7 ms·

> Google probably doesn't want to validate users' age (because selling ads to impressionable kids is very lucrative) but they have to now. I mean, I hate this

> Google probably doesn't want to validate users' age (because selling ads to impressionable kids is very lucrative) but they have to now. I mean, I hate this age validation as much as everyone else, curbing advertising to impressionable kids doesn't sound too stupid to me...

wyager 5y ago
This is parents’ job, not Google’s. If you legally require Google to act like a parent, they have to do it to everyone.
- adkadskhj 5y ago
  It _sounds_ like you're speaking in absolutes though, lacking nuance. If you are, my reply to absolutes would be that we should stop enforcing alcohol sales to minors, as it's the parent's job to ensure kids their don't drink. Personally i think age verification is good. This implementation is moronic, though. And all around it's very, very difficult. So difficult that it may never be useful.
  - h_anna_h 5y ago
    > my reply to absolutes would be that we should stop enforcing alcohol sales to minors We absolutely should. Thankfully it is already not enforced in a lot of places (such as in greece).
- kowlo 5y ago
  I hope I won't be considered presumptuous, but I suspect you don't have children? It is simply impossible to monitor absolutely everything.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    And you should not do so.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - k12sosse 5y ago
      I would say YMMV. If you have a child in a problematic scenario, your opinion might change.
  - wyager 5y ago
    Cool, so don't let them freely browse the internet if you're that worried.
- Spivak 5y ago
  Sounds good. Say I'm a non-technical parent that wants to give my child access to YouTube but not allow them to watch content that they're not old enough to consume on their own. How should I do this? I want to give them the freedom to explore topics they're interested in so downloading some pre-approved videos isn't going to work. And my kid is smart and will realize that any account-specific setting can trivially be bypassed by logging out. What should I do? Not allowing my kids access to the internet at all is a non-answer in 2020. Hell it was a non-answer in 1995.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    This is a tough question and I share it, with two elementary-age kids myself who love youtube. I don't have a good answer either. We put time limits on youtube and require that the kids use common-area computers to access it, but it would be nice if I could feel more confident about the content they're allowed to be exposed to.
  - jtbayly 5y ago
    Even if you locked them down to YT for kids, do you honestly trust Google to accurately decide what is acceptable for kids? Yeah, no. I don't. (Remember when they had porn in there?) So how does this help, anyway?
    - sp332 5y ago
      Lately, they have been good. I don't blame you for mistrusting them because it took at least 4 scandals (I lost track), but they seem to have sorted it out.
      - handrous 5y ago
        Still much worse than just letting parents create an allow-list of channels or videos from any part of YT, including the non-"YouTube Kids" part :-/ It'd be nice to be able to turn them loose on a YouTube that was just educational videos I've curated, no weird toy unboxing shit, without having to, like, maintain my own file server and streaming service.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  Well then parents should apply legislative pressure, which should arrive at Google as "fix this or we legislate", and bingo, Google need to do something. That is parents doing parenting. Parenting happens through societal structures.
  - growse 5y ago
    When parenting your own kids isn't enough, but you feel you need to parent everyone else's as well.
    - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
      When you want to team up with other parents to make all of your lives easier.
      - growse 5y ago
        "all your lives"? Or just the lives of a few, at the cost of the many? Not all parents agree that this is the right thing to do.
        tovej 5y ago
        Do you know _any_ parents that want their kids to consume ads?
