You're literally talking about a video you let your child watch, while bemoaning the FCC needing to step in.
> The fact that YouTube can go here and say their platform is only intended for 13 year olds and up is a joke
The joke is that you understand YouTube is for 13 year olds and up, and you still allow your child on there. Personal responsibility needs to come first.
> They are marketing towards kids and I can’t stand it.
What kind of home router do you have. I'll show you how to block YouTube. Your mom can do similar things at home. There are plenty of blocking solutions out there. Which ones have you tried?
Uploading cartoon nursery rhymes and having an ad for drug trafficking come up is idiotic.
> We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes.
This is a completely different problem. Content is made for children. Those content creators don't want unsuitable ads in the content. The children enjoy watching the content. Those children don't want unsuitable ads. The parents are happy for their children to watch the content. Those parents don't want unsuitable ads.
All YouTube has to do is give content creators a checkbox: "Is this content aimed at people under 18?", then not place ads for gambling or alcohol or horror movies etc against that content.
YouTube needs to be aware that regulation is coming, and they're not going to like what the EU will impose.
Of course. There was another submission under which the US was called out for having less of that in comparison to Europe. As I said, kids are free to be kids around here in Eastern Europe, there are lots of playgrounds being built for them, they are usually allowed to go to school and back alone, and so on. Kids' freedom is less restricted in the name of safety.
> We don't want a society where parents have to helicopter their children.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by this. What I am trying to say is that if someone's kids buy something with their credit card, then perhaps they should find a solution to that within the household (parenting) instead of asking the Government to step in.
Regarding my example, I only meant to bring up the trend which I observed lately that some parents put the blame on everyone else but themselves, that is, they do not assume parental responsibility.
> All YouTube has to do is give content creators a checkbox: "Is this content aimed at people under 18?", then not place ads for gambling or alcohol or horror movies etc against that content.
Yes, I do agree with not placing ads targeted for adults when the videos are targeted for children. There is a solution to it right now though, namely ad blockers. Parents could install or ask their kids to install, say, uBlock and perhaps even uMatrix. They do not have to wait for the regulations. :)
Are you saying there are no ad blockers on iOS? I can think of two ways and I am not an iOS user: 1) you can use RSS and open in Safari which has full adblocking support, or 2) you can auto download the videos. No ads in downloaded videos.
What do you mean by "without root"? Could you give me a specific example?
Out of curiosity, what is the reason for you or your children not willing to give up the YouTube app so that you can use a browser with an ad blocker installed to avoid ads? What is that feature that you (for yourself and your children) or your children prefer over not having ads?
I think the mistake you're making is assuming everything is binary. "A parent either assumes parental responsibility OR they complain about how society is corrupting their child."
But why can't a parent do both?
I am not telling them to not complain. They can complain freely, just as I am allowed to point out that no amount of regulations (sometimes at the expense of other people) will replace parenting. I, for one, would totally be against camera identification prior each purchase because parents cannot keep their credit card away from their children. They are also free to complain about issues that can be easily resolved were they to care enough and put some effort into it.
By your method of thinking...let's just make everything OK for babies and let the parents decide.
That makes no sense...it's why society has laws (Why can't I go buy a bazooka in Europe? Because there are laws).
But other video providers can make sure that video and the ads placed against that video is suitable for children. I can let a 7 year old sit and watch uk ITV kids content for an hour and I know it'll be fine. I cannot do that for YouTube, because YT ignores the regulatory framework.
That framework is largely voluntary, so sure they don't _have_ to comply with it. But whenever this comes up (especially with taxes) people say "if you don't like non-compliance with voluntary regulation just change the law". And then, when the law is changed (eg, GDPR), people lose their shit and talk about how restrictive the law is.
That's mostly because ITV is a television network and YT is a platform, not a publisher. ITV curates the content (and the ads), YT does not. One is meant for children, the other is not, though some third parties are putting content on the YT platform aimed at children. Those are major differences. If you want to let a child alone in front of a screen, turn to television.
The comment about moms blocking YouTube is a bit ridiculous. Seems hard to believe likelihood of finding one could be higher than the likelihood of finding a kid who can work around it.
> The comment about moms blocking YouTube is a bit ridiculous. Seems hard to believe likelihood of finding one could be higher than the likelihood of finding a kid who can work around it.
It is not hard to block domains at the router, and restrict the devices your child has access to. Of course they might use a friends, or find a way around it. But the OP is literally talking about overhearing the video on the couch and not doing anything about it.
That's why I asked what they tried... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOTyUfOHgas
Also is there any parental consent thing going on here as well with how YouTube words it?
I remember seeing plenty of adult ads as a kid watching TV at night time watching with my parents. The morning kids shows and kids channels always had ads for children of course. Id imagine it's in YouTubes interest not to show kids adult ads as well, most adults probably aren't sitting around watching the same shows with them to make the adult ads useful.
Also YouTube Kids has no quality controls. It uses more bandwidth, due to our hires tablet display I guess, than any other device in our household. Very annoying when on capped LTE on a trip.
We, the parents, should of course try to minimize the amount of time our kids spend with youtube or in general with phones/tablets/TVs.
EVERYTHING that deals with children whether directly or indirectly is strictly regulated, and rightly so.
Television programming as an example, for 70 years only permits certain ads to be displayed on children's shows.
YouTube should be regulated by the FCC in regards to this and very easily can have a checkbox for advertisers and providers to check that says the content is for under 13 or not.
I've complained to the UK regulator about gambling ads placed in children's content and they are paying attention.
They say it's hard because YouTube forbids (because COPPA) anyone under 13 from having an account, which means those children use their parent's accounts, and so the demographics used by the advertisers are skewed.
However, they did take action against every single gambling company I complained about because the ads were placed against children's content.
Does that still happen if you actually pay for the service via Prermium subscription? Or only if you want to use it completely free and paying nothing?