“How did we ever let Instagram and TikTok become a large part of the lives of so many eleven-year-olds?”
And yet again, YouTube somehow escapes scrutiny. Funny how that always seems to happen.
And yet again, YouTube somehow escapes scrutiny. Funny how that always seems to happen.
Either that, or YouTube runs a better PR campaign, I guess.
I've never used Instagram or Tiktok so can't comment.
I'm sure there were people complaining about YouTube being nothing but trash when the easiest things to find on the platform were car accident videos and pirated Family Guy clips and you had to spend more than a few minutes on the platform to find the interesting content.
> His real concern were platforms that are specifically engineered to “keep the child’s eyes glued to the screen for as long as possible in a never-ending stream of social comparison and validation-seeking from strangers”—platforms that see the user as the product, not the customer. “How did we ever let Instagram and TikTok become a large part of the lives of so many eleven-year-olds?” he asked.
How are you surprised by this? YouTube is an entirely passive platform for the vast majority of its users. It wouldn't have a lot of the problems being talked about in this article because of that.
We have a YouTube time limit here at home and I often login to the kids accounts to prune their subscriptions and attempt to block the most egregious morons.
This article isn't about that, it's about the impact of more interactive platforms, which have the potential to affect people much more deeply.
Questionable. It purports to ask a question, to which both active and passive use are relevant, then focuses on only one of those. Selective presentation is itself a kind of bias.