3 ms·

I'm really, really WTF. I see nothing wrong with these videos at all and the current general opinion here is the real worry. Not sure what the top secret vide

I'm really, really WTF. I see nothing wrong with these videos at all and the current general opinion here is the real worry. Not sure what the top secret videos the author found are that are so bad I can't see them but I totally have zero faith they back up the authors point whatever it is. I think the author needs to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales and get over their moral panic. There are possibly trolls out their that might create content with the purpose of harm, but i see no evidence yet they are succeeding in doing this, especially NOT in this article. Mixed with this normal Moral Panic is the old Barney the Dinosaur Panic. Shows that don't work on two levels (So just on a child's level) scare parents because they don't get them, the kids do, so the parent fear the unknown. Screen time for kids is not on topic here, not allowing kids to see videos for adults is not on topic here, so really there's nothing to see here with evidence. Unless the top secret videos do show evidence of videos children will accidentally come across while You tubing. Using automation to monetize is pretty interesting stuff though. There's the interesting story.

quotemstr 9y ago
I share your opinion on the banality of content-related moral panics. I don't think the subject matter covered matters much at all, since young children can't even comprehend the themes that horrify the author. What really strikes me about these videos, though, is the sheer volume and the degree of engagement optimization demonstrated. That's new and worth thinking about. We've had scary nursery rhymes and fairy tales for centuries at least. We've had nonsensical children's cartoons for half a century. Nothing has gone horribly wrong. But I don't think we've ever had industrial-scale production of videos so rigorously optimized for engagement at the expense of everything else. These videos remind me of the concept of "superstimuli" --- artificially-created patterns that are more attractive than the ones that appear in nature and that lead organisms away from healthy behavior patterns. Highly refined sugar-loaded food is an example of a superstimulus in humans. These videos are empty. They teach nothing. They're optimized for hitting all the right attention buttons in the brain, but they don't provide any of the training child's developing neural network needs to train itself. What effect is that going to have on development?
- aaron695 9y ago
  I definitely see your point of view and agree with superstimuli. Not necessarily empty though, you do have colors, words, sounds, rhythm, surprise, movement but not patience, conscientiousness etc But I think it's time allowed using electronic entertainment not the content of the electronic entertainment. I think all youtube is superstimuli. It possibly should be ZERO time, but if youtube for short periods allows the kids to go on a family trip or keeps parents sanity to allow for a dinner out perhaps there's value externally.
fredoliveira 9y ago
> I see nothing wrong with these videos at all and the current general opinion here is the real worry. Help me understand how you see "nothing wrong" in videos that are clearly "designed" to get kids (0-10) to watch, but then depict suicide, murder, rape? All those examples are in the article, and you can watch them yourself. You are thick-skinned, and most us adults are. We can see beyond the stupidity of those videos because our values have set in. But kids can't. Kids consuming this stuff in their formative years is troubling. How you don't see it is actually staggering.
InternetOfStuff 9y ago
I wonder if you're a troll, but on the chance you aren't: > I see nothing wrong with these videos at all and the current general opinion here is the real worry. I wager you have no children. If you did, and you had made the observations I have, I think you'd feel different. > I think the author needs to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales and get over their moral panic. From the Wikipedia article: 'The first volumes were much criticized because, although they were called "Children's Tales", they were not regarded as suitable for children' And even today, I think many of them aren't suitable for children (I found them vaguely unsettling as a child). I have a child small who used to be allowed on Youtube, but we've since disallowed it: the content was just too weird in a bad way, obviously not beneficial (it was amusing in the sense that crack is amusing), and amazingly addictive, pretty much like visual crack (to a degree other videos aren't). I can say that there's something unsettling going on, not merely from my opinion on the value of the videos (which I find annoying at best), but from the observed effects.

quotemstr 9y ago

I share your opinion on the banality of content-related moral panics. I don't think the subject matter covered matters much at all, since young children can't even comprehend the themes that horrify the author. What really strikes me about these videos, though, is the sheer volume and the degree of engagement optimization demonstrated. That's new and worth thinking about. We've had scary nursery rhymes and fairy tales for centuries at least. We've had nonsensical children's cartoons for half a century. Nothing has gone horribly wrong. But I don't think we've ever had industrial-scale production of videos so rigorously optimized for engagement at the expense of everything else. These videos remind me of the concept of "superstimuli" --- artificially-created patterns that are more attractive than the ones that appear in nature and that lead organisms away from healthy behavior patterns. Highly refined sugar-loaded food is an example of a superstimulus in humans. These videos are empty. They teach nothing. They're optimized for hitting all the right attention buttons in the brain, but they don't provide any of the training child's developing neural network needs to train itself. What effect is that going to have on development?

aaron695 9y ago
I definitely see your point of view and agree with superstimuli. Not necessarily empty though, you do have colors, words, sounds, rhythm, surprise, movement but not patience, conscientiousness etc But I think it's time allowed using electronic entertainment not the content of the electronic entertainment. I think all youtube is superstimuli. It possibly should be ZERO time, but if youtube for short periods allows the kids to go on a family trip or keeps parents sanity to allow for a dinner out perhaps there's value externally.

fredoliveira 9y ago

> I see nothing wrong with these videos at all and the current general opinion here is the real worry. Help me understand how you see "nothing wrong" in videos that are clearly "designed" to get kids (0-10) to watch, but then depict suicide, murder, rape? All those examples are in the article, and you can watch them yourself. You are thick-skinned, and most us adults are. We can see beyond the stupidity of those videos because our values have set in. But kids can't. Kids consuming this stuff in their formative years is troubling. How you don't see it is actually staggering.

InternetOfStuff 9y ago

I wonder if you're a troll, but on the chance you aren't: > I see nothing wrong with these videos at all and the current general opinion here is the real worry. I wager you have no children. If you did, and you had made the observations I have, I think you'd feel different. > I think the author needs to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales and get over their moral panic. From the Wikipedia article: 'The first volumes were much criticized because, although they were called "Children's Tales", they were not regarded as suitable for children' And even today, I think many of them aren't suitable for children (I found them vaguely unsettling as a child). I have a child small who used to be allowed on Youtube, but we've since disallowed it: the content was just too weird in a bad way, obviously not beneficial (it was amusing in the sense that crack is amusing), and amazingly addictive, pretty much like visual crack (to a degree other videos aren't). I can say that there's something unsettling going on, not merely from my opinion on the value of the videos (which I find annoying at best), but from the observed effects.