6 ms·

The YouTube situation is the biggest self-own in Australia's implementation. Previously kids under 16 could have an account under a parent's Family, and there a

The YouTube situation is the biggest self-own in Australia's implementation. Previously kids under 16 could have an account under a parent's Family, and there are full parental controls and monitoring. Now kids can't have these accounts, so they can only access youtube without signing in. Meaning zero parental controls and monitoring. Oh and have you seen what youtube looks like when you're not logged in!? Give parents control over parenting.

shirro 9mo ago
Fully agree. I have no issues with the social media laws as they don't impact my family at all except for YouTube. Accounts under Family Link control should have been allowed as they are overseen by an 18+ parent. Youtube should have voluntarily removed shorts and the front page or made them available as a parental control to appease the regulator. When I wrote to the minister they used YouTube's addictive algorithms as justification for including them as social media which I do agree with. We had curated kids logins with age restrictions, subscriptions, and ad free under premium and also youtube music with individual playlists they used for instrument practice etc. We had to shift music platform. I know we can replicate a lot of this with special apps and browser extensions but this was a single cross platform solution that was working for responsible parents. To be fair it is partly YouTube's fault for prioritizing Shorts and watch time over quality.
- 708145_ 9mo ago
  Fully agree, responsible parents should not allow their kids (including teenagers) to use Shorts or TikTok. It is a shame that YouTube does not support blocking that crap. It is obvious "Don't be evil" is not Google's motto anymore.
  - x187463 9mo ago
    For YouTube, in the case of Shorts, parents can now limit or block them altogether. https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/14/youtube-now-has-a-way-for-parents-to-block-kids-from-watching-shorts/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/14/youtube-now-has-a-way-for-...
    - knollimar 9mo ago
      Can I prevent shorts from showing up for me?
      - rasmus-kirk 9mo ago
        You can create two Google accounts and parental control yourself. You can also use ublock or other browser addons, and of course, NewPipe. Youtube should have more settings for this, it's clearly going down the drain, but it's not like you can do nothing. Honestly, it's one of the reasons I don't want to pay for Youtube Red, why would I pay for "no ads", when I still feel like I'm the product, because of my complete lack of control over the algorithm and user experience.
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  > We had to shift music platform. I know we can replicate a lot of this ... As far as practical solutions go a cheap VPS and a wireguard connection should let you continue with business as usual. From the perspective of YouTube maybe you moved to NZ or something. > they used YouTube's addictive algorithms as justification for including them as social media Did they provide YouTube the option of swapping out those algorithms to be exempted from the new law? It seems like this law was perhaps not a bad idea but the execution poorly thought out.
  - shirro 9mo ago
    I won't be chasing an increasingly shitty online experience. I imported chromecasts before they were ever released here and had them connected via vpn to a US vps before services like Netflix went global. The pricing and content were really good value back then. Increasingly the relationship with big companies feels abusive. We are moving more towards self hosting, using physical media and changing lifestyle. Disconnecting isn't so bad.
- aleph_minus_one 9mo ago
  > Youtube should have voluntarily removed shorts and the front page or made them available as a parental control to appease the regulator. I honestly don't "get" the hate for YouTube Shorts: While I clearly do prefer long-form videos on YouTube, in my Shorts feed I see videos that are, well, simply more short-form (admittedly because of the short length they are often more "shallow", but for sure not below some level that I would find annoying or unacceptable (and I think I am fast with such strong judgements)). So, at least judging from my Shorts feed, I can barely see any video that I would consider to be objectionable if I were a parent. It is quite possible that the YouTube algorithm detected very fast that I belong to a demographic that is not interested in particular kinds of videos that are perhaps common on YouTube Shorts and thus simply does not show them to me in my Shorts feed, so I am simply not aware of them. So, seriously: why the huge hate for YouTube Shorts in particular concerning parenting?
