YouTube to clamp down on disturbing kids' videos such as dark Peppa Pig ...

[Marcel Kipka]

What is child appropriate and who defines it?

Think of everything that needs/should get blocked just because in my beliefs or in my culture this is not child appropriate but then again in a lot of other cultures it is, so who decides what is child appropriate?

It's easily understood when it comes to sexual content or straight out porn and other graphical content that makes adults stomachs turn like gore, but then again that is life and the kids should get educated on it instead of finding it out from random youtube videos.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Marcel Kipka said:

What is child appropriate and who defines it?

Think of everything that needs/should get blocked just because in my beliefs or in my culture this is not child appropriate but then again in a lot of other cultures it is, so who decides what is child appropriate?

It's easily understood when it comes to sexual content or straight out porn and other graphical content that makes adults stomachs turn like gore, but then again that is life and the kids should get educated on it instead of finding it out from random youtube videos.

There needs to be a balance.

 

YouTube Kids is specifically designed to be curated for kid-friendly content.

 

Those parents who feel their kid doesn't need censoring, are free to let their kid have full access to YouTube.

 

But many parents rely on YouTube Kids to ensure that there is content there that they don't have to worry about. I have no problem with YouTube cracking down on the Kids content.

 

Kids should be educated about violence, etc, but randomly exposing them to graphic violence/gore, etc, especially before a certain age, is definitely not healthy for their development. If a parent wants to expose their kids to that stuff? They can do it outside of YouTube Kids.

[Marcel Kipka]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

There needs to be a balance.

 

YouTube Kids is specifically designed to be curated for kid-friendly content.

 

Those parents who feel their kid doesn't need censoