YouTube Kids App Shows Suicide Video

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, 1kv said:

But still, his content was in the video. Stuff like that shouldn't be shown on a 'kid-friendly' app. 

 

The point is since it wasn't from his channel it wouldn't be identified as his stuff meaning the algorithms wouldn't know not to put it there.

[CarlBar]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well no because as mentioned everyone that has tried to create a similar service to Youtube has died, over and over. Youtube business model without the giant backing of Google and Goodle Ads is a non starter which is why everyone fails when trying to mimic Youtube as it's an immensely expensive service compared to other more specific video services.

 

Also new creators can still be approved, it's just removing the free for all aspect and introducing control. You'd have to apply for a creators account, tell them why you want one, submit a sample video and survive though probation period.

 

The youtube competitors haven't failed because it cannot be done they've failed because youtube exists in it's current form. it's the same reason non-steam online game stores  have failed to really dent steam, (and generally rely on publisher specific titles to remain functional). it's the same reason no one has managed to produce a true widespread uptake competitor to microsoft windows for the home desktop environment.

 

It doesn't matter how good your product is, if the competitor is big enough, monolithic enough and has a big enough slice of mindshare your never going to get people to take up adoption of your product unless you can somehow force them to do so, (which is exactly what a lot of game store alternatives do via exclusives from the owning publisher or what Apple does with MacOS). But have Youtube kill off general uploading and there's not going to be that mindshare based monolithic hold anymore.

 

Likewise you don't have to prevent all new channels starting to kill youtube, you just have to restrict it significantly. And thats the only way to make it possible for google to manage it. You have to get i to the point where they can review everything. But to do that your going to have to restrict things to channel proposals that your confident are going to be successful. 

 

Except the overwhelming majority of popular youtube channels did not start out with any real prospects of success. The majority of popular youtube channels today, if you put them before any "do they have significant chance of success" metric when they started would fail the metric, and they'd fail it hard because a lot of them are covering oddball things, or are one of dozens if not hundreds of channels trying to cover a particular thing at the time and often it's not easy to see what separates the good from the bad at the time.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

The youtube competitors haven't failed because it cannot be done they've failed because youtube exists in it's current form. it's the same reason non-steam online game stores  have failed to really dent steam, (and generally rely on publisher specific titles to remain functional). it's the same reason no one has managed to produce a true widespread uptake competitor to microsoft windows for the home desktop environment.

While that comparison is correct and I agree for things like Steam and that it would also apply to Youtube the reason why a Youtube competitor will fail, and why they have in the past, is because it costs too much money to run such a platform. It's a flawed business model, it's not sustainable so every single person that tries it will fail because of that.

 

Other current video platforms know this which is why they have their own unique service model, be it only allowing short video lengths or non-persistent storage of them or it's a paid service etc. Then there are the ones backed by ISP for on-demand services which only exist because they are backed by ISPs.

 

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

Except the overwhelming majority of popular youtube channels did not start out with any real prospects of success. The majority of popular youtube channels today, if you put them before any "do they have significant chance of success" metric when they started would fail the metric, and they'd fail it hard because a lot of them are covering oddball things, or are one of dozens if not hundreds of channels trying to cover a particular thing at the time and often it's not easy to see what separates the good from the bad at the time.

For the traditional community ones yes but they aren't the most viewed videos on Youtube anymore. Now Youtube's biggest 'creators' are music labels, magazine/journalism, movie trailers, TV shows and directly owned corporate channels. The Dude Perfect's of Youtube just aren't that big anymore and already established, even if they went away someone would replace them and it would be mega brand backed like everything else on Youtube now.

 

Youtube simply is not a platform for the community anymore, hasn't been for ages and Youtube does not care about these people.

