7 ms·
But there's "broken" and "broken". If the author explicitly said "not for kids", why the hell would you override that? It's just asking for trouble.
by aspyct 4y ago
But there's "broken" and "broken". If the author explicitly said "not for kids", why the hell would you override that? It's just asking for trouble.
- toast0 4y agoSometimes, because some features are disabled on "for kids" videos, and you don't want people making videos targetted at kids and then marking them not for kids so that the features that YouTube doesn't feel are safe for kids are still enabled.
- watwut 4y agoOverwhelming majority of kids videos are not marked as such. In particular, non English kids videos are super rarely marked as for kids. That is the reason why youtube kids is something we gave up on fairly quickly. It is useless as majority of kiddy educational content we wanted them to watch was not available. And majority of what they themselves wanted to watch was unavailable too.
- workingon 4y agoHow does this even make sense though? In what world does it ever make sense to have an AI flag random videos as “for kids”? It should never happen in that direction, only the other. This is a basic conditional statement.
- Akronymus 4y agoReminds me of an incident where a video was both marked as for kids and for mature audiences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P28CKVT8TIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P28CKVT8TIU
- aspyct 4y agoLol, the original video has been removed for violating the terms of YouTube. Too bad, wanted to see it now.
- addicted 4y agoIt doesn’t. Kids are the ones to whom videos need to be restricted. Adults should be able to watch both kids and non kids videos. So the only thing needed is for creators to mark a video as “for kids” and the algorithm to confirm that it actually is for kids. Nothing else should even be available for kids. If they want, they can have an additional option for creators which is “definitely not for kids”, much like you’d have an “explicit” option for music. These wouldn’t require an algorithmic check and simply not be available to those under 18.
- wodenokoto 4y agoIt’s obviously not the design spec to have to hand out tags randomly. People monetize children's videos by saying they are not for children. Google have been in hot water for serving ads to children and the way around it is to remove ads (or classes of ads) from childrens videos. Creators wants that extra money so they try to post children videos and calls them “for adult”.
- workingon 4y agoThis still doesn’t follow. If it’s marked for adults and the kids watch it then it isn’t googles fault.
- wodenokoto 4y agoYes, it is their fault. But it is not like they decided “let us push adult content to children”. Nor is it “let’s randomly decide between adult and childrens content as that might be a great idea” Obviously a mistake was made. But let’s be real: it was made in an attempt to right wrongs, not in an attempt to wrong rights.
- HWR_14 4y agoGoogle got in trouble for doing tracking of kids for ad purposes on YouTube. Not tracking kids views is important to their regulatory compliance. Once of the easiest ways to do that is to have "kids" videos where the viewers are presumed to be children. These videos will make less money (at least, I've been repeated told less tracking is less ad money), so Google has to worry about people mislabeling their content to get better ROI.
- ObscureScience 4y agoI'm not really an uploader so I haven't seen the feature. Is it a "three way switch": "for kids", "not for kids" or unspecified, or just "for kids" or unspecified?
- BizarroLand 4y agoIt's either/or, and not very clear as to what the real difference is. I upload songs with occasional swearing in them, so I always tick not for kids on my uploads.