Remix.run Logo
WheatMillington 6 hours ago

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 5 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.