Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately this is inaccurate. There are billions of daily adolescent YouTube users, some of whom entering puberty that were exposed and continue to be exposed to the recommendation algorithm that created this mess in the first place, and for periods running into hours every evening. You are talking about a different issue. > At such an early stage in development, it is absolutely the company's duty of care to e…
> Why would it be the company's duty of care and not the parent's? It is the company's duty of care for the same reason that - it is the city's duty of care if the child goes outside and falls down an unmaintained manhole - it is the school's duty of care if a fire extinguisher malfunctions and kills the child - it is the driver's duty of care if the child crosses the road and gets struck on a green crossing In all t…
But this is not comparable to "going outside" at all. This is "seeking out and going onto private property and seeing stuff you shouldn't". The logic that a company is comparable to public spaces doesn't hold water. YouTube is not a public space any more than Pornhub or 4chan is. If 4chan wanted to cater to 10 year olds (yes yes I know) then the way to do so would clearly not be to remove content not suitable to kids but to create a separate place for those kids.