5 ms·

To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.

by dgzl 7y ago

theobeers 7y ago
Yeah. I haven’t found any way of using YouTube that I would consider safe for children. The problems are at a fundamental level.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
longtom 7y ago
I think humans are a lot more robust than commonly assumed. Most of us do not break due to their mere experiences as long as their fundamental needs (food, being loved, goals and so on) are fulfilled. Once these needs are not fulfilled they may be more vulnerable though.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  It is, however, important to take note of how this robustness varies with age, just what proportion of people "most" counts as, and whether the most absolute category of humans "breaking" is most appropriate when we take into account the massive variation of mental states, disorders and the entire field of media effects and child psychology.
  - longtom 7y ago
    But consider for example the link between violent video games and prosocial outcomes. The effect sizes are tiny. The downsides of additional filters will very likely outweigh anything that can be gained regarding mental health and childhood development etc. I'd wager there are much much more effective ways of improving quality of life, e.g. improving community life, reducing working hours, reduce economic inequality etc. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  I feel the opposite. Based on how people (and myself) behave, humans love to prioritize short term dopamine hits with long term costs. Whether it be children addicted to YouTube, people addicted to sugar and inactivity (see obesity), refreshing Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/instagram/Hacker News for new bits of information, etc. We’re even willing to trash the planet if it gives us the satisfaction of living in single family homes with parking and some land for heavily fertilized grass. As a species, humans are getting better at using our susceptibility of the short term pleasures to operate businesses, but the long term effects are probably not going to be desirable.
  - longtom 7y ago
    The points you are raising (addiction) seem to be somewhat unrelated to what was being discussed (inappropriate content). Of course addictions are bad, but do you have any data supporting your claim that technology has increased the number of addicts? People vulnerable to be drawn to short-term dopamine hits have always existed, whether to food, gambling, or actual drugs.
    - etse 7y ago
      There are many negative responses to inappropriate content, and with regards to the subtopic of "breaking", addiction is one. Addiction can exacerbate other responses such as depression or anxiety, but I wouldn't rule it out as a response. As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are technology addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a sufficient logical claim. Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences?
      - longtom 7y ago
        > As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are technology addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a sufficient logical claim. No, because those people may have engaged in other unhealthy lifestyles if the technology didn't exist. > Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences? Yes, I've linked some in a comment below.
- dgzl 7y ago
  I think young humans are not developed enough to understand that the media's high praise of corruptive behavior is not healthy. I think young people are growing up thinking all the outrageous and adult content on the media platforms is not just some outlier entertainment, but rather that's what their future is going to be.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mc32 7y ago
What do their own folks who have children think? There must be some internal pressure on that issue but probably one of those things that get ignored. Why don’t we hear about their internal protests to management and sit outs, etc? If they’re getting fined, it’s more than just public opinion and advocacy it’s preventing illegal activity.
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  Probably a lot of eye rolling at the fine and whispy statements to each other like, “ they don’t understand, it takes time for the algorithms to get this stuff right.” Typical group think. They can feel like they’re doing good without actually doing it.
- JCharante 7y ago
  Do googlers let their [young] children use YouTube? I thought parents in tech were usually more restrictive on what they allowed their kids to spend time on
  - nexuist 7y ago
    Maybe not YouTube proper, but I would hope Googlers let their kids watch YouTube Kids. It would be a damning review on the product if its own engineers refuse to let their children use it.
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      There have been several high-profile articles in respectable magazines and newspapers lately which detail how the "tech elite" very often send their children to special schools with little or no technology, and severely limit their own children's access to technology at home. Meanwhile, they make billions off of feeding lowest common denominator content to everyone else's children.
cameronbrown 7y ago
Define inappropriate. The worst thing I've seen is somebody who swears or makes a fair amount of edgy jokes. I'm guessing you're outside the US since YouTube controls the trending tab pretty closely there.
- etse 7y ago
  Not saying these types of videos (or the ones they lead to) are trending, but you're asking for inappropriate. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/youtube-for-kids-videos-problems-algorithm-recommend https://www.wired.co.uk/article/youtube-for-kids-videos-prob...
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Oh yeah, there's definitely disturbing stuff on YouTube, not denying that. I just thing if most edgy think on Trending is PewDiePie, it's not too bad. I know it's hard, but kids should be with their parents anyway, when online at a young age.
- nomel 7y ago
  Trending yes, but related videos for a trending video can get inappropriate pretty quickly, especially with music videos. Beyond that, if they can type, it’s fairly trivial to find softcore porn, death, gore, and weirdness on YouTube.
- dgzl 7y ago
  How about softcore porn in the form of music videos? This is media kids are taking in every day.