        wyager 5y ago
        The sane strategy is to simply avoid using an iPad as a babysitter rather than try to make everyone else’s life worse legislatively.
        tovej 5y ago
        Right, and it's not the tobacco industry's fault that people die of lung cancer, people should just know better than to smoke in the first place. And if you didn't know, children will eventually start using computers by themselves, probably before they are 12 (probably in first grade or kindergarten, I wouldn't be surprised). A huge portion of internet users are children. That's a fact. The reality is that a huge portion of children are online, and advertisers are specifically targeting children on youtube.
- sp332 5y ago
  It's not exactly an age restriction, it's just getting permission from a parent. Either the parent puts in their ID information or they don't. Age restriction would be like movie theaters banning minors from certain movies.
  - wyager 5y ago
    Who cares about the age restriction? The issue here is obviously having to put in government ID to use the internet.
- kube-system 5y ago
  The same argument you are using is the justification for this. “It’s should be the parents decision to allow children to watch this content, not Google”
  - wyager 5y ago
    Parents' authority over their children does not extend to forcing random strangers to enter government ID to use the internet.
danShumway 5y ago
Well, the devil is in the details. In practice, making sure that kids can't see certain content or making sure that they never get advertised to often involves age validation. There's some stuff we can do with content that is targeted at kids, I don't think those laws are inherently bad. Although... last time we tried to expand laws around advertising in content directed toward kids, that resulted in a huge number of game streamers and animators getting demonetized, to the point where Youtubers were doing wild things like swearing more in their videos so they could prove that they weren't targeted at kids. We seem to have a lot of difficulty articulating legally what the difference is between "kid appropriate" and "kid targeted" is, particularly when it comes to stuff like video games or "wholesome" (for lack of a better word) content. To me, it's very much a "who's going to bell the cat" policy. I don't want kids to be subjected to so much advertising, it's a great policy. In theory. But I have not so far seen any practical implementations of age restrictions online that haven't either been completely worthless or really problematic for both privacy and free expression.
Aerroon 5y ago
I would much rather allow kids to watch trailers of Battlefield than to have to give Google pictures of my ID/passport. But that ship has sailed now. This is the new reality and it'll probably be applied to more websites in the future.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  Your kids? Also, there’s much more content on YouTube that most parents would absolutely not want their kids seeing than a battlefield trailer.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    If I had kids? Yes. My exploration online was effectively unrestricted while I was growing up. The internet had far more objectionable content back then that was easily accessible. I don't feel that it had any real negative effect on me. Why would I worry myself sick over my kids seeing it? Also, even if there is more objectionable content than a Battlefield trailer, the Battlefield trailer is restricted by the same rules. And if everyone else in your kids' friend group is talking about Battlefield then you'd be excluding your kid from it by limiting access to that. And if you don't limit access to it, then you get all the other 'objectionable' content too.
jeroenhd 5y ago
It makes total moral sense, but Google has proven that morality is not their top priority when money is at stake. That's why governments fine companies that do undesirable things; it forces shareholders to care about ethics. And perhaps it shouldn't; America's prudeness around sex but glorification of violence has had an effect around the world through Hollywood for years. Adding that morality to the flow of information might not be what we want.