[TidaLWaveZ]

[EarthWormJM2]

Simple solution... MONITOR or LIMIT your children's internet usage. Be responsible. I grew up with the explosion of the internet through the 90s and early 00s, and back then it was common knowledge that the internet can be a dark and dirty place, like a big city after dark that you wouldn't leave your kid alone in. Also, "don't believe everything you see on the internet", was a common thing in everyone's mind too. But now, even the most ridiculous, out there, disproven articles, (like the earth is flat!: here are 10 reasons why), People believe... smh.

[EarthWormJM2]

On 2/24/2019 at 2:06 PM, Chett_Manly said:

Seems like YouTube just needs to be honest to Advertisers and Viewers. It is a user generated content platform, users will sometimes upload content that is distasteful, and that is how it is.

 

They should remove YouTube Kids, or make it entirely curated by staff.

 

Advertisers should accept that their ad might run before or after unsuitable content, or not advertise on the platform. 

 

Personally, as a reasonable human being, I recognize that advertisers buying YouTube ad space are unaware of everything their video plays after or before, and it is not an endorsement of that content; and I think advertisers would stay on the platform.

..yea, but that would make too much sense!?

 

In reality, when "Adpocalypse" happened, YouTube had a choice, follow the advertisers (and the easy money) or, listen to the people and make it better for everyone (too much work). In our current timeline, YT chose the former unfortunately...

[EarthWormJM2]

22 hours ago, Kamina said:

1990s-2000s: Don't talk to strangers online or give out your real information

 

2010s-2020s: Put all your information on social media.

 

Just because an app says it's for kids does not mean you should rely on that app to babysit your child.

This!! I posted a very similar comment on this thread too before seeing yours, lol.

 

somewhere between 2000 and 2010, people lost their personal responsibility and now want to blame all these internet tech giants for problems they could have prevented in the first place... 

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

Ahhh, youtube kids, the world's most useless app.

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

Simple solution... MONITOR or LIMIT your children's internet usage. Be responsible. I grew up with the explosion of the internet through the 90s and early 00s, and back then it was common knowledge that the internet can be a dark and dirty place, like a big city after dark that you wouldn't leave your kid alone in. Also, "don't believe everything you see on the internet", was a common thing in everyone's mind too. But now, even the most ridiculous, out there, disproven articles, (like the earth is flat!: here are 10 reasons why), People believe... smh.

Here's the thing, too many people are ready to outsource their thinking to their smartphone.

[matrix07012]

Kids don't belong on the internet.

[CarlBar]

On 2/25/2019 at 3:50 AM, leadeater said:

While that comparison is correct and I agree for things like Steam and that it would also apply to Youtube the reason why a Youtube competitor will fail, and why they have in the past, is because it costs too much money to run such a platform. It's a flawed business model, it's not sustainable so every single person that tries it will fail because of that.

 

Other current video platforms know this which is why they have their own unique service model, be it only allowing short video lengths or non-persistent storage of them or it's a paid service etc. Then there are the ones backed by ISP for on-demand services which only exist because they are backed by ISPs.

 

For the traditional community ones yes but they aren't the most viewed videos on Youtube anymore. Now Youtube's biggest 'creators' are music labels, magazine/journalism, movie trailers, TV shows and directly owned corporate channels. The Dude Perfect's of Youtube just aren't that big anymore and already established, even if they went away someone would replace them and it would be mega brand backed like everything else on Youtube now.

 

Youtube simply is not a platform for the community anymore, hasn't been for ages and Youtube does not care about these people.

 

You have any sources on the breakdown of whats the most watched stuff. I'll agree each individual smaller channel on youtube gets a lot less view time than the big name stuff, but there's so many of them that i'd be very surprised if they didn't eclipse the individually more popular channels.

Also your expense argument doesn't hold up. if it did Youtube would never have gotten off the ground. For that matter it wouldn't still be running. Google is a for profit company they simply have no good reason to keep running youtube the way they are if it's so expensive and there are less expensive ways that offer them better margins.

 

Realistically in my opinion Youtube by the nature of what it''s become really shouldn't be googles sole responsibility to police. It's become so large, so monolithic, and so much a part of everyday life that Google really should be able to reasonably ask the police departments and/or regulatory agencies of the world to step in and help them moderate what viewers in the relevant departments countries are seeing.

