3 ms·

Problem is quality. "YouTube kids" is a big meme, because some of the most popular content creators were certainly not creating kid friendly content. Example be

Problem is quality. "YouTube kids" is a big meme, because some of the most popular content creators were certainly not creating kid friendly content. Example being "spiderman and Elsa". In my opinion kids should not be on the internet. Not that we can reasonably stop them, but I don't at all believe YouTube is an equivalent to directed quality content like PBS.

ldiracdelta 5y ago
I don't allow unrestricted access to the internet for my kids and they aren't allowed screens in any room except where others may see them and their screens all the time. Yes, it is friction and not perfection. The internet is a Victorian-era cesspool with raw sewage and dysentery everywhere. They'll have to learn how to not contract cholera as they grow up, but I also don't let them play with firearms or dabble with black-tar heroin.
- asoneth 5y ago
  I agree, and that's one reason I like curated content such as PBS. We had some inappropriate/disturbing "next video" suggestions on YouTube that initially seemed OK at a distance or for the first few minutes that we didn't catch right away. So I wouldn't trust kids using YouTube except if an adult is setting the playlist and watching with them. Whereas the PBS Kids apps (and Scratch Jr, Kahn Kids, etc) have curated content that I trust. We still limit their screen time and monitor their use by working in the same room, but it's not nearly as risky to let them use it on their own.
  - ldiracdelta 5y ago
    Totally agree. Burnt by youtube suggestions for kids as well. People creating content that seems like it is for kids so they can say horrific things to kids 2 minutes in. Absolute dumpster fire.
- gowld 5y ago
  The Internet is like a free cafeteria (yay!) where the heroin is right next to the broccoli, but also heavily advertised and dressed up. Coercing people into making good choices in a non-starter. We need a huge broad based social effort to educate each other on how to be safe. The government can't be trusted to do it for us. We can't just say "coerce the bad guys into submission", because the bad guys will do the same and are better at it.
  - seph-reed 5y ago
    I feel very lucky to have grown up with unrestricted access to the internet in the 90s-2000s. It was still broccoli and heroin, but neither seemed to be able to advertise over the other, and there was limited supplies of both. Kind of forced me to try every plate.
ultrarunner 5y ago
I think your point is valid for an equivalent understanding of unrestricted (or popular) access. All YouTube kid videos lead to toy review/recommendation videos eventually. However, the internet is a big place, and if I have something in mind that explores an idea I can usually find it somewhere online. In contrast, legacy media like PBS doesn't generally allow for picking relevant content— the unrestricted or passive mode is the only mode available without scheduling your day around TV (something I'm not keen to encourage). So no, not equivalent, but not necessarily worse.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Current PBS structure has an interesting solution for this issue, but I don't know if it could be mapped onto an online space. So since individual stations curate what they fill their airwaves with, they have the option of selecting what content coming from other PBS stations they will broadcast (or not). That provides a bit of a back-stop against truly wild stuff appearing in markets where it won't play without criticism. There isn't one curator; it's many curators with regional scope of influence. (PBS stations do end up taking criticism, and some of it can be funny. Anecdotally, I know my local station would get complaints that the exercise outfits worn by the people in a work-out show the station syndicated were too revealing. It was the '90s, and these were ankle-to-chest leotards, but people's opinion of appropriate attire varies widely. The station did not cancel the show. ;) ).
marto1 5y ago
Yes, correct. Only good solution I know about this is parents providing a manually curated library of media to their kids. Having more tools to easily achieve this would be great.

ldiracdelta 5y ago

I don't allow unrestricted access to the internet for my kids and they aren't allowed screens in any room except where others may see them and their screens all the time. Yes, it is friction and not perfection. The internet is a Victorian-era cesspool with raw sewage and dysentery everywhere. They'll have to learn how to not contract cholera as they grow up, but I also don't let them play with firearms or dabble with black-tar heroin.

asoneth 5y ago
I agree, and that's one reason I like curated content such as PBS. We had some inappropriate/disturbing "next video" suggestions on YouTube that initially seemed OK at a distance or for the first few minutes that we didn't catch right away. So I wouldn't trust kids using YouTube except if an adult is setting the playlist and watching with them. Whereas the PBS Kids apps (and Scratch Jr, Kahn Kids, etc) have curated content that I trust. We still limit their screen time and monitor their use by working in the same room, but it's not nearly as risky to let them use it on their own.
- ldiracdelta 5y ago
  Totally agree. Burnt by youtube suggestions for kids as well. People creating content that seems like it is for kids so they can say horrific things to kids 2 minutes in. Absolute dumpster fire.
gowld 5y ago
The Internet is like a free cafeteria (yay!) where the heroin is right next to the broccoli, but also heavily advertised and dressed up. Coercing people into making good choices in a non-starter. We need a huge broad based social effort to educate each other on how to be safe. The government can't be trusted to do it for us. We can't just say "coerce the bad guys into submission", because the bad guys will do the same and are better at it.
- seph-reed 5y ago
  I feel very lucky to have grown up with unrestricted access to the internet in the 90s-2000s. It was still broccoli and heroin, but neither seemed to be able to advertise over the other, and there was limited supplies of both. Kind of forced me to try every plate.

ultrarunner 5y ago

I think your point is valid for an equivalent understanding of unrestricted (or popular) access. All YouTube kid videos lead to toy review/recommendation videos eventually. However, the internet is a big place, and if I have something in mind that explores an idea I can usually find it somewhere online. In contrast, legacy media like PBS doesn't generally allow for picking relevant content— the unrestricted or passive mode is the only mode available without scheduling your day around TV (something I'm not keen to encourage). So no, not equivalent, but not necessarily worse.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Current PBS structure has an interesting solution for this issue, but I don't know if it could be mapped onto an online space. So since individual stations curate what they fill their airwaves with, they have the option of selecting what content coming from other PBS stations they will broadcast (or not). That provides a bit of a back-stop against truly wild stuff appearing in markets where it won't play without criticism. There isn't one curator; it's many curators with regional scope of influence. (PBS stations do end up taking criticism, and some of it can be funny. Anecdotally, I know my local station would get complaints that the exercise outfits worn by the people in a work-out show the station syndicated were too revealing. It was the '90s, and these were ankle-to-chest leotards, but people's opinion of appropriate attire varies widely. The station did not cancel the show. ;) ).

marto1 5y ago

Yes, correct. Only good solution I know about this is parents providing a manually curated library of media to their kids. Having more tools to easily achieve this would be great.