It's important to note that this ban is for having an account - it does not ban people under 16 from watching youtube videos.
So you can just log off to bypass it? That seems short sighted.
Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
471–480 of 580 posts
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
That opinion still stands. But I believe that we should regulate children's access to the internet, and not the internet's access to children. As the prior does not affect adults and their free, open and private internet, while the latter absolutely does. I believe that there should be a standard, open framework for parental control at the OS level, where parents can see a timeline of actions, and need to whitelist e…
An easy solution is to limit their access to the device. If they can only use the devices in your living room when you are sitting next to them you keep full control. Admitedly at some point they are reaching teenage years and they should have a right to privacy so even having access to a timeline of actions seems like a no go to me. The same way they can wander off in the street on their own, write private letters t…
For teenagers, yeah I agree that message content and such should not be shared with the parent. The level of detail in the timeline should be configurable at the discretion of the parent. At the same time, it's also probably the most important period to shield them from harmful online content.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#473The problem is not the free-sharing, there is an enormous potential for social media platforms but, that comes from what it is allowed to develop in the platform, i.e. the predatory design and content.
We should restrict these predatory techniques and type of features to be developed as well as, promote good use among children. I don't mean, kids you should only look at educational content as entertainment is as important to the development as the learning.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#474A 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…
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the cost exceeds the benefit, that's a reason to not do something.
If you want to operate at "dominant player in the industry" there's a lot of reasons you have to do stuff that has reasons not to be done, saying "its hard" isn't a good enough excuse if you want to get the lions share of the market.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#476With US tariffs being imposed on Australia, the economy will go belly up if it cannot have its own independent media.
I'm starting to think that some of the narratives around censorship are a PsyOp to prevent the government from doing what must be done to protect the economy. Banning specific platforms is not the same as preventing people from posting what they want online. So long as the latter is maintained, it's fine. People can find new platforms. Ideally smaller platforms. The government of any country should be allowed to shut down any large corporation it wants if it does not align with the interests of the people who live there.
The only thing the government cannot do is block people's free speech online. A government can demolish a public square if it wants; sure people won't be able to go there to talk anymore, but people can still go talk elsewhere. We shouldn't conflate banning of platforms with censorship. It's not the same.
It's kind of ridiculous how these things have been bunched up together.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something being hard shouldn't be a reason to not do it. Put the features in and punish those who abuse the system. That's what regulation should be for. I think in general we need a wider solution to rampant botting as AI makes it even easier to bot.
If the cost exceeds the benefit, that's a reason to not do something.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#478Earlier 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…
So then block google/YT and call it a day? It's absolutely not Google's problem. This isn't a "real life" thing - it's not like there's a strip club with open windows next door to your house for your children to look into. We're talking about a computer/iPad/mobile phone - block YT at the DNS level or better yet, don't even give one to your kids. Problem solved. Other people shouldn't have to be punished with breache…
A functional adult in the 2020s needs to learn how to use Google and YouTube. It's actually part of the curriculum at school.
The school also uses Gmail, and Classroom, and teaches kids to use Docs, Slides and Sheets (rather than Office 365). I dunno how much money changes hands, but this benefits Google in the long run, otherwise they wouldn't offer the service.
The problem here is Google feeling the need to compete with TikTok, and then mixing it with their educational offerings.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 The answer is to this question is always: it is too niche a product feature for a giant corporation to prioritize. This product would require constant work to keep in sync as UIs and features change. It would be one more feature to regression test again…
> We should be allowed to create and use whatever UI we want for the public endpoints that are exposed Having been at a company that tried this: The number of poorly-behaved or outright abusive clients is a huge problem. Having a client become popular with a small group of people and then receive some update that turned it into a DDoS machine because someone made a mistake in a loop or forgot to sleep after an error…
But this is where all the value of the future is locked up.
We can't do better at serving people's individual needs until we give up on "one size MUST FIT ALL"
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its a little bit of a stretch to call YouTube social media. Is it? As far as I can tell, the definition of social media is a platform where it is trivial to publish to it. That definitely fits YouTube. The fact that there is great educational content on it (and I 100% agree that there is great educational content) I pretty much solely due to a passionate community, not really anything YouTube itself does to priorit…
Even a very 'light' definition would catch YouTube, I'm convinced of this. The UK's definition is—broadly—any site that a user can take an action on that would affect other users. This would definitely catch a forum like HN, any site with comments, etc. Personally, I feel that, combined with draconian identity requirements, that goes way too far, but I think I'd struggle to draw a line that better fits the alleged in…