  - geekasm 9mo ago
    for kids, who are never exposed to youtube. I would assume there is a higher chance of them getting addicted to shorts.
- johnisgood 9mo ago
  > I have no issues with the social media laws as they don't impact my family This is probably the most common reason for why our society is in the shitters wrt. laws. I find it problematic that people only care after they have been shown they are affected. Look at any anti-privacy laws. No one cares until they get thrown into jail for posting memes online.
  - duskdozer 9mo ago
    Honestly. I am totally unable to understand that mindset, even if I may not actively work against everything because of limitations of time and energy
Jigsy 9mo ago
> Give parents control over parenting. The problem isn't lack of control, it's the lazy attitude from parents who're shocked that they have to actually do their own job of raising their progeny. They'd rather abdicate that responsibility to the government, who in turn love the idea because it means more control.
- mkoubaa 9mo ago
  Well put
- RHSeeger 9mo ago
  It's both. Saying "the problem" is the parents, implying there's one problem and that's it, is ridiculous. There's a lot of factors that go into why raising a good, caring, strong, self sufficient child is difficult. We see this same type of argument from the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps; if you weren't lazy you'd succeed" crowd. It's a stupid argument there, and it's just as stupid here. The world is complicated, and working to improve things from multiple angles is good, and improves the changes of success; for everyone.
- ares623 9mo ago
  > 5 years ago one parent's income was enough > now both parents working > barely enough to keep up with expenses and chores > child has no allowance to go out > very limited spaces to go out for free > live in a poorer area where safe and nice places that are free require a chaperone > child's friends in the same socioeconomic group all have similar situation > computers provide accessible distraction during parents' only few minutes of downtime during the day > are parents lazy?
  - wolvoleo 9mo ago
    People aren't forced to have kids though.. If they don't really want them or can't accomodate them in their lives just don't have any. I've never had any because I don't want to give up my freedom and relaxation either. And one income hasn't been enough for much longer than 5 years. Especially in housing. I see a lot of people around me that seem to pretty much hate having kids and they probably did it just because of social/family pressure or something. They always treat them like a nuisance and fob them off with a tablet. Really, just don't have them then. The world is already so overpopulated which is one of the causes of tension (migration, fighting over resources, climate/pollution).
Dwedit 9mo ago
When not signed in, you get no videos at all, just a "Sign In To Confirm You're Not A Bot" screen.
Aeglaecia 9mo ago
I agree with you in spirit , however nobody was taught how to raise their kids in an age of incessant hyperstimulation , and people in general don't go out of their way to learn things properly
conartist6 9mo ago
For that, we have to give control over clients to consumers. In the model of the past the company provides the client and so the client is accountable to the company not the consumer. Only the web browser has ever come close to changing that, but there's not many of us left still fighting for third party clients, even on the web
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> Now kids can't have these accounts, so they can only access youtube without signing in. Meaning zero parental controls and monitoring This sounds like a device-control problem. Banning social media and then regulating devices in school should go a long way towards defusing the challenge. Even with anonymous log-in, the new status quo is a release from algorithmic targeting. (If YouTube is building shadow profiles and knowingly serving under-16-year olds, that can be fixed with enforcement.) I suspect this group of kids will grow up fitter despite the reduced opportunities for helicopter parenting. There are lots of parents who never try, or try and fail, to control and monitor their kids’ online activities. Way more than those who effectively do so.
UqWBcuFx6NV4r 9mo ago
Huh? I’ve never understood this, and coincidentally it’s a talking point constantly pushed by Google in Australia. If they could use YouTube without signing in now, they could do so before. The whole argument is utterly nonsensical.

