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

Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 580 posts

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#141

Post by azemetre »

soulofmischief wrote: post #84
azemetre wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It means it's no longer profitable to advertise to teens on most corporate social media. Anything that moves the needle toward dismantling the advertising and marketing industries will always be a worthwhile endeavor.

Anything? Including preventing teens from having an online life?

I had no issue with using the noncorpotized social media as a teen (livejournal, myspace before the buyout, forums, etc). Anything that ruins the might of Meta, Google would be a net positive for society.

Let's not act like the only way to communicate with each other or use the internet is through corporate controlled software.

It would do teenagers good to be forced to use other forms of social media that aren't controlled by companies that don't care about their mental health.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#143

Post by svachalek »

decimalenough wrote: post #94
ncruces wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent (who also btw uses Google products every single effin day) I just can't agree. This is entirely Google's issue to fix. Yes, YouTube has amazing educational content. I'd really like to make it available for my kids to see. YouTube, however, makes it completely impossible to permanently filter/hide/disable the bane that is YouTube Shorts. I don't let my kids on TikTok not because it's Chinese, but because i…

You can completely disable Shorts by turning off your YouTube history. No idea why, but it works and it's blissful. Plus you can still like videos, subscribe to channels and curate your own lists if you want to bookmark stuff to come back to.

I've had my history turned off for years, and still get Shorts.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#144

Post by azemetre »

Gud wrote: post #83
azemetre wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It means it's no longer profitable to advertise to teens on most corporate social media. Anything that moves the needle toward dismantling the advertising and marketing industries will always be a worthwhile endeavor.

Why would it no longer be profitable to advertise to teens on YouTube just because they can’t have accounts?

Putting YouTube in the social media ban also removes personalized ads for teenagers. Personalized ad buys are very profitable for companies like Google and Meta. Hurting their ability to make money would only be a net positive for humanity.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#145

Post by azemetre »

Aurornis wrote: post #88
azemetre wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It means it's no longer profitable to advertise to teens on most corporate social media. Anything that moves the needle toward dismantling the advertising and marketing industries will always be a worthwhile endeavor.

> It means it's no longer profitable to advertise to teens on most corporate social media. Advertisements are targeted on a number of factors. It’s not a simple checkbox that says “market this to teens”

It is when they're personalized ads, which is what gets banned under Australia's social media ban for teens.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#146

Post by stavros »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #79
forgotoldacc wrote: post #46

A couple months ago, I saw people everywhere online (including HN) saying they love the idea of social media bans for kids. They love the idea of keeping people under 18 safe from the dangers of porn and mature games and other unclean things as well. Now governments around the world are acting in unison to happily give those people what they want, and people are suddenly confused and pissed that these laws mean you n…

> People who asked for social media bans for kids got what they wanted. They'll have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. We all will. I guess I'm fine with not visiting any of these age-restricted sites. They're not the thing I would miss if the whole internet shut down. (In fact, there's precious little I would miss — maybe just archive.org?)

He said, on an online forum.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#147

Post by soulofmischief »

spicyusername wrote: post #132
soulofmischief wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ridiculous. Would we have had a similar ban against flash video and game websites growing up if it were today? Against AOL Instant Messenger? I already had a local net nanny software to contend with, if the government had also tried preventing me from participating in online culture, assuming I didn't kill myself because of a lack of escape from my abusive situation, I would 100% have ended up being an absolute menac…

We're talking about 8-year-olds here not 15-year-olds, and a website intended for passive consumption, not active participation. I would say the circumstances are pretty different.

When I was 8, I was already hacking around net nanny software and involved in several online communities operated by other children, I was learning how to program and hack and generally use the internet as a gateway into culture that I otherwise never would have experienced.

I tried involving myself in a lot of communities related to my interests, but some sites were just for entertainment and not active participation, or I simply didn't participate in the community. That doesn't change anything.

Now a software engineer and artist, my entire life was shaped by that time, and as I said, I likely would have committed suicide due to my abusive situation if it wasn't for these communities.

I will always fight to provide that kind of environment for others and not pull up the ladder now that I've climbed up.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#148

Post by ACow_Adonis »

ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #133

I don't really understand why Youtube won't let me create a profile, on my paid family account that I'm paying $29 NZD a month for, which lets me whitelist channels. I'm happy for my kids to have free access to certain channels on youtube, but the mind numbing shorts, and shit they find on random channels just does my head in. And it seems to be getting worse, I'm not sure if its that they are getting older and able…

Presumably for the same reason Google doesn't let you block or filter shit sites.

If you genuinely let user's preferences be taken into account, it's incredibly hard to make money from ads if the user's true preferences are not to be shown them.

The entire point of ads is to manipulate and change user preferences and behaviours.

So any preferences or customisation has to be minimal enough that their use can only partially implement user preferences. White listing is a step too far against the purpose of YouTube.

Thus Google will always be biased to not letting you implement full customisability and user control.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#149

Post by svachalek »

nullc wrote: post #107
decimalenough wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can completely disable Shorts by turning off your YouTube history. No idea why, but it works and it's blissful. Plus you can still like videos, subscribe to channels and curate your own lists if you want to bookmark stuff to come back to.

unfortunately turning off history kills all forms of suggestions, including ones like "you're subscribed to these things, so perhaps you might also be interested in...", which is the form of recommendation I want the most since it's driven by what I chose to be watching rather than what I've previously watched. I had assumed the behavior was malicious compliance on Google's part against California law that said no hi…

I have had history turned off for years. It won't recommend anything on the main feed, but when I watch a video, it recommends more as usual. There's plausible deniability that the recommendations are based on just what I'm watching but in practice that's obviously not true, many recommendations are based on either my subscriptions or my watch history, as they are not related to the video I am watching but are related to my interests.

Since there's not supposed to be any history, I have to trust it's just based on subscriptions. It seems like that could be the case, I guess? But I do have doubts that they do in fact have my history somewhere that's accessible to this recommendation engine.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#150

Post by soulofmischief »

azemetre wrote: post #141
soulofmischief wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything? Including preventing teens from having an online life?

I had no issue with using the noncorpotized social media as a teen (livejournal, myspace before the buyout, forums, etc). Anything that ruins the might of Meta, Google would be a net positive for society. Let's not act like the only way to communicate with each other or use the internet is through corporate controlled software. It would do teenagers good to be forced to use other forms of social media that aren't con…

You put these laws in place, and they will be used indiscriminately as needed. Anything can become "social media", and if not, it's easy to add a new category to the list since the Overton window has already been allowed to shift.

We the people are vanguards of our own freedom. Always assume a government organization is lying to you about their intentions. We're taught about slippery slopes in civics and history class for a reason.

The true intent here is to control the ability for teens to freely congregate online and contribute to discussion around unsanctioned topics. To prevent teenagers from being exposed to or distributing material that challenges the incumbent authorities.

Post reply on HN