Comment by ncruces | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ncruces | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As a parent (who also btw uses Google products every single effin day) I just can't agree.

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.

Yeah, no amount of effort allows me to shut off YouTube Shorts.

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.

It's a form of bundling.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

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.

You can completely disable Shorts by turning off your YouTube history.

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.

unfortunately turning off history kills all forms of suggestions, including ones like "you're subscribed to these things, so perhaps you might also be interested in...", which is the form of recommendation I want the most since it's driven by what I chose to be watching rather than what I've previously watched.

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.

I have had history turned off for years. It won't recommend anything on the main feed, but when I watch a video, it recommends more as usual. There's plausible deniability that the recommendations are based on just what I'm watching but in practice that's obviously not true, many recommendations are based on either my subscriptions or my watch history, as they are not related to the video I am watching but are related to my interests.

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.

OK, I didn't know that, though it's not very intuitive. Thanks!

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.

I've had my history turned off for years, and still get Shorts.

Except this is something the government could practically fix.

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.

I don't disagree.

So then block google/YT and call it a day? It's absolutely not Google's problem.

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.

No, but the strip club is next to everybody else's house as well as schools.

A functional adult doesn't need to ever go to a strip club.

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.

I have been able to somewhat reasonably block youtube shorts with the following custom filter ublock origin rules (on firefox at least). Note that it might accidentally hide some legitimate stuff but from my experience it should be pretty minimal if any. I think to hide the shorts from the left sidebar it hides one of your subscribed channels but that's all I've noticed so far.

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)

I feel you about short content, I've taken to using uBlock origin with a custom filter to eliminate shorts from the front page. On the other hand when a youtuber makes a video 10-40 minutes long when the brunt of the information could be 1-5 minutes that gets my goat as well. My children do benefit from the amazing assortment of educational and entertaining options, but we watch together and talk about what we see, they're becoming media savvy and complain when sponsor block misses a segment. If we all skipped the ads we would see a new internet emerge.

Let's watch together starts to fall flat when the primary use they have for a device is to chat with family and friends, where it's natural to want a modicum of privacy. I wanna know who they're talking to, not everything they say.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com