 

That really the issue with the internet, because different parts of it are in different countries and are accessible from still more it's hard to apply national laws to it, but thats leading to us expecting private companies to do things that if it were a physical service would be handled by a combination of the company, local police force,s and local regulatory agencies.

[leadeater]

On 2/26/2019 at 2:47 AM, CarlBar said:

Also your expense argument doesn't hold up. if it did Youtube would never have gotten off the ground. For that matter it wouldn't still be running. Google is a for profit company they simply have no good reason to keep running youtube the way they are if it's so expensive and there are less expensive ways that offer them better margins.

Youtube got to live in the luxury that others don't get now, there was no Youtube until Youtube. Online world wide streaming was only just starting to grow, internet services were just getting out of majority dial-up to still not actually that fast but still a lot better. Youtube grew with the demand as well as playing the significant role in creating that demand. The original service was not that sophisticated, now and then are very different things.

 

Starting a service now to meet the demand of today is far more costly, just ask Vessel or <removed by staff> or the countless other failures.

 

The other major point I mentioned was that Youtube does not live without Google, without Google Youtube would fold like the rest of them or would need equal business agreement as they get now for Google Ads and infrastructure backing. Remember Google acquired Youtube in 2006, it's been a Google ecosystem for a very long time, it was independent for only a single year. Many startups like Youtube original business purpose was to create a business of value that someone would purchase them, not to be sustainable. Youtube was losing money when Google acquired them.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/053015/how-youtube-makes-money-videos.asp

 

Any competitor is not going to get the same deal from Google for advertising or they will either have to live with a worse deal, find more direct methods or start/find/grow another Ad distribution company.

 

Today is not 14 years ago, there is no comparison so the statement about Youtube never getting off the ground just doesn't work like that.

 

On 2/26/2019 at 2:47 AM, CarlBar said:

You have any sources on the breakdown of whats the most watched stuff. I'll agree each individual smaller channel on youtube gets a lot less view time than the big name stuff, but there's so many of them that i'd be very surprised if they didn't eclipse the individually more popular channels.

Who generates more revenue for Youtube, Sony Music Entertainment or 1000 1M sub channels? Dude Perfect a 40M channel has 7.3 billion total views, there are multiple singular music videos with 1 billion i.e. Despacito with 6 billion . Music alone eclipses everything else. Also look at T-Series, one of the most corporate backed aggregated channels in existence covering a wide array of different content including music.

 

On 2/26/2019 at 2:47 AM, CarlBar said:

Realistically in my opinion Youtube by the nature of what it''s become really shouldn't be googles sole responsibility to police. It's become so large, so monolithic, and so much a part of everyday life that Google really should be able to reasonably ask the police departments and/or regulatory agencies of the world to step in and help them moderate what viewers in the relevant departments countries are seeing.

That's why I'm saying close off the open access to creators and move a large amount of responsibility on to the creators with actual enforcement, that's not possible when anyone can create an account and upload videos with no wait period or approval required. You want a creators account? Here is your contractual requirements you must adhere to, here is also some guidelines on laws and regulations you need to be aware of. I'm not saying introduce a high bar for entry, just a bar at all, even ankle height.

 

On 2/26/2019 at 2:47 AM, CarlBar said:

That really the issue with the internet, because different parts of it are in different countries and are accessible from still more it's hard to apply national laws to it, but thats leading to us expecting private companies to do things that if it were a physical service would be handled by a combination of the company, local police force,s and local regulatory agencies.

We already expect a lot of private companies, including multinational ones. Being an internet service is not a valid excuse. We expect every private business to follow local laws, not allow law breaking when using the services or facilities. Sadly companies can and do fail that expectation, global financial crash for example.

 

I expect no more from Youtube than I do of any other company, I shake my head at black Friday stampedes just like I do at Youtube's internet equivalent of that but every single day. If you can't control the crowd don't have the sale.

