This is entirely Google's issue to fix. Yes, YouTube has amazing educational content. I'd really like to make it available for my kids to see.
YouTube, however, makes it completely impossible to permanently filter/hide/disable the bane that is YouTube Shorts. I don't let my kids on TikTok not because it's Chinese, but because it's trash. I don't allow them near Instagram either.
The chances of kids growing an attention span by seeing interesting stuff in installments of 30 seconds approaches zero really, really fast. Yes there's the possibility telling a fun joke, demonstrating an optical illusion, or some interesting curiosity in under a minute. But it's far more likely that it's trash, and teaching kids (and adults) that if they don't get a kick of something within the first 10 seconds, it should be skipped.
And it's not necessarily age/quality rating of content; UX matters. It's totally different to find that your kid wasted an hour of their life doom scrolling over 150 videos of which they didn't even complete half, or that they spent it seeing half a dozen things videos of dubious quality: if it's half a dozen it's at least feasible to discuss with them why some are better than others.
So, I'm very close to just banning YouTube (at the DNS level if required). Which is a shame, because I then can't share the interesting stuff with them, and neither can their teachers.
Imagine you're the one running a business where you keep repeatedly trying to shove some feature down your user's throat.
What's that called in business school? I don't know, I never took any Business courses.
That I have no where else to go to see the content I want to see smells like a de-facto monopoly.
Not in this case, since the content makers can choose to host the digital files on a computer not owner by Alphabet.
Your situation is simply the content maker betting that it is not worth their time to try to earn a return by hosting on a non Alphabet computer.
But Alphabet is doing nothing to stop the content maker and you from reaching a deal.
They bought DoubleClick, which Microsoft and others felt strongly enough about to warn the FTC that might give Google too much control over online advertising. Seems like Meta is their only real competition on that front these days.
> What's that called in business school?
Pretty sure it's called inflating metrics. Things that get pushed on you (see many AI features, my pet peeve, especially at google) are not wanted (or they wouldn't need to be pushed) but someone has a big stake in showing uptake, e.g. promises made to investors that this would drive revenue.
No idea why, but it works and it's blissful. Plus you can still like videos, subscribe to channels and curate your own lists if you want to bookmark stuff to come back to.
I had assumed the behavior was malicious compliance on Google's part against California law that said no history had to actually mean no history.
Since there's not supposed to be any history, I have to trust it's just based on subscriptions. It seems like that could be the case, I guess? But I do have doubts that they do in fact have my history somewhere that's accessible to this recommendation engine.
Now, as a parent, I face a tough choice: I have history on the kids accounts precisely because I want to check on it and discuss with them what's good, or less so, to watch.
www.youtube.com##ytd-rich-section-renderer.ytd-rich-grid-renderer.style-scope:nth-of-type(1) www.youtube.com##ytd-rich-section-renderer.ytd-rich-grid-renderer.style-scope:nth-of-type(2) www.youtube.com##ytd-rich-section-renderer.ytd-rich-grid-renderer.style-scope:nth-of-type(4) www.youtube.com##ytd-guide-entry-renderer.ytd-guide-section-renderer.style-scope:nth-of-type(2)
Then, they start watching what their friends share in group chats. I can mostly avoid social media doom scrolling by preventing them having accounts, but not so YouTube.
And it's a tough decision to blanket ban YouTube, since it is used for educational purposes, including by teachers (a teacher wouldn't point a 13 yo pupil to TikTok).
YouTube didn't need to compete with TikTok or Reels; they chose to.
We could actually mandate that certain types of filtering features be implemented and available to users.
You can absolutely write laws which are aimed at ensuring user choice and agency are preserved.
This legislation and the broader idea of bans are none of that.
This isn't a "real life" thing - it's not like there's a strip club with open windows next door to your house for your children to look into. We're talking about a computer/iPad/mobile phone - block YT at the DNS level or better yet, don't even give one to your kids. Problem solved.
Other people shouldn't have to be punished with breaches to their privacy because people can't manage their childs online time.
A functional adult in the 2020s needs to learn how to use Google and YouTube. It's actually part of the curriculum at school.
The school also uses Gmail, and Classroom, and teaches kids to use Docs, Slides and Sheets (rather than Office 365). I dunno how much money changes hands, but this benefits Google in the long run, otherwise they wouldn't offer the service.
The problem here is Google feeling the need to compete with TikTok, and then mixing it with their educational offerings.
1. Had no opaque algorithmic feeds
2. No comment sections
3. Have a "show me more content like this" button, but again, no auto algorithmic feeds
4. Filter out age inappropriate content.
would be great for teenagers. I think the problem for YouTube is that it would be great for everyone else, too, so they'd get bombarded by "Hey, I want that version" requests, which would clearly make them less money.
There is no moral high ground with basically any online platforms, it's all solely based on financials, and people should realize this.
Most teenage-appropriate content would be enjoyed by adults too (e.g. lots of how-tos, educational content, music, entertainment, etc.) Most adults are not going to be into watching Blues Clues or whatever, which is why YouTube doesn't have to worry about cannibalizing more profitable content/algorithms for adults due to the existence of YouTube Kids.
What kind of content would you envision to be shown? Says if I want to watch more car review videos
See also: Facebook "efforts" to stop scam advertisements and Marketplace fuckery
There are people at YouTube/Google/Alphabet who care but at the end of the day we get what the invisible hand gives us. Market forces have not yielded a well-curated educational video experience on YouTube.
It does not ban them from streaming embedded YouTube videos or even browsing YouTube.com
No, the bill says they must take reasonable steps to prevent underage persons from accessing their services. Arguably, this means embedded videos will need to be restricted just as the regular site will be.
But you don't need an account to watch most videos on youtube, so this isn't banning all of youtube.. right?
I consider myself somewhat conservative in the traditional sense, and yet the Republican platform is almost diametrically opposed to my values.
And it's almost purely bathwater that gets put in my face on the YT front page. The occasional baby pops up.
(as someone who rarely logs in, and only with a couple of throw away-ish accounts because I don't like being tracked and don't like YT/Google - so this will affect my perception of the baby:bathwater ratio)
The major outcome of this legislation should be nothing more than Australian kids being the most familiar with VPN's and very little else, along with other tricks to bypass this.
We humans, when given enticing bad choices, will often give in to the enticement.
That universal tendency can be overcome by strict application of willpower, which can have long-term benefits.
It is possible to exploit this tendency to make money. And so, by recursive application of this principle, we arrive at 2025.
The real big-brain move is understanding this isn't about protecting kids, and there isn't really anything YouTube can do long-term. Australia has been going after US big tech for a long time