Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube has become the world's nanny

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 403 posts

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#351

Post by floren »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #147

YouTube is actively harmful to children, it’s full of crap content, endless ads and the algorithm takes you to the darkest pits in no time at all. You like paw patrol? How about some videos of the pups killing each other? And kids love candy (brain candy) even if it is of no nutritional value - at this age they don’t know better. We found that no amount of supervision or curation by adults keeps the child completely…

Having caught some Paw Patrol, I don't even know that kids should be watching genuine Paw Patrol. It's just so damn frenetic... Maybe I'm an old man yelling at clouds, but I feel that something slower-paced like Mr Rogers has to be better for you, right?

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#352

Post by HlessClaudesman »

ryandrake wrote: post #310
alexvoda wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think that treating the problem as screen time is the wrong approach. It is too low resolution. What happens on the screen matters. Many parents end up using screen time as a very blunt tool because we simply lack better tools. But curating content as a family is close to unfeasible because it goes against sponsored algorithmic curation to which others are still exposed and once a kid is socialized they face…

I think "screen time" is this generation's "Dungeons and Dragons" boogeyman. Everyone feels like it's turning kids into zombies or hurting them in some way, but people really aren't articulating how. What's the mechanism, and how did it differ from similar kids entertainment of the past? Is "Algorithmically Generated Spiderman/Frozen Mashup #45501" or "Streamer babbling on about nothing" really that much worse for an…

Yeah, there is some truth to your D&D scaremongering analogy, tho I don't think anyone is calling for parents to lock arms and drive Satan out of the Apple Store.

I think there is a big difference in the devices and content of yesteryear and the magic phones filled with an unlimited library of today. Eventually the cartoons would end and we would emerge bleary-eyed into the daylight.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a quantitative difference in the life outcomes between kids who were given firm boundaries by their parents and kids whose parents just gave up and let them watch any old shit. We are running this experiment on live humans, so time will tell.

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#353

Post by maxfurman »

Alupis wrote: post #305
oblio wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those silly governments, making sure the medical system was slowly whittled down from something that was once actually pretty good at taking care of it's citizens to a system that forced/required society to completely grind to a halt from a pandemic because of exterior motives (votes, profits, etc.) Lockdowns were almost universal, and also happened in countries where the healthcare systems are robust. Healthcare s…

The overrunning of the hospital system never happened. All sorts of impromptu covid facilities were constructed all around the country but never used. This was not because of the "flatten the curve" efforts - it just was not necessary. We now know that, by far, the overwhelming majority of folks that needed medical treatment and/or died from covid had existing health - specifically respiratory - conditions that made…

> This was not because of the "flatten the curve" efforts - it just was not necessary.

Citation needed. How can you be sure of a broad conclusion like this?

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#354

Post by dangwhy »

scythe wrote: post #347
dangwhy wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's been a month all diets fail after 6 months on average. ppl gain even more weight. you are going have the same results with this screen cap thing because you are using willpower to supress the urge which is still there and isnt going anywhere

>all diets fail after six months on average; ppl regain even more weight This is not true and is also potentially harmful if people believe it. In reality, weight regain after "cutting" occurs over a period of years and tends to be around 50%; that is, less than the amount of weight lost in the first place. Several meta-analyses have been conducted, e.g.: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240545772..…

> In reality, weight regain after "cutting" occurs over a period of years and tends to be around 50%; that is, less than the amount of weight lost in the first place.

Interesting. Perhaps I missed it, I am not seeing that claim in the link you posted in the comment.

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#355

Post by dangwhy »

passwordoops wrote: post #295
dangwhy wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's been a month all diets fail after 6 months on average. ppl gain even more weight. you are going have the same results with this screen cap thing because you are using willpower to supress the urge which is still there and isnt going anywhere

Right, just like I wasn't able to quit smoking after a 25-cigarette a day habit over 10 years ago and haven't looked back? Or how no one is ever able to keep weight off? Or get off heroin? Or change their lifestyle? Maybe ask: "What are you doing to try to ensure you'll keep your kids off screens and active?" Or "Do you have any experience trying to give up addictive behaviors, and how are you helping your child deal…

sorry my comment wasn't directed at you( i was using generic you) specifically. I was just comparing it to dieting using willpower as the means.

Doesn't apply to 100% of people, you obviously had good success with it.

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#356

Post by ye-olde-sysrq »

visarga wrote: post #219
i67vw3 wrote: post #55

Two of my sisters have in total 3 kids (4 to 6 years old) and all three of them need to watch youtube videos while eating. Just few days back, my sister had a 'gathering' to announce her 2nd child (making it total 4 kids combined) and the 3rd kid needed to watch few youtube videos (usually they are of other kids playing or doing some stuff) to eat his dinner, which I found quite odd. This thing is not only related to…

My kid has had youtube since birth. I would play nursery songs before 1 y.o. Later he was onto toy car and lego videos. Now he is 5, a couple months ago he discovered NumberBlocks and learned to count, first in English and later in our native tongue. And not just counting, they also teach addition, subtraction and simple multiplication. He can count to 100 and has concepts of thousand, million and even minus one - he…

I'm similar. My approach is "guidance and bumper guards, not rules and restrictions."