[mr moose]

On 2/26/2019 at 7:19 AM, EarthWormJM2 said:

This!! I posted a very similar comment on this thread too before seeing yours, lol.

 

somewhere between 2000 and 2010, people lost their personal responsibility and now want to blame all these internet tech giants for problems they could have prevented in the first place... 

The problem is not just parents who aren't watching what their kids, but that these "tech giants" are actually lying through their teeth when they say they have created a kid safe environment.   You can blame youtube for this and you can't blame all parents because the product they used is faulty.  We have the ABC kids app here in Australia, you won't find dodgy logarithms, promotions or mistakes in the program material unless a human intentional puts it there.   This is more the fault of youtube than it is parents.

 

 

[Dujith]

On 2/26/2019 at 12:18 AM, matrix07012 said:

Kids don't belong on the internet.

Kids should not go on the internet unsupervised yes. Just like i didnt let my kid go out into the street when she was 4, i did however go with her and taught how to be safe. How to cross the street, stay on the sidewalk and such stuff.

 

Same applies to the internet. They are going to have to use it anway (schools use google and or office for planning and such. Not to mention the info they need to look up besides using books.)

So sit with them and teach what is right and wrong.

 

I'd rather teach them then outright ban it, rather then they get online when they are really impressionable at 13 and up.

 

Simple rule in our house, everything they do on phone and computer gets checked by me and my wife. 

 

OT:

The second i saw it coming up i decided against it, i just dont trust Youtube with this. And ofc they proved me right

 

 

[NumLock21]

The easiest silution to this is to not watch videos on the internet. Let kids watch videos on regular TV. 

 

Also another thing showing up on yt kids app is that momo challenge.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-47359623

[vorticalbox]

On 2/24/2019 at 1:12 AM, Techstorm970 said:

*Filthy Frank video gets approved for YouTube Kids*

 

YouTube, your algorithm is an f-ing disgrace!  Your coders should be embarrassed!

It's an ai and it learns by being wrong and being corrected.

 

As these videos are found and reported it will get better.

[Techstorm970]

On 2/25/2019 at 4:18 PM, matrix07012 said:

Kids don't belong on the internet.

Title (bottom line) checks out!

[matrix07012]

On 2/27/2019 at 11:15 AM, Dujith said:

Kids should not go on the internet unsupervised yes. Just like i didnt let my kid go out into the street when she was 4, i did however go with her and taught how to be safe. How to cross the street, stay on the sidewalk and such stuff.

  

Same applies to the internet. They are going to have to use it anway (schools use google and or office for planning and such. Not to mention the info they need to look up besides using books.)

 So sit with them and teach what is right and wrong.

  

I'd rather teach them then outright ban it, rather then they get online when they are really impressionable at 13 and up.

 

Simple rule in our house, everything they do on phone and computer gets checked by me and my wife. 

 

 OT:

The second i saw it coming up i decided against it, i just dont trust Youtube with this. And ofc they proved me right

 

Definitely. It's the job of the parents to educate and take care of their child. They shouldn't trust the government or corporations to do it for them.

I shouldn't change my behavior just because some kid on the other side of the planet might see it.

52 minutes ago, Techstorm970 said:

Title (bottom line) checks out!

Thanks for reminding me to change it.

[aezakmi]

On 2/23/2019 at 9:54 PM, floofer said:

six million

Ahh I understood that reference

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, aezakmi said:

Ahh I understood that reference

What reference  

[BetterThanLife]

Get your kids off the fucking internet altogether, idiots.

[weez]

As a parent it's our job to make sure our kids aren't watching videos they shouldn't be watching. I do not let my kids browse YouTube period. And if there is something I would like them to watch on YouTube I prescreen the video first.

[TacoSenpai]

On 2/28/2019 at 5:11 PM, Techstorm970 said:

Title (bottom line) checks out!

 

 

Spoiler