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

541–550 of 580 posts

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

#541

Post by ElCapitanMarkla »

modeless wrote: post #231
ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm I'll check it out, I last looked into this about a year ago. I'm pretty sure it still allowed a bunch of crap through that I didn't want them to have access to. edit: Oh neat they do have a parental approval mode in there now. Last time I was in here they only let you set an age range for the content that you wanted. It still seems a bit weird though, I can select a channel from the list they are presenting me b…

Yeah the interface in the Kids app sucks. The way to do it is from your own phone. Use the "share" feature and choose "with kids". It takes a lot of taps to share a channel, that could be improved for sure. But if you share good channels as you come across them then over time you'll build up a great library of content for your kids.

Ahh "sharing" the magic, cool thanks.

The UX is a complete fail, my comment having a moan about it all has over 90 upvotes now, yet I'm wrong. But the reason I'm wrong is because they've made it painfully hard to manage.

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

#542

Post by Cytobit »

Aurornis wrote: post #302
giantg2 wrote: post #112

Its a little bit of a stretch to call YouTube social media. There are tons of great instructional videos. The real kicker to me is that the government has passed a law restricting access yet they haven't determined how they're going to enforce an age check. It's wild that they passed a law without consideration to it's mechanics or feasibility.

> Its a little bit of a stretch to call YouTube social media. There are tons of great instructional videos. It’s clearly social media. It consists of user-generated content and has discussion features. There’s a big problem with tech people coming up with their own definition of social media that exclusively includes sites they don’t use (TikTok, Facebook) but conveniently excludes sites they do like (YouTube, Discor…

Redditors will swear up and down that they are not using social media. I don't know what they think social means.

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

#543

Post by w10-1 »

7bit wrote: post #359
w10-1 wrote: post #353

Leaving aside the merits of the ban for a moment... This is politically beneficial because Google and Facebook squandered historically broad and strong goodwill, and they made themselves a target in the culture wars. Google would have survived just fine with its historically light touch on ads. Both would have been ok without monetizing data collected from users. Both would be successful allowing users to pick aspect…

I think there's a lot of wishful thinking in your post. Alphabet is the 5th biggest and richest company in the world. From a capitalistic perspective, they made everything right and the point you bring are negligible.

Perhaps. A hypothesis that their business would be bigger could be seen as a wish. But Alphabet's stock multiples are below comparable companies. From a capitalist perspective, that means they're being poorly run.

So I think you can do more than minimize ("wishful", "negligible"). Also, what you seem to be saying is that being among the biggest makes everything they did right, so one should just accept that.

If I were a Google principal hiring any leader, I'd want to select candidates who had concrete plans for improvement -- opportunities to grow the business or to correct mistakes. Isn't that a better approach?

If instead Google principals and managers were hiring for those who accept their decisions - loyalty -- I'd run in the opposite direction.

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

#544

Post by jay_kyburz »

A1kmm wrote: post #488
jay_kyburz wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be cool if the post office could issue you an ID card, but for a pseudonym of your own choosing, so that when the data leaks, you can just trash it and get a new one. You could just show the dude at the post office your real id and he can check the age, but not actually write it down or link the two identities digitally. Even cooler would be if you create a different identity for each service so when they do…

> but not actually write it down or link the two identities digitally What is to stop you just selling the ID card with zero consequences? Unless it has a photo on it of course, in which case that itself is an identifier you can't easily rotate. Better is to use zero-knowledge cryptography to prove that you have a real ID's private key in your possession. Leaking the private key would be the same as giving away your…

There are zero consequences when you get a friend to buy you alcohol or cigarettes, I think this will be much the same.

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

#545

Post by Bukhmanizer »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #509
Bukhmanizer wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are zero knowledge proof systems that nobody would have a problem with because nobody ever knows who is accessing the content, only that they are allowed or not. If you truly believed that this was going to be the solution that governments were going to use, yes you’re still an idiot. Ok, maybe incredibly naive to be charitable. But still have you paid even the slightest bit of attention to pretty much anythi…

And anyone who believes in universal healthcare? Idiot. Voting rights and holidays? Idiot. Civil rights? Idiot. Want to stop climate change, damn, idiot. Wow, so intellectual you are to say nobody can hold ideals.

