3 ms·

> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't YouTube require you to be at least 13? You need to be over 13 (or above, depending on the country) to create an ac

by r3bl 8y ago

> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't YouTube require you to be at least 13? You need to be over 13 (or above, depending on the country) to create an account. There's no limit on the content itself. In my opinion, there is no justifiable use case in which videos of children under 13 should be made publicly-available, but YouTube itself disagrees. Case in point: Ryan ToysReview has 18 million subscribers. YouTube thinks it's okay because the videos are uploaded and edited by his parents, while I think it's absurd that anyone makes an income based on sharing videos of their children publicly.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> YouTube thinks it's okay because the videos are uploaded and edited by his parents, while I think it's absurd that anyone makes an income based on sharing videos of their children publicly. Movies and TV shows starting children are not unheard of as commercial endeavors. I'm not sure why with YouTube as a viable monetizable video platform, parent-driven productions on that platform are fundamentally any worse of an idea.
- r3bl 8y ago
  Yes, movies and TV shows with children under 13 are widely-accepted, but being widely-accepted doesn't mean it's morally alright. There might be a time in which we reject such content just as we did with prior widely-accepted behavior that was immoral (like homophobia and racism). Future generations might look down on us because of child celebrities (among other things), and I sincerely hope they do.
  - GoblinSlayer 8y ago
    You want to destroy Leon, Star Wars and Aliens?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Yes, movies and TV shows with children under 13 are widely-accepted, but being widely-accepted doesn't mean it's morally alright. You’ve presented no argument as to why it's not alright. Now, this may be a base moral axiom for you, such that no argument is needed, but that's not particularly convincing to anyone who doesn't already take it as a moral axiom. > There might be a time in which we reject such content just as we did with prior widely-accepted behavior that was immoral (like homophobia and racism). There might be a time when we see anything in any way you can imagine. That's not an argument that we should. There might be a time

by r3bl 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> YouTube thinks it's okay because the videos are uploaded and edited by his parents, while I think it's absurd that anyone makes an income based on sharing videos of their children publicly. Movies and TV shows starting children are not unheard of as commercial endeavors. I'm not sure why with YouTube as a viable monetizable video platform, parent-driven productions on that platform are fundamentally any worse of an idea.

r3bl 8y ago
Yes, movies and TV shows with children under 13 are widely-accepted, but being widely-accepted doesn't mean it's morally alright. There might be a time in which we reject such content just as we did with prior widely-accepted behavior that was immoral (like homophobia and racism). Future generations might look down on us because of child celebrities (among other things), and I sincerely hope they do.
- GoblinSlayer 8y ago
  You want to destroy Leon, Star Wars and Aliens?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Yes, movies and TV shows with children under 13 are widely-accepted, but being widely-accepted doesn't mean it's morally alright. You’ve presented no argument as to why it's not alright. Now, this may be a base moral axiom for you, such that no argument is needed, but that's not particularly convincing to anyone who doesn't already take it as a moral axiom. > There might be a time in which we reject such content just as we did with prior widely-accepted behavior that was immoral (like homophobia and racism). There might be a time when we see anything in any way you can imagine. That's not an argument that we should. There might be a time