12 ms·

The full context: > His real concern were platforms that are specifically engineered to “keep the child’s eyes glued to the screen for as long as possible in

by creato 5y ago

The full context: > His real concern were platforms that are specifically engineered to “keep the child’s eyes glued to the screen for as long as possible in a never-ending stream of social comparison and validation-seeking from strangers”—platforms that see the user as the product, not the customer. “How did we ever let Instagram and TikTok become a large part of the lives of so many eleven-year-olds?” he asked. How are you surprised by this? YouTube is an entirely passive platform for the vast majority of its users. It wouldn't have a lot of the problems being talked about in this article because of that.

jay_kyburz 5y ago
I don't use Insta or Tick Tock so I can really compare them, but I know YouTube is constantly trying to push junk in front of my kids. We have a YouTube time limit here at home and I often login to the kids accounts to prune their subscriptions and attempt to block the most egregious morons.
- creato 5y ago
  Yes, there's lots of garbage on YouTube, but it's still "passive garbage" for most people. It's the equivalent of parents limiting cartoons for their kids when TV was the popular medium. This article isn't about that, it's about the impact of more interactive platforms, which have the potential to affect people much more deeply.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > This article isn't about that Questionable. It purports to ask a question, to which both active and passive use are relevant, then focuses on only one of those. Selective presentation is itself a kind of bias.
dustintrex 5y ago
There are actually a lot of kids posting random stuff on YouTube, many of them well under the notional limit of 13.
notacoward 5y ago
I'll answer your question with a question: why do you think "entirely passive" makes everything OK? It's not like there haven't been stories about how people, sometimes specifically kids, passively follow the algorithmic recommendations into a rabbit-hole of questionable or even actively harmful content. Yes, active use brings new social-anxiety "quest for likes" problems, but if the question is "should they be using it all" - as it supposedly is in this case - then that covers passive use as well.

by creato 5y ago

jay_kyburz 5y ago

I don't use Insta or Tick Tock so I can really compare them, but I know YouTube is constantly trying to push junk in front of my kids. We have a YouTube time limit here at home and I often login to the kids accounts to prune their subscriptions and attempt to block the most egregious morons.

creato 5y ago
Yes, there's lots of garbage on YouTube, but it's still "passive garbage" for most people. It's the equivalent of parents limiting cartoons for their kids when TV was the popular medium. This article isn't about that, it's about the impact of more interactive platforms, which have the potential to affect people much more deeply.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > This article isn't about that Questionable. It purports to ask a question, to which both active and passive use are relevant, then focuses on only one of those. Selective presentation is itself a kind of bias.

dustintrex 5y ago

There are actually a lot of kids posting random stuff on YouTube, many of them well under the notional limit of 13.

notacoward 5y ago

I'll answer your question with a question: why do you think "entirely passive" makes everything OK? It's not like there haven't been stories about how people, sometimes specifically kids, passively follow the algorithmic recommendations into a rabbit-hole of questionable or even actively harmful content. Yes, active use brings new social-anxiety "quest for likes" problems, but if the question is "should they be using it all" - as it supposedly is in this case - then that covers passive use as well.