| ▲ | unquietwiki 6 hours ago |
| I think stuff like this, is trying to recreate a world that doesn't exist anymore. With whom, are you gonna go play in the woods with, that haven't already been bulldozed into housing and strip malls? Do you need to watch YouTube only on a parent's TV that's logged in, even for homework help? Some kids start working at 14 or 15: they can be trusted to work somewhere outside of home, but not online? What about Steam games? What about any games? What about hobby & fan forums, that have nothing to do with "grooming" or grabbing eyeballs? What's next, an Internet license? |
|
| ▲ | WheatMillington 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The YouTube situation is the biggest self-own in Australia's implementation. Previously kids under 16 could have an account under a parent's Family, and there are full parental controls and monitoring. Now kids can't have these accounts, so they can only access youtube without signing in. Meaning zero parental controls and monitoring. Oh and have you seen what youtube looks like when you're not logged in!? Give parents control over parenting. |
| |
| ▲ | shirro 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fully agree. I have no issues with the social media laws as they don't impact my family at all except for YouTube. Accounts under Family Link control should have been allowed as they are overseen by an 18+ parent. Youtube should have voluntarily removed shorts and the front page or made them available as a parental control to appease the regulator. When I wrote to the minister they used YouTube's addictive algorithms as justification for including them as social media which I do agree with. We had curated kids logins with age restrictions, subscriptions, and ad free under premium and also youtube music with individual playlists they used for instrument practice etc. We had to shift music platform. I know we can replicate a lot of this with special apps and browser extensions but this was a single cross platform solution that was working for responsible parents. To be fair it is partly YouTube's fault for prioritizing Shorts and watch time over quality. | | |
| ▲ | 708145_ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fully agree, responsible parents should not allow their kids (including teenagers) to use Shorts or TikTok. It is a shame that YouTube does not support blocking that crap. It is obvious "Don't be evil" is not Google's motto anymore. | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > We had to shift music platform. I know we can replicate a lot of this ... As far as practical solutions go a cheap VPS and a wireguard connection should let you continue with business as usual. From the perspective of YouTube maybe you moved to NZ or something. > they used YouTube's addictive algorithms as justification for including them as social media Did they provide YouTube the option of swapping out those algorithms to be exempted from the new law? It seems like this law was perhaps not a bad idea but the execution poorly thought out. | | |
| ▲ | shirro 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I won't be chasing an increasingly shitty online experience. I imported chromecasts before they were ever released here and had them connected via vpn to a US vps before services like Netflix went global. The pricing and content were really good value back then. Increasingly the relationship with big companies feels abusive. We are moving more towards self hosting, using physical media and changing lifestyle. Disconnecting isn't so bad. |
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Now kids can't have these accounts, so they can only access youtube without signing in. Meaning zero parental controls and monitoring This sounds like a device-control problem. Banning social media and then regulating devices in school should go a long way towards defusing the challenge. Even with anonymous log-in, the new status quo is a release from algorithmic targeting. (If YouTube is building shadow profiles and knowingly serving under-16-year olds, that can be fixed with enforcement.) I suspect this group of kids will grow up fitter despite the reduced opportunities for helicopter parenting. There are lots of parents who never try, or try and fail, to control and monitor their kids’ online activities. Way more than those who effectively do so. | |
| ▲ | conartist6 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For that, we have to give control over clients to consumers. In the model of the past the company provides the client and so the client is accountable to the company not the consumer. Only the web browser has ever come close to changing that, but there's not many of us left still fighting for third party clients, even on the web | |
| ▲ | Aeglaecia 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree with you in spirit , however nobody was taught how to raise their kids in an age of incessant hyperstimulation , and people in general don't go out of their way to learn things properly | |
| ▲ | Jigsy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Give parents control over parenting. The problem isn't lack of control, it's the lazy attitude from parents who're shocked that they have to actually do their own job of raising their progeny. They'd rather abdicate that responsibility to the government, who in turn love the idea because it means more control. | | |
| ▲ | RHSeeger 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's both. Saying "the problem" is the parents, implying there's one problem and that's it, is ridiculous. There's a lot of factors that go into why raising a good, caring, strong, self sufficient child is difficult. We see this same type of argument from the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps; if you weren't lazy you'd succeed" crowd. It's a stupid argument there, and it's just as stupid here. The world is complicated, and working to improve things from multiple angles is good, and improves the changes of success; for everyone. | |
| ▲ | ares623 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 5 years ago one parent's income was enough > now both parents working > barely enough to keep up with expenses and chores > child has no allowance to go out > very limited spaces to go out for free > live in a poorer area where safe and nice places that are free require a chaperone > child's friends in the same socioeconomic group all have similar situation > computers provide accessible distraction during parents' only few minutes of downtime during the day > are parents lazy? | |
| ▲ | mkoubaa 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well put | |
| ▲ | AniseAbyss 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | Dwedit 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | When not signed in, you get no videos at all, just a "Sign In To Confirm You're Not A Bot" screen. |
|
|
| ▲ | yowayb 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In my 40s now, I can recall dozens of "we should..." statements from myself and others. Typically, these statements were driven by some personal mishap, and the statement is basically forgotten (because it was never a big deal to begin with). But occasionally, some well-read/educated (often with a philosophical bias) will allow a small complaint to consume them, forcing them to write extensively about it, while the world continues to change at increasing speed. But there's a huge market for this kind of writing: it's all the other people that have similar thoughts but not the time to actually write it. |
|
| ▲ | e2le 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What about Steam games? What about any games? I wouldn't mind restricting access for children to certain types of games such as those with gambling (surprise) mechanics. It's a clear example of harmful media that is at least in some cases exclusively engineered and marketed towards children. |
