Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

buzzfeed.com

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

#92

I don’t understand why YT a kids isn’t a completely parent controlled thing. I’d like to be able to simply choose the channels that my kids can watch any time, and let’s leave it at that. Why does this not exist?

I could ask the same question about other services like Netflix, Amazon Freetime, etc. I’m so tired of services completely missing the ball on what I want as a parent, which is really nothing more than presenting my child a locked down profile with access to content I have whitelisted - but everything operates on the curation+blacklist model instead.

Re: YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

#93

I don’t understand why YT a kids isn’t a completely parent controlled thing. I’d like to be able to simply choose the channels that my kids can watch any time, and let’s leave it at that. Why does this not exist?

This will be awesome, same for Netflix. Another problem to fix is limiting watching to certain times and durations. I wonder if there are third party apps that aggregate across YT and Netflix and has these features in a legal manner.

Re: YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

#94

Amazon has an excellent resource for Kids, where the content is curated by professionals. It's called Amazon FreeTime Unlimited. Why doesn't Google have the same already?

I have a love/hate relationship with FreeTime Unlimited. At $3 or so a month it’s a great value, but I really wish there was a whitelist option for parents instead of the blacklist they already have, my wife and I have grown tired of trawling though the lists every month to ensure we keep some of content we don’t care for blocked.

Re: YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

#95

Who do you trust to decide what your kid should be able to see? Human editorial is certainly better than algorithm editorial, and YouTube Kids was a nightmare so I'm not complaining, but I'm sure the value judgements of a lot of respectable YouTube employees are very different to mine. Are Christian and Islamic and Scientologist morality tales all acceptable or not? What about science and engineering videos with high…

In Australia, I believe most parents are happy to trust other parents they know as well as teachers and the ABC (our national taxypayer funded broadcaster). Relatively speaking, I think we do reasonably well; although Finland is probably the world's model citizen when it comes to raising kids.

Do you trust anyone?

Re: YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

#96

Parent and long-time ex-googler. I'm baffled that the original YT Kids was not whitelisted, and in fact I uninstalled it from my little one's ipads a long time ago. They were watching a Trolls (Dreamworks) animation, and I thought "boy, the writing on this isn't very good, but whatever". Then the plot started to become kinda bizarre and I realized it was a fake. As a user, I felt duped by YT Kids, who had promised me…

People vote with their actions time and time again that they do not care if they are tracked. If you want a future without all this happening, stop giving your kids YouTube in the first place.

Parents explicitly do want to track what their children are watching. That's not the problem. The problem is that YouTube Kids promotes garbage.

Re: YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard Joe Rogan talk about this on his podcast. It sounds like there is an epidemic of cartoon styled videos with dark endings that wind up autoplaying after kids' videos.

See the previous discussion on HN and it’s link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15637504 It’s very disturbing, especially once you have kids of your own and it hits home.

https://imgur.com/a/Hpds1

What disturbs me is how no explanation other than "copy cats out for ad money" is allowed. The abusiveness of it might even get be allowed to be seen if only it could be tied to profit motive. But just targeting children at scale to fuck them up, maybe not even for ads, not even to groom them -- too nasty, can't be, Pizzagate tinfoil yadda yadda. Not that it would take more than a single multi-billionaire with a brain tumor or something; let's simply not even look into it, and make up revisionist narratives once the source material is all gone.

But the material was/is there, not much about the nature of the content is mysterious. Nothing about the denial is mysterious either, except those in it. They prefer to talk about the people talking about the supposed intent of the people who made the videos, rather than the videos thoroughly.

And even when it's well meant, "disturbing" is too much of an umbrella to be useful. It's pretty fucked up that the whole conversation ranges from "is this disturbing or can it be rationalized neatly". I guess that's called framing.

To me it's "disturbing" because it seems to be reading from a script, and because some of it focuses on abuse, gleefully so. And that borders on stuff like toy videos (thousands and hundreds of thousands of them, it seems) which are just hands of an adult... shoving dolls around, making shrill voices. Or those endless wastelands of generated 3D animations playing with heads or tying identity to color, putting things in blenders and microwaves. And so on; there are two bottlenecks, the attention span of listeners/readers, and the energy it takes to look at and then recount all this stuff -- but the amount of fucked up shit is NOT a bottleneck. Even as a collective we don't muster the attention span required. It's an ocean, and we're the people skirting it saying it's a puddle anyway so there isn't even a need to measure its depth. And that itself, the overwhelming of the attention span, is another abusive aspect in all this. And we're not really discussing this or other aspects, using the "nutjobs" as a fig leaf for not doing so. But that's not nutty, and turning a blind eye to abuse is not documented behavior of a deeply sick society. Whatever helps them sleep.

ElsaGate made also me less tolerant of stuff that isn't outright abusive, but simply very shit. That's not fair, but it did sensitize me to "just" sloppy and lazy children's entertainment, too. It's better kids entertain themselves and each other than be entertained by crap adults, I bet you they learn more from that. And frankly, when I look at what goes for adult entertainment, I see ElsaGate as the latest, ugliest achievement in a long line of normalization of abuse. It's no wonder the reaction is so limp and mostly focuses on sweeping it under the rug. We made this, ultimately; but we won't see it for what it is, nor the connection to what we accept.

Re: YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

#98

"Non-algorithmic"? It seems like the word algorithm is being bleached to the point of meaningless. I even saw a social media type service (I forget what) advertise it's self as having "no algorithms". Feels a bit like people being scared of "chemicals in their food". I hope we don't get to the point where "algorithm" has only a narrow popular denotation and only negative connotation.

I got annoyed at my father once for making a sarcastic comment about 'algorithms' in the sense you're describing here. So I sat him down at the table and cut 10 bits of string of different length. I then walked him through bubble sorting the bits of string. Then I said something like 'that is all an algorithm is. A set of rules or instructions that a computer can follow. The only trick the computer has is that it can do the instructions really quickly. There is no magic and they're not inherently oppressive.'

I wasn't expecting it to work, but after that he never made another dig at 'algorithms'.

Re: YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

#99
If anyone else is apalled by the various parents talking about censoring their children's video/internet access and everyone just going along with it: you're not alone. I can't offer anything else encouraging, but at least know that you're not the only person in the world that recognizes this as child abuse.

Re: YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App

#100

I don’t understand why YT a kids isn’t a completely parent controlled thing. I’d like to be able to simply choose the channels that my kids can watch any time, and let’s leave it at that. Why does this not exist?

This will be awesome, same for Netflix. Another problem to fix is limiting watching to certain times and durations. I wonder if there are third party apps that aggregate across YT and Netflix and has these features in a legal manner.

For the time limits you could take a look at Circle, which allows you reasonable control (at an individual level) of when and how long your children are using Netflix etc. And offers some control of what (by classified type) or domain whitelist/blacklist. Don’t think I can block specific urls so can’t achieve whitelist only YouTube.
Post reply on HN