shirro 9mo ago

Fully agree. I have no issues with the social media laws as they don't impact my family at all except for YouTube. Accounts under Family Link control should have been allowed as they are overseen by an 18+ parent. Youtube should have voluntarily removed shorts and the front page or made them available as a parental control to appease the regulator. When I wrote to the minister they used YouTube's addictive algorithms as justification for including them as social media which I do agree with. We had curated kids logins with age restrictions, subscriptions, and ad free under premium and also youtube music with individual playlists they used for instrument practice etc. We had to shift music platform. I know we can replicate a lot of this with special apps and browser extensions but this was a single cross platform solution that was working for responsible parents. To be fair it is partly YouTube's fault for prioritizing Shorts and watch time over quality.

708145_ 9mo ago
Fully agree, responsible parents should not allow their kids (including teenagers) to use Shorts or TikTok. It is a shame that YouTube does not support blocking that crap. It is obvious "Don't be evil" is not Google's motto anymore.
- x187463 9mo ago
  For YouTube, in the case of Shorts, parents can now limit or block them altogether. https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/14/youtube-now-has-a-way-for-parents-to-block-kids-from-watching-shorts/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/14/youtube-now-has-a-way-for-...
  - knollimar 9mo ago
    Can I prevent shorts from showing up for me?
    - rasmus-kirk 9mo ago
      You can create two Google accounts and parental control yourself. You can also use ublock or other browser addons, and of course, NewPipe. Youtube should have more settings for this, it's clearly going down the drain, but it's not like you can do nothing. Honestly, it's one of the reasons I don't want to pay for Youtube Red, why would I pay for "no ads", when I still feel like I'm the product, because of my complete lack of control over the algorithm and user experience.
fc417fc802 9mo ago
> We had to shift music platform. I know we can replicate a lot of this ... As far as practical solutions go a cheap VPS and a wireguard connection should let you continue with business as usual. From the perspective of YouTube maybe you moved to NZ or something. > they used YouTube's addictive algorithms as justification for including them as social media Did they provide YouTube the option of swapping out those algorithms to be exempted from the new law? It seems like this law was perhaps not a bad idea but the execution poorly thought out.
- shirro 9mo ago
  I won't be chasing an increasingly shitty online experience. I imported chromecasts before they were ever released here and had them connected via vpn to a US vps before services like Netflix went global. The pricing and content were really good value back then. Increasingly the relationship with big companies feels abusive. We are moving more towards self hosting, using physical media and changing lifestyle. Disconnecting isn't so bad.
aleph_minus_one 9mo ago
> Youtube should have voluntarily removed shorts and the front page or made them available as a parental control to appease the regulator. I honestly don't "get" the hate for YouTube Shorts: While I clearly do prefer long-form videos on YouTube, in my Shorts feed I see videos that are, well, simply more short-form (admittedly because of the short length they are often more "shallow", but for sure not below some level that I would find annoying or unacceptable (and I think I am fast with such strong judgements)). So, at least judging from my Shorts feed, I can barely see any video that I would consider to be objectionable if I were a parent. It is quite possible that the YouTube algorithm detected very fast that I belong to a demographic that is not interested in particular kinds of videos that are perhaps common on YouTube Shorts and thus simply does not show them to me in my Shorts feed, so I am simply not aware of them. So, seriously: why the huge hate for YouTube Shorts in particular concerning parenting?
- geekasm 9mo ago
  for kids, who are never exposed to youtube. I would assume there is a higher chance of them getting addicted to shorts.
johnisgood 9mo ago
> I have no issues with the social media laws as they don't impact my family This is probably the most common reason for why our society is in the shitters wrt. laws. I find it problematic that people only care after they have been shown they are affected. Look at any anti-privacy laws. No one cares until they get thrown into jail for posting memes online.
- duskdozer 9mo ago
  Honestly. I am totally unable to understand that mindset, even if I may not actively work against everything because of limitations of time and energy

Jigsy 9mo ago

> Give parents control over parenting. The problem isn't lack of control, it's the lazy attitude from parents who're shocked that they have to actually do their own job of raising their progeny. They'd rather abdicate that responsibility to the government, who in turn love the idea because it means more control.

mkoubaa 9mo ago
Well put
RHSeeger 9mo ago
It's both. Saying "the problem" is the parents, implying there's one problem and that's it, is ridiculous. There's a lot of factors that go into why raising a good, caring, strong, self sufficient child is difficult. We see this same type of argument from the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps; if you weren't lazy you'd succeed" crowd. It's a stupid argument there, and it's just as stupid here. The world is complicated, and working to improve things from multiple angles is good, and improves the changes of success; for everyone.
ares623 9mo ago
> 5 years ago one parent's income was enough > now both parents working > barely enough to keep up with expenses and chores > child has no allowance to go out > very limited spaces to go out for free > live in a poorer area where safe and nice places that are free require a chaperone > child's friends in the same socioeconomic group all have similar situation > computers provide accessible distraction during parents' only few minutes of downtime during the day > are parents lazy?
- wolvoleo 9mo ago
  People aren't forced to have kids though.. If they don't really want them or can't accomodate them in their lives just don't have any. I've never had any because I don't want to give up my freedom and relaxation either. And one income hasn't been enough for much longer than 5 years. Especially in housing. I see a lot of people around me that seem to pretty much hate having kids and they probably did it just because of social/family pressure or something. They always treat them like a nuisance and fob them off with a tablet. Really, just don't have them then. The world is already so overpopulated which is one of the causes of tension (migration, fighting over resources, climate/pollution).

Dwedit 9mo ago

When not signed in, you get no videos at all, just a "Sign In To Confirm You're Not A Bot" screen.

Aeglaecia 9mo ago

I agree with you in spirit , however nobody was taught how to raise their kids in an age of incessant hyperstimulation , and people in general don't go out of their way to learn things properly

conartist6 9mo ago

For that, we have to give control over clients to consumers. In the model of the past the company provides the client and so the client is accountable to the company not the consumer. Only the web browser has ever come close to changing that, but there's not many of us left still fighting for third party clients, even on the web

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> Now kids can't have these accounts, so they can only access youtube without signing in. Meaning zero parental controls and monitoring This sounds like a device-control problem. Banning social media and then regulating devices in school should go a long way towards defusing the challenge. Even with anonymous log-in, the new status quo is a release from algorithmic targeting. (If YouTube is building shadow profiles and knowingly serving under-16-year olds, that can be fixed with enforcement.) I suspect this group of kids will grow up fitter despite the reduced opportunities for helicopter parenting. There are lots of parents who never try, or try and fail, to control and monitor their kids’ online activities. Way more than those who effectively do so.

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 9mo ago

Huh? I’ve never understood this, and coincidentally it’s a talking point constantly pushed by Google in Australia. If they could use YouTube without signing in now, they could do so before. The whole argument is utterly nonsensical.