|
| ▲ | confounder 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The preponderance of evidence, much of it from Meta's own internal communications, indicates that social media harms teens, and especially girls, in ways ranging from sleep deprivation to eating disorders to anxiety to depression to sexual grooming to suicide. Many of us adults see it as a moral duty to try to stop this, though YMMV (your morals may vary). Kids did homework before YouTube; and yes it is reasonable to propose that a teen can babysit outside their home yet not be exposed to hardcore porn on X, etc. Your argument seems to be a false choice between "either kids play in the woods or they play online in toxic social media hellscapes". Yes it is tragic that some components of a great childhood are impossible now for so many children. But this doesn't imply we must now let them play with guns and matches and razorblades. I have a friend who works with lots of young people whom she routinely tries to get to come to organized events but they often can't make it because they're attending the funerals of friends who've committed suicide. It's almost unbelievable how bad it is. This genie absolutely must be put back in the bottle by any means possible, and society is trying to figure out how. [Edit: removed reference to whataboutism] |
| |
| ▲ | GaryBluto 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Whataboutism" (if it even counts as a fallacy) isn't when somebody refutes an argument you support. | |
| ▲ | casey2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I personally don't believe you have ANY evidence. More plausibly you are acting as a "useful idiot" for traditional media. Now that Australia has banned social media, are you going to admit you were wrong? Or just double down and ban phones? If something is "unbelievable" then you better have good evidence for believing it, not just narratives. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | mandeepj 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Some kids start working at 14 or 15: they can be trusted to work somewhere outside of home, but not online? It’s not just the kids, but stalkers and criminals. There’s a reason full driving and drinking age is 18. |
|
| ▲ | 627467 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wait, did I misread and the article is suggesting banning the whole internet for under-16? |
|
| ▲ | defrost 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's a great pity all your woods have been bulldozed. However the world of woods, wide open spaces, kids with power tools, kids walking for hours with friends and dogs circuiting the beach, caves, forrests and fields very much still exists in many places across the globe. Kids working for themselves down in the shed making things they can sell for money at a swap meet or market happens here all the time and is a controlled risk - they wear PPE, have knowledge of readily apparent risks and aren't being stalked and crept up on by a netwok of bot assisted groomers. |
| |
| ▲ | lanfeust6 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, suburbia and even the inner-city in the West has parks, trails and rec centres. If anything, the real fantasy is the idea that kids couldn't engage with something outside. Kids are addicted to each other, social media is just a useful vector when helicopter parents don't permit you to leave the property, except for structured organised activity I.e. expensive league sports | |
| ▲ | hactually 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ... and just where are they going to learn these skills? | | |
| ▲ | defrost 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right here. Got welders, maps, legs (useful for walking), ropes, furnaces, hand tools, old cars, old workstations, soldering irons, a kitchen, gardens, paddocks, saddle making tools, radio towers, .. you know, regular house in the country from the 1930s kind of stuff. As I mentioned, this world still exists. | | |
| ▲ | tisdadd 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I have been building a library for some time as well, and am ready to learn and teach once my child is ready. Frankly, the internet experience when I was young vs now is crazy. For me, it was dial up with some forums and RuneScape open, chatting via texts in game with my buddies who were considered long distance even though we all went to the same church. The pauses in loading gave time to think up good discussion, and playing things took patience. Now everything wants your attention scattered everywhere, and is flashing in your face. I love having ad blockers because of that. Social media has done nothing good for our world I feel like. Yes, connecting is nice but when you are fed things off of not your actual interest or easily searchable same results but instead whatever drives engagement for ads I like to stay well away. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | techblueberry 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes yes yes yes yes? It’s weird that something completely normal like 20 years ago is “weird” today. I might even make it 18 when you’re old enough to sign a EULA. When did something completely normal become weird? “What’s next, an internet license?” Oh please god, yes. You’re own argument about kids not being allowed to play in the woods in the more seems to play into this idea we should just accept a dystopian world. |
|
| ▲ | jmyeet 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don't think it's about recreating a world that doesn't exist anymore. It's about limiting exposure of stuff to minds that simply aren't ready for it. The implementation falls short in a number of ways but I kinda get it and I think it's something we as a society will have to take seriously in coming years. For example, Australia blocks Youtube (like you say) but doesn't block Roblox. That's wild. For Youtube in particular, I think it'd be sufficient to have child accounts under their parents (as they did and still have elsewhere) that limited certain videos but also, disallowing commenting and probably even reading comments. A big thing we need to do is shut down Internet gambling and, more importantly, the precursors to gambling, which is anything that promotes the same addictive behavior. That includes all those "free" gotcha games that aren't really games. They're daily chores with random rewards and paid boosts to induce addictive behavior. Apps like Stake need to be completely removed from the App stores. I also think Fanduel and DraftKings should be illegal. I'm even leery on young people playing fantasy draft games, even for no money, because it's a gambling pipeline. Oh and putting your children on the Internet as like a Youtube family? That should be illegal. Algorithmic feeds in general I think are bad but particularly for young people. Because they're designed to induce addiction and "engagement". I think phones will soon be good enough (if they're not already) to do background age verifications to make sure the user is of appropriate age via the camera and processed locally (to avoid uploading pictures of minors). At some point I think we'll see that integrated into major platforms. The point of restrictions isn't to be perfect. It's to create a barrier that makes things more difficult. In years past we did this by, say, only showing more adult content on TV after certain times. Could kids stay up late to watch it? Or tape it once VCRs became coomon? Of course. But it helped. Just like gambling. Requiring someone to physically go to a casino reduced harm compared to just opening their phone wherever they are. It's a bit like having to go to the store to get ice cream or alcohol or whatever your vice vs just having it in your house or even getting it delivered. I think we as a society need more barriers. |