I don't meter or numerically limit screen time, but I make sure my kids understand they should have a healthy balance between activities (guidance) and if I feel like they've been e.g. watching TV all morning, I'll tell them to turn it off and pick a different activity (bumper guards).

I only really have three rules:

1. I don't negotiate with terrorists. If you throw a fit, I will help you calm down, but any negotiation for whatever it is you wanted immediately ends, settled in my favor.

2. Everyone sleeps in their own beds. I'll make exceptions for exceptional circumstances (severe illness etc) but I haven't had to yet.

3. Family dinner is at the table with all devices off while the whole family is there.

I've never felt like this served me poorly, and (so far...) none of my kids have some problems I've noticed or heard of family members or friends having with their kids (kid is 5 and won't sleep alone, kid throws fits in the supermarket for toys or snacks, etc). I obviously don't know that has a causal relationship with my parenting style, but like everyone else, I like to think it does.

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#357

Post by kefka_p »

simiones wrote: post #348
kefka_p wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t need to reword the findings to make them support my assertion. Again those findings: “We also find that, *on average*, the YouTube recommendation algorithm pulls users slightly to the right of the political spectrum”. The whole “on average” nullifies the notion that occasionally recommending Young Turks to kids watching Anime once in a while somehow makes up for the fact that they push OANN or Newsmax even ha…

> The whole “on average” nullifies your assertion that they recommend Young Turks to kids watching Anime as much as they do OANN or Newsmax. I didn't say that they do it "as much", I specifically suggested they may do it half as often. But, per the study, they DO do it - otherwise, this would not have been a "slight" bias, it would have been a whopping huge bias.

That was a poor edit on my part. My apologies.

What I meant to say was the assertion that occasionally recommending YoungTurks somehow mitigates the right-leaning bias of the site, as suggested with the statement “then it's not really a significant force in this area” is false. The site has a demonstrable rightwing bias.

Elections can and are decided by a few thousand or few hundred votes in battlegrounds. As such, the argument that it’s of negligible effect rings false to me.

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#358

Post by superkuh »

psychphysic wrote: post #313
superkuh wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way these adults scream out long disproven neuroscience old wive's tales to justify their beliefs is terrifying. All these passive stimuli coming through your normal senses are not in any way hijacking or directly manipulating incentive salience or motivation. They're not drugs. Screen displays do not have the properties of drugs no matter what is displayed on them . Arguing that they do is ignorant and dangerous…

Looks like at this time the screen has triggered quite an emotional (probably irrational) response. Besides your point is nonsense.

Directly modifying incentive salience via drugs is different than normal environmental stimuli through normal sense perceptions. They require different responses from society and parroting falsehoods like you and others are doing is dangerous. You've already seen what the "drug war" has justified. Bringing that kind of response in to deal with normal aspects of living is wrong.

The youtube is dangerous crowd has about as much legitimacy as the 5G radio is dangerous crowd.

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#359

Post by HlessClaudesman »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #248
HlessClaudesman wrote: post #59

As a parent, screen time vs no screen time is a fine line that we have to continually renegotiate. Screens can be great, there is so much good information out there that can enrich our lives. I wouldn't go the "no screens ever" route because that's just being a luddite, robbing them of the change to experience, and acquire expertise in, the digital world that they will be interacting with for the rest of their lives.…

And you'll have to remember that curating content won't be possible forever. At some point they will be alone with an unlocked device and the internet, probably much sooner than you're comfortable with. We've got filters set up at home; they worked fine for a while, but teenagers are easily impressed and soon we had to add stock photo websites to these filters. Then there's free VPN services, going around the (consum…

Thanks for this reminder. I am dreading that first flight into the unrestricted internet, but I guess I had better get my head around it.

Re: YouTube has become the world's nanny

#360

Post by Alupis »

maxfurman wrote: post #353
Alupis wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overrunning of the hospital system never happened. All sorts of impromptu covid facilities were constructed all around the country but never used. This was not because of the "flatten the curve" efforts - it just was not necessary. We now know that, by far, the overwhelming majority of folks that needed medical treatment and/or died from covid had existing health - specifically respiratory - conditions that made…

> This was not because of the "flatten the curve" efforts - it just was not necessary. Citation needed. How can you be sure of a broad conclusion like this?

Because the overwhelming majority of people who contracted covid did not require any medical attention. Even the CDC admits covid statistics were largely projections because of significant under-reporting (because people did not visit their medical provider).

Additionally, the "flatten the curve" efforts were based on falsehoods issued by NIH and CDC, such as cloth masks preventing transmission. If there was going to be an overrun of the hospital system, it would have occurred during the time the public was being mislead about prevention techniques. It didn't...

It seems the forced termination of a significant portion of hospital staff would have had the greatest impact on overloading the system - yet even that didn't matter.

So, flipped on it's head - I think a citation is required when we argue these efforts prevented an overloaded system.

Post reply on HN