To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.

by dgzl 7y ago

To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.

theobeers 7y ago

Yeah. I haven’t found any way of using YouTube that I would consider safe for children. The problems are at a fundamental level.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

longtom 7y ago

I think humans are a lot more robust than commonly assumed. Most of us do not break due to their mere experiences as long as their fundamental needs (food, being loved, goals and so on) are fulfilled. Once these needs are not fulfilled they may be more vulnerable though.

claudiawerner 7y ago
It is, however, important to take note of how this robustness varies with age, just what proportion of people "most" counts as, and whether the most absolute category of humans "breaking" is most appropriate when we take into account the massive variation of mental states, disorders and the entire field of media effects and child psychology.
- longtom 7y ago
  But consider for example the link between violent video games and prosocial outcomes. The effect sizes are tiny. The downsides of additional filters will very likely outweigh anything that can be gained regarding mental health and childhood development etc. I'd wager there are much much more effective ways of improving quality of life, e.g. improving community life, reducing working hours, reduce economic inequality etc. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf
lotsofpulp 7y ago
I feel the opposite. Based on how people (and myself) behave, humans love to prioritize short term dopamine hits with long term costs. Whether it be children addicted to YouTube, people addicted to sugar and inactivity (see obesity), refreshing Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/instagram/Hacker News for new bits of information, etc. We’re even willing to trash the planet if it gives us the satisfaction of living in single family homes with parking and some land for heavily fertilized grass. As a species, humans are getting better at using our susceptibility of the short term pleasures to operate businesses, but the long term effects are probably not going to be desirable.
- longtom 7y ago
  The points you are raising (addiction) seem to be somewhat unrelated to what was being discussed (inappropriate content). Of course addictions are bad, but do you have any data supporting your claim that technology has increased the number of addicts? People vulnerable to be drawn to short-term dopamine hits have always existed, whether to food, gambling, or actual drugs.
  - etse 7y ago
    There are many negative responses to inappropriate content, and with regards to the subtopic of "breaking", addiction is one. Addiction can exacerbate other responses such as depression or anxiety, but I wouldn't rule it out as a response. As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are technology addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a sufficient logical claim. Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences?
    - longtom 7y ago
      > As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are technology addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a sufficient logical claim. No, because those people may have engaged in other unhealthy lifestyles if the technology didn't exist. > Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences? Yes, I've linked some in a comment below.
dgzl 7y ago
I think young humans are not developed enough to understand that the media's high praise of corruptive behavior is not healthy. I think young people are growing up thinking all the outrageous and adult content on the media platforms is not just some outlier entertainment, but rather that's what their future is going to be.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mc32 7y ago

What do their own folks who have children think? There must be some internal pressure on that issue but probably one of those things that get ignored. Why don’t we hear about their internal protests to management and sit outs, etc? If they’re getting fined, it’s more than just public opinion and advocacy it’s preventing illegal activity.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago
Probably a lot of eye rolling at the fine and whispy statements to each other like, “ they don’t understand, it takes time for the algorithms to get this stuff right.” Typical group think. They can feel like they’re doing good without actually doing it.
JCharante 7y ago
Do googlers let their [young] children use YouTube? I thought parents in tech were usually more restrictive on what they allowed their kids to spend time on
- nexuist 7y ago
  Maybe not YouTube proper, but I would hope Googlers let their kids watch YouTube Kids. It would be a damning review on the product if its own engineers refuse to let their children use it.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    There have been several high-profile articles in respectable magazines and newspapers lately which detail how the "tech elite" very often send their children to special schools with little or no technology, and severely limit their own children's access to technology at home. Meanwhile, they make billions off of feeding lowest common denominator content to everyone else's children.

cameronbrown 7y ago

Define inappropriate. The worst thing I've seen is somebody who swears or makes a fair amount of edgy jokes. I'm guessing you're outside the US since YouTube controls the trending tab pretty closely there.

etse 7y ago
Not saying these types of videos (or the ones they lead to) are trending, but you're asking for inappropriate. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/youtube-for-kids-videos-problems-algorithm-recommend https://www.wired.co.uk/article/youtube-for-kids-videos-prob...
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Oh yeah, there's definitely disturbing stuff on YouTube, not denying that. I just thing if most edgy think on Trending is PewDiePie, it's not too bad. I know it's hard, but kids should be with their parents anyway, when online at a young age.
nomel 7y ago
Trending yes, but related videos for a trending video can get inappropriate pretty quickly, especially with music videos. Beyond that, if they can type, it’s fairly trivial to find softcore porn, death, gore, and weirdness on YouTube.
dgzl 7y ago
How about softcore porn in the form of music videos? This is media kids are taking in every day.