. In a typical Google way they thought they could eliminate paid humans from the equation and still deliver quality -- they can't, and it's entirely their fault.
If a company misrepresents a product in a way that results it to cause harm when used exactly as advertised, it's the company's fault.
Not everyone wants their content censored by dogmatists.
YouTube Kids is from YouTube and is advertised as a kids-friendly filtered version of YouTube. YouTube Kids however failed to filter tons of disturbing and inappropriate content. The entire raison d'etre of YouTube Kids is to provide a filtered YouTube experience -- it failed hard.
EDIT: I can't even begin to comprehend how you think any of this is about "dogmatists censoring YouTube". YT Kids only providing kids-friendly content is no different from YT Music only providing music. It's not censorship, it's filtering. You can still go to YouTube proper and watch everything.
Your entire argument is the filtration they tried failed. We agree. Great.
My point is that the conclusion you draw is that everything needs more censorship. We disagree. I think parents need to take responsibility and not blame a company for providing a product they don't like.
Its the equivalent of censoring the radio because think of the children. It was a dumb idea then, it's a dumb idea now, because everyone knows that's not where it ends.
Not sure what part of that you disagree with.
That claim about their conclusion I do not understand, since I don't see where they are saying anything like that.
My argument is that more censorship won't help, because not everyone agrees on what is, and is not, kid friendly. So the entire enterprise is doomed to failure. The only solution I see is parents taking responsibility.
> This is basically the all-American argument of "sure, the advertising is a complete lie but it's the consumer's fault for being gullible".
No, it's your fault for believing advertising in the first place. I only judge youtube through my personal knowledge and experience of using it for the last 6+ years.
Just because someone, or a PR team, says "it's for kids!" does NOT mean it's quality programming or acceptable content. That is your responsibility to determine, as a parent or guardian. Do not blame youtube when you know that it is a website where anyone can upload anything. And it's run by a company that thinks ML algorithms can filter videos adequately.
No, this is lazy parenting, just blindly trusting a corporation to actually do things right, when they're not even regulated adequately.
Nothing is stopping you from downloading videos beforehand, or finding better content platforms or content producers, like PBS. This is you throwing up your hands in the air and wanting to shift blame to a corporation when you didn't take the time or effort to screen things before putting your kids in front of a screen + opaque algorithm.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/youtube-kids-adds-a-whitel...
I use OpenDNS and I have a few custom scripts so I can learn how often certain sites are being used. "Too much of a good thing is still too much."
I use history on my daughters YT account with a quick script that compares her computer's history on her computer. I don't run it all the time but I tell her trust but verify a lot. She is doing her school online and our biggest issue is she will watch videos and not do here work for a few hours.
This would allow a marketplace of editors. Someone who was making, for example, cooking videos, probably wouldn't have a couple of million dollars sitting around. Instead, their videos would be syndicated through an editor. An editor could make their own decisions on revenue share (if any at all) based on their own judgements of legal risk vs revenue opportunity. This could mean live streamers all have to go in to a closely monitored studio instead of doing it from home.
In a way this is similar to how the old network TV or print periodical marketplace worked, but adapted for the internet. Network TV had to pay big fines if someone said fuck or a nipple was broadcast live. Thus, they assumed legal liability for their guests behavior.
This still doesn't solve the core issue that the Youtube CEO described, which is when a bunch of people claim copyright on the same video. Solving that probably requires clawback provisions over lost revenue from making fake claims.
I don't think this approach would be ok in the United States, but it seems reasonable for the EU, China, and so on.