5 ms·

I feel like this is the same thing they said about tv, before that radio, before that..

by thatswrong0 8y ago

WillPostForFood 8y ago
Right, could be a repeating pattern, but could also be a downward slope.
- pasquinelli 8y ago
  or just shifting around how people zonk out.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I don't remember it ever being said about radio. TV certainly, but mainly it became a common theme after the arrival of Sky in UK. Now the kids had 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from, and even dedicated channels for effortless excess consumption. For the early part of our kid's lives there was only an hour or two of kids TV a day - between end of school and around 5:30pm in time for the evening news. Limiting consumption was far easier. Course there'd still be opportunity to watch soaps etc with parents
- soared 8y ago
  Are you 70 years old? Radio was at the same stage as the internet in the 50s and 60s.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Grew up with kids TV in the 70s and 80s thanks :p I have never once heard anyone criticise radio consumption that I can remember. Walkmans in the 80s, yes; games, yes; TV, definitely as mentioned. All of those have cropped up in the news more than a few times while they were topical. Maybe UK radio got a different reaction to the US?
    - derekp7 8y ago
      Back in the 60's and 70's, it was mostly criticism of radio stations that played rock music.
    - soared 8y ago
      That’s because it was normalized in the 70s and 80s. When it was still new people moaned about overconsumption, just like the internet.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      >I have never once heard anyone criticise radio consumption that I can remember. You're far too young to remember. There were two distinct moral panics about radio; the first in the 1930s when radio first became popular in the home, and the second in the early 1960s when transistorisation allowed teenagers to have radios of their own. Until 1967, the BBC did not have a pop music station. Until 1973, commercial radio was illegal. The pirates who filled the demand for pop radio in the interim were hugely controversial. A great many column inches were spent fretting over the corrupting influence of foreign broadcasters, beaming salacious rock and roll music into the bedrooms of British children.
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        Fair enough. Of course I also remember the huge moral panic over us all going to hell for playing rock records backwards for satanistic messages. We all tried, and failed, to find one of course after hearing of this. :) I'm rather surprised about the 1930s - early British radio was so worthy and busy and educating the populace. I'm surprised there was much scope left for panic.
- holygrail111 8y ago
  Nice pink floyd reference, see my above post about the mexicans and the africans, too.
radicalbyte 8y ago
The quality of content on TV is way better than YouTube. Thankfully my kids really like the learning series on Netflix (Umizoomi, True etc) instead of the horrible 'daddy finger' to cheap animation of babies which qualifies as 'child content' on YouTube.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  The quality of content on TV is way better than YouTube. IF you're talking only about children-specific stuff, then maybe so. But otherwise I totally disagree. There is SO much amazing content on Youtube (especially educational content); where nothing on TV can come close to match it. Pick a subject you want to learn, and there are hours and hours of content, a not insignificant amount from top tier universities, covering same.
  - radicalbyte 8y ago
    Yes, I'm talking about content for children; in my case children who cannot read/write. YouTube is a horrible wasteland of mind destroying insanity for that age group. I'm replying to a comment talking about the experience for kids. I agree about YouTube for adults and older children; there is an amazing amount of top quality content there for people who are capable of searching for it :-)
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  To the downvoter(s): I assume that you don't have young children. If you want to get an idea of how bad it is, search for "baby daddy finger" and then only follow the brightly colored links featuring babies or recognizable cartoon characters. Randomly subscribe to channels you see. Then you get the full < 6-7 year-old experience of YouTube.

I feel like this is the same thing they said about tv, before that radio, before that..

WillPostForFood 8y ago

Right, could be a repeating pattern, but could also be a downward slope.

pasquinelli 8y ago
or just shifting around how people zonk out.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

I don't remember it ever being said about radio. TV certainly, but mainly it became a common theme after the arrival of Sky in UK. Now the kids had 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from, and even dedicated channels for effortless excess consumption. For the early part of our kid's lives there was only an hour or two of kids TV a day - between end of school and around 5:30pm in time for the evening news. Limiting consumption was far easier. Course there'd still be opportunity to watch soaps etc with parents

soared 8y ago
Are you 70 years old? Radio was at the same stage as the internet in the 50s and 60s.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Grew up with kids TV in the 70s and 80s thanks :p I have never once heard anyone criticise radio consumption that I can remember. Walkmans in the 80s, yes; games, yes; TV, definitely as mentioned. All of those have cropped up in the news more than a few times while they were topical. Maybe UK radio got a different reaction to the US?
  - derekp7 8y ago
    Back in the 60's and 70's, it was mostly criticism of radio stations that played rock music.
  - soared 8y ago
    That’s because it was normalized in the 70s and 80s. When it was still new people moaned about overconsumption, just like the internet.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    >I have never once heard anyone criticise radio consumption that I can remember. You're far too young to remember. There were two distinct moral panics about radio; the first in the 1930s when radio first became popular in the home, and the second in the early 1960s when transistorisation allowed teenagers to have radios of their own. Until 1967, the BBC did not have a pop music station. Until 1973, commercial radio was illegal. The pirates who filled the demand for pop radio in the interim were hugely controversial. A great many column inches were spent fretting over the corrupting influence of foreign broadcasters, beaming salacious rock and roll music into the bedrooms of British children.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Fair enough. Of course I also remember the huge moral panic over us all going to hell for playing rock records backwards for satanistic messages. We all tried, and failed, to find one of course after hearing of this. :) I'm rather surprised about the 1930s - early British radio was so worthy and busy and educating the populace. I'm surprised there was much scope left for panic.
holygrail111 8y ago
Nice pink floyd reference, see my above post about the mexicans and the africans, too.

radicalbyte 8y ago

The quality of content on TV is way better than YouTube. Thankfully my kids really like the learning series on Netflix (Umizoomi, True etc) instead of the horrible 'daddy finger' to cheap animation of babies which qualifies as 'child content' on YouTube.

mindcrime 8y ago
The quality of content on TV is way better than YouTube. IF you're talking only about children-specific stuff, then maybe so. But otherwise I totally disagree. There is SO much amazing content on Youtube (especially educational content); where nothing on TV can come close to match it. Pick a subject you want to learn, and there are hours and hours of content, a not insignificant amount from top tier universities, covering same.
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  Yes, I'm talking about content for children; in my case children who cannot read/write. YouTube is a horrible wasteland of mind destroying insanity for that age group. I'm replying to a comment talking about the experience for kids. I agree about YouTube for adults and older children; there is an amazing amount of top quality content there for people who are capable of searching for it :-)
radicalbyte 8y ago
To the downvoter(s): I assume that you don't have young children. If you want to get an idea of how bad it is, search for "baby daddy finger" and then only follow the brightly colored links featuring babies or recognizable cartoon characters. Randomly subscribe to channels you see. Then you get the full < 6-7 year-old experience of YouTube.