Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There was also a network level curator like PBS, Nickelodeon or Disney. That's kind of the point of YT though is to completely bypass the network curation. Nobody has what you want on or won't put your stuff on? Screw 'em! We bring you YouTube. The You was the big deal that bucked the network concept. So no, there's never going to be a human curator for all of YT. If channels want to curate themselves, then they may…
>That's kind of the point of YT though is to completely bypass the network curation. Instead we have algoautoplay. I'm describing opt in playlist producers. Why couldn't there be a level of "playlist curators" who exist not as channels. "Bob puts together really good playlists, whitelist all Bob approved videos." I subscribe to 10 curators and bobs my uncle. I want to follow bob for the videos he suggests not the one…
YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
211–220 of 261 posts
Re: YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
#212Re: YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion on this isn't popular. One time I was discussing Sesame Street with a friend who said how great it was at teaching kids - his kid knew the alphabet when entering school. I asked how often his kid watched SS. With a back of envelope calculation, I pointed out that it took SS several hundred hours to teach his kid the alphabet. I.e. it was the most inefficient, time-consuming teaching method ever devised. (I…
Do you think your friend might have been using the alphabet as an example of what Sesame Street had taught his kid, and not as a complete catalogue?
Re: YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
#214Many poor videos, and just general patenting energy required.
Down thread, someone put the watch it with them email queue idea out there. Awesome! I am going to do that.
Overall, our best success is to have activities that are not screen time.
Many parents who may struggle financially, and there are way too many who do, in my view, lack time and potentially resources.
This is a growing pinch for a while now. Tepid wage growth coupled with cost and risk exposure growth mean more labor and or fewer resources, both of which come right out of parenting.
Some of it lands in the schools. The pandemic made that a mess and maybe for the better?
By that I mean a whole lot of us have had to pick up the slack and or are doing more parenting right now. (That may come at a high financial cost due to lack of work, which is not good either)
It is really hard to put costs on all this, but my general take on it all, comparing my childhood, that of my own kids and granddaughter now is:
Opportunity costs are going to be huge!
The squeeze on parenting, coupled with the general complexity of the society our future leaders and caretakers are expected to take part in, Shepard and grow to greater success, looks increasingly grim.
I came out of high school computer literate, could code, but also with a ton of other skills. Fix my car, or many things really, work with wood, metals, and in general could take most work and thrive.
My own kids got a fair amount of that, but I had to provide way more than my parents did.
Today, I see I will have to provide a lot more.
The general idea of so much greater information availability means less work educating has merit. I know what I would have done with that kind of access as a kid.
But does it mean less parenting?
Does it mean less exposure to basic skills?
From my point of view, no. It does not.
And to be clear here, my own parenting goals are to get the kids to a place where they can thrive and that means basic competence on many fronts just like I got.
It may also mean part of the education burden is curating all this stuff and to teach them what to look for and how to make use of it.
Most of us know. My kids mostly know and will ask for help sometimes. Less often as they grow in life.
In my view, emphasis on broad, basic competence is more important bow than ever. If they can relate to things, have some experience, they will seek and be able to make use of the information resource and it will seem achievable too, not foreign, or unattainable.
For now, I am making sure my younger one gets outside and is experiencing a broad set of skills. Just getting a handle on this world and the things in it.
Parents need to be able to do that, and or for the many struggling parents who may not have a base to draw on, even if they do have time, need help, and may well benefit same as their kids do.
Re: YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That's kind of the point of YT though is to completely bypass the network curation. Instead we have algoautoplay. I'm describing opt in playlist producers. Why couldn't there be a level of "playlist curators" who exist not as channels. "Bob puts together really good playlists, whitelist all Bob approved videos." I subscribe to 10 curators and bobs my uncle. I want to follow bob for the videos he suggests not the one…
This is actually a brilliant idea and Youtube almost supports it. Channels can have playlists that have any videos, not only their own. All that's missing is to be able to restrict an account to certain playlists. The other part is how to incentivize the creation of the playlists.
Re: YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
And lord help you if you accidentally click on some drivel that's suggested. It'll take years of ignoring it before it and similar videos are no longer suggested.
I liberally use the "Not interested" and "Don't recommend channel" options in the menu. Works okay for me.
Re: YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
All "customized for you"/"things youll like" algorithms are more about trapping you in a frozen past than expanding your horizons. Everyone together trains the algo what "more of the same looks like" and thats what it regurgitates. Every time I read a marketing copy about AI, that's what I think of first, is that someone literally designed a new mouse trap. https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7…
It's not though. For example I used to be in hobby X, so I watched a lot of X based videos. As I fell out of the hobby I stopped watching X videos, so Youtube stopped recommending them to me unless it thinks there is a REALLY good X based video it thinks I would like. YouTube also lets you easily add to your interests by directly searching for and watching videos about them. There is also the slow way where you have…
That said, I don’t personally use auto play often. I don’t let YouTube just pick random things for me over and over, unless it’s music in a background. Even on a tv I browse suggestions and pick one vs letting it choose.
Re: YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
#218Re: YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the channel. We have a dedicated public television channel where I am and the content is significantly better than YouTube: https://pbskids.org/ My kids will tell me about history and science that they pick up from those shows. I don't think I've ever heard anything from them that I liked when it came to YouTube content.
Everyone on here seems to be blowing the trumpet for PBS Kids. Is it really that good? I haven't checked it.
Re: YouTube Kids a “vapid wasteland” say US lawmakers
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion on this isn't popular. One time I was discussing Sesame Street with a friend who said how great it was at teaching kids - his kid knew the alphabet when entering school. I asked how often his kid watched SS. With a back of envelope calculation, I pointed out that it took SS several hundred hours to teach his kid the alphabet. I.e. it was the most inefficient, time-consuming teaching method ever devised. (I…
Sesame Street doesn't only teach alphabet.
No wonder it's popular.