wyager 5y ago

This is parents’ job, not Google’s. If you legally require Google to act like a parent, they have to do it to everyone.

adkadskhj 5y ago
It _sounds_ like you're speaking in absolutes though, lacking nuance. If you are, my reply to absolutes would be that we should stop enforcing alcohol sales to minors, as it's the parent's job to ensure kids their don't drink. Personally i think age verification is good. This implementation is moronic, though. And all around it's very, very difficult. So difficult that it may never be useful.
- h_anna_h 5y ago
  > my reply to absolutes would be that we should stop enforcing alcohol sales to minors We absolutely should. Thankfully it is already not enforced in a lot of places (such as in greece).
kowlo 5y ago
I hope I won't be considered presumptuous, but I suspect you don't have children? It is simply impossible to monitor absolutely everything.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  And you should not do so.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - k12sosse 5y ago
    I would say YMMV. If you have a child in a problematic scenario, your opinion might change.
- wyager 5y ago
  Cool, so don't let them freely browse the internet if you're that worried.
Spivak 5y ago
Sounds good. Say I'm a non-technical parent that wants to give my child access to YouTube but not allow them to watch content that they're not old enough to consume on their own. How should I do this? I want to give them the freedom to explore topics they're interested in so downloading some pre-approved videos isn't going to work. And my kid is smart and will realize that any account-specific setting can trivially be bypassed by logging out. What should I do? Not allowing my kids access to the internet at all is a non-answer in 2020. Hell it was a non-answer in 1995.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  This is a tough question and I share it, with two elementary-age kids myself who love youtube. I don't have a good answer either. We put time limits on youtube and require that the kids use common-area computers to access it, but it would be nice if I could feel more confident about the content they're allowed to be exposed to.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  Even if you locked them down to YT for kids, do you honestly trust Google to accurately decide what is acceptable for kids? Yeah, no. I don't. (Remember when they had porn in there?) So how does this help, anyway?
  - sp332 5y ago
    Lately, they have been good. I don't blame you for mistrusting them because it took at least 4 scandals (I lost track), but they seem to have sorted it out.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Still much worse than just letting parents create an allow-list of channels or videos from any part of YT, including the non-"YouTube Kids" part :-/ It'd be nice to be able to turn them loose on a YouTube that was just educational videos I've curated, no weird toy unboxing shit, without having to, like, maintain my own file server and streaming service.
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
Well then parents should apply legislative pressure, which should arrive at Google as "fix this or we legislate", and bingo, Google need to do something. That is parents doing parenting. Parenting happens through societal structures.
- growse 5y ago
  When parenting your own kids isn't enough, but you feel you need to parent everyone else's as well.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    When you want to team up with other parents to make all of your lives easier.
    - growse 5y ago
      "all your lives"? Or just the lives of a few, at the cost of the many? Not all parents agree that this is the right thing to do.
      - tovej 5y ago
        Do you know _any_ parents that want their kids to consume ads?
        wyager 5y ago
        The sane strategy is to simply avoid using an iPad as a babysitter rather than try to make everyone else’s life worse legislatively.
        tovej 5y ago
        Right, and it's not the tobacco industry's fault that people die of lung cancer, people should just know better than to smoke in the first place. And if you didn't know, children will eventually start using computers by themselves, probably before they are 12 (probably in first grade or kindergarten, I wouldn't be surprised). A huge portion of internet users are children. That's a fact. The reality is that a huge portion of children are online, and advertisers are specifically targeting children on youtube.
sp332 5y ago
It's not exactly an age restriction, it's just getting permission from a parent. Either the parent puts in their ID information or they don't. Age restriction would be like movie theaters banning minors from certain movies.
- wyager 5y ago
  Who cares about the age restriction? The issue here is obviously having to put in government ID to use the internet.
kube-system 5y ago
The same argument you are using is the justification for this. “It’s should be the parents decision to allow children to watch this content, not Google”
- wyager 5y ago
  Parents' authority over their children does not extend to forcing random strangers to enter government ID to use the internet.

danShumway 5y ago

Well, the devil is in the details. In practice, making sure that kids can't see certain content or making sure that they never get advertised to often involves age validation. There's some stuff we can do with content that is targeted at kids, I don't think those laws are inherently bad. Although... last time we tried to expand laws around advertising in content directed toward kids, that resulted in a huge number of game streamers and animators getting demonetized, to the point where Youtubers were doing wild things like swearing more in their videos so they could prove that they weren't targeted at kids. We seem to have a lot of difficulty articulating legally what the difference is between "kid appropriate" and "kid targeted" is, particularly when it comes to stuff like video games or "wholesome" (for lack of a better word) content. To me, it's very much a "who's going to bell the cat" policy. I don't want kids to be subjected to so much advertising, it's a great policy. In theory. But I have not so far seen any practical implementations of age restrictions online that haven't either been completely worthless or really problematic for both privacy and free expression.

Aerroon 5y ago

I would much rather allow kids to watch trailers of Battlefield than to have to give Google pictures of my ID/passport. But that ship has sailed now. This is the new reality and it'll probably be applied to more websites in the future.

vineyardmike 5y ago
Your kids? Also, there’s much more content on YouTube that most parents would absolutely not want their kids seeing than a battlefield trailer.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  If I had kids? Yes. My exploration online was effectively unrestricted while I was growing up. The internet had far more objectionable content back then that was easily accessible. I don't feel that it had any real negative effect on me. Why would I worry myself sick over my kids seeing it? Also, even if there is more objectionable content than a Battlefield trailer, the Battlefield trailer is restricted by the same rules. And if everyone else in your kids' friend group is talking about Battlefield then you'd be excluding your kid from it by limiting access to that. And if you don't limit access to it, then you get all the other 'objectionable' content too.

jeroenhd 5y ago

It makes total moral sense, but Google has proven that morality is not their top priority when money is at stake. That's why governments fine companies that do undesirable things; it forces shareholders to care about ethics. And perhaps it shouldn't; America's prudeness around sex but glorification of violence has had an effect around the world through Hollywood for years. Adding that morality to the flow of information might not be what we want.