5 ms·
This presentation briefly mentions but then seems to mostly forget about "Elsagate" which they call the "Peppa Pig scandal". James Bridle argues convincingly t
by mherdeg 8y ago
This presentation briefly mentions but then seems to mostly forget about "Elsagate" which they call the "Peppa Pig scandal".
James Bridle argues convincingly that the genre of bizarre YouTube videos which appeals to the toddler reptilian brain ( https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-internet-c39c471271d2 https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-in... ) is not created by hostile or evil actors but instead has evolved orgnically based on what stuff toddlers want to click on. Kids' click patterns reward more video themes like "Elsa tied up on train tracks kissing Spiderman", so the content industry crams more of that stuff into its new content.
The result, after a few iterations, would not have passed editorial controls at 1990s Nickelodeon (!), which would normally have halted the feedback loop, but with no one at the helm -- to "censor" or otherwise exert editorial control -- YouTube's kid-targeted videos are just a whole forest of weird.
Does YouTube want to allow their platform to become a laboratory for rapidly discovering local maxima in very young children's fantasy worlds? Do they have any choice? Should they step in and publish rules for what children's content is allowed? Should they hire some kind of human curator or editor to enforce those rules for child-focused videos? Should Web platforms act in loco parentis?
In this cases, in "the Peppa Pig scandal" style situation, the producers are machine-generating content that gets clicks and the consumers are children.
When the issue is the viral proliferation of "fake news" and hate speech, the content producers are people or state propaganda apparatuses, and the consumers & re-sharers are grown adults.
It seems like it's a different topic with maybe different guiding principles to decide how & whether to censor these different groups of consumers & producers.
- fapjacks 8y agoSo "think of the children" when it comes to censorship. Got it.
- pm90 8y agoI realize its an often misused excuse for passing various bogus regulations. But your dismissive one liner is disparaging the comment while completely ignoring the massive context and reasoning provided; this is not the kind of conversation we expect of here.
- fapjacks 8y ago"Think of the children" as a justification for censorship is still "think of the children" as a justification for censorship, regardless of the context. Dressing it up in an attempt to make it more palatable and reasonable-sounding doesn't change what is at its core. And that's a nice touch, painting me as an outsider by pointing at the sign with the rules.
- why_only_15 8y agoDo you think adults are watching these kinds of videos? These aren't content for everyone that is being censored because of the needs of children; This is content explicitly for children that is being censored because of the needs of children.
- chaosite 8y agoThe document is a showcase of trends, as well as pressures being applied to Google from various groups. Like it or not, Elsagate is a well-documented phenomenon, and this document is treating it like the problem that it is. This is not a generic "think of the children" reasoning to ban things that adults enjoy -- Elsagate videos are targeted at children, they exploit various mechanisms to make children watch them (some children psychology, but mostly YouTube's recommendations algorithm.)
- raxxorrax 8y agoBut the actions of tech giants talk a different language. Alex Jones, crazy as he may be and scamming people with his "man-pills", didn't address children. There were others that have been excluded that were less crazy, just pointing out a prominent example. In consequence I doubt the intentions are as clear cut and restricted to these cases. Children are easily distracted and are easy target for clickbait, that is true. They are also more affine to access information their parents want to restrict. I think that is true even for people here. And you did that too.
- chaosite 8y ago
- mc32 8y agoKids' videos on YouTube Kids and Censoring the internet are very different things. It's like saying, we don't wanna sell alcohol, because if we did, we would have to sell alcohol to kids.
- webkike 8y agoOn a platform that caters to everyone and does not have age restrictions, you would have to sell alcohol to everyone and a subset of everyone is indeed children
- mc32 8y agoBut they Obviously have segregated it I mean the product is "YouTube Kids". So they don't have to. So there is no issue.
- webkike 8y agoHowever, there is no restriction on accessing regular youtube if you are child or a parent.
- aalleavitch 8y agoThe vast majority of all restrictions on a child’s behavior are simply enforced by their parents.
- webkike 8y agoThat’s the point. That used to be enough. Now just giving your child access to a computer could seriously tamper with their mental health
- Erlich_Bachman 8y agoBy the way, is there any evidence of this? Or are such claims perhaps similar to how old people never understood new things and claimed that "punk rock and heavy metal could seriously tamper with kids' mental health"?
- paganel 8y ago> Kids' click patterns reward more video themes like "Elsa tied up on train tracks kissing Spiderman", so the content industry crams more of that stuff into its new content. To be fair many of the Tex Avery and Tom and Jerry cartoons with which almost everyone grew up with were a lot more wild than that, thankfully they weren’t censored back when we were kids.
- pm90 8y agoHow were Tom and Jerry cartoons "wild"? Genuinely curious.
- paganel 8y agoI’m on the phone and too lazy to copy-paste video references, but as I remember there was lots and lots of violence that I don’t think would pass many of today’s censors. I also remember a couple of episodes involving a “lady cat” (Tom’s love interest) presented as a “femme fatale” which would push some hot buttons in today’s world (sexism, kids being subjected to watch sexual innuendo scenes etc). Ah, and there were also those early 1940s episodes where Tom’s owner is this black servant lady whose face is really never shown, that would generate some really heated conversations were it to be released in today’s political and social context.
- fulafel 8y agoItchy and Scratchy?
- chaosite 8y agoTex Avery and Tom & Jerry were wild and a product of their respective era, sure, but they're definitely not as bad as some of the Elsagate videos. Did you watch them? Some of them are literally snuff, with tons of gore. The stuff of nightmares.
- SSLy 8y agoWhich channels should I check out for examples?
- cameldrv 8y agoThe problem is that the whole YouTube UI is machine learned to maximize engagement, so that they can show a lot of ads. The algorithm will do whatever it can to get people to watch more YouTube. We notice the weird results when it comes to videos for toddlers, but the same thing is happening to adults, we just don't see it in quite the same way -- it's always easier to see self-destructive behavior and make attributions from the outside. Ultimately, interacting with software that has been machine learned for a metric that doesn't serve you or your kids' interests amounts to deliberately swallowing a parasite.