It's interesting reading the comments to see how one proposed "humanly curated" alternative (PBS kids) has been discarded as "not being free" yet people are up

It's interesting reading the comments to see how one proposed "humanly curated" alternative (PBS kids) has been discarded as "not being free" yet people are up in arms that Youtube Kids is not using humans to curate their videos. These 2 requirements are in contradiction. I don't know if it's even profitable to have a lot more humans reviewing Youtube Kids videos while keeping the service "free" (ad based) but even if we assume that may still be profitable it's pretty clear it will be significantly less profitable then it is now which means that Google (a company not known to be shy from shutting down services with tons of users) may simply shut it down and move to do something else where they can get higher profit. If the market/technology does exist where someone else could do a better job then there would be many alternatives, it's not like Youtube Kids has some lock in mechanism. PS: the self-driving moral decision comparison in the article seems baseless, I very much doubt anyone developing self-driving algorithms are considering "moral decisions", there is no moral decision to be made, the car will try to stop (in its lane) as fast as it can if it detects an obstacle, it won't try to swerve (after performing some imagined moral decision algorithm) because that would be illegal and it potentially increases liability of the software manufacturer.