What you’re defending is people willingly giving up their own freedoms because they got outraged over something they read on the internet.

And instead of owning up to that fact, saying “oh no, but that’s not what I expected, I expected these laws to affect someone else, not me”.

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

#546

Post by phatskat »

skeezyboy wrote: post #494
brushfoot wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they said the same thing about books, "young people are hypnotised!" It really doesn't matter what "they" said about books. We are talking about screen time. And screen time has measurably harmful effects on child development. It leads to worse outcomes across the board. Sleep disorders. Obesity. Mental health disorders. Depression. Anxiety. Decreased ability to interpret emotions. Aggressive conduct. And this is t…

aggressive conduct lol, i think youre getting away with yourself there. how come adults are immune to it? i mean youre on social media right this second (decrying it but lets ignore that), how hasnt it affected you in that way? or is this "good" social media?

No one says adults are immune to it, we also have less neuroplasticity - I can imagine that if I’d had more screen time growing up, while my brain was developing, it would have had more of an impact on me. That’s not to say it’s all bad, I think like most anything else we need to approach it with moderation especially when it comes to children.

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

#547

Post by heavyset_go »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #297
heavyset_go wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero knowledge proofs don't matter, these verification systems already exist and they require you to show live video of your face to confirm you're the actual living person that matches your credentials. You could have a completely anonymous tech solution to this, but it doesn't matter, because platforms and governments want video proof of life and identity, and they want to keep the data.

Don't ignore the context of this discussion. Someone just said anyone who believes in privacy and content restrictions is stupid. Except those two concepts are compatible.

They are not compatible with political reality. Hate to beat on a cliche, but this is a classic example of the "tech solution to a political problem" trope.

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

#548

Post by mvdtnz »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #509
Bukhmanizer wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are zero knowledge proof systems that nobody would have a problem with because nobody ever knows who is accessing the content, only that they are allowed or not. If you truly believed that this was going to be the solution that governments were going to use, yes you’re still an idiot. Ok, maybe incredibly naive to be charitable. But still have you paid even the slightest bit of attention to pretty much anythi…

And anyone who believes in universal healthcare? Idiot. Voting rights and holidays? Idiot. Civil rights? Idiot. Want to stop climate change, damn, idiot. Wow, so intellectual you are to say nobody can hold ideals.

What on earth is this response

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

#549

Post by modeless »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #410
modeless wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is everyone saying this doesn't exist? It's right there on the linked page! It's called "Approved Content Only" and I assure you that it exists, it's a real feature, it works just like you want, I use it myself, my kids watch Primitive Technology and Smarter Every Day and they can't watch videos I don't whitelist. It does have a few issues. It's not reliable in showing everything you allow, sometimes things are m…

>Why is everyone saying this doesn't exist? It's right there on the linked page! Because you're whitelisting on videos that Youtube already filtered on. If there's some form of content that is not on Youtube Kids that you want to whitelist, you're out of luck. >why does Google get to decide that for me? I'm an adult and can choose what level of product placement is acceptable for my kids COPPA, probably.

> If there's some form of content that is not on Youtube Kids that you want to whitelist, you're out of luck.

This is false too. You can add almost any channel or any video on YouTube by using the YouTube app on your phone to "share" it to your kids.

As I said, it will refuse on some videos that contain product placement, and there are probably a few other restricted categories, but otherwise you are not restricted to sharing pre-filtered "kid" videos.

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

#550

Post by modeless »

ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #541
modeless wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the interface in the Kids app sucks. The way to do it is from your own phone. Use the "share" feature and choose "with kids". It takes a lot of taps to share a channel, that could be improved for sure. But if you share good channels as you come across them then over time you'll build up a great library of content for your kids.

Ahh "sharing" the magic, cool thanks. The UX is a complete fail, my comment having a moan about it all has over 90 upvotes now, yet I'm wrong. But the reason I'm wrong is because they've made it painfully hard to manage.

Agreed the UX is terrible.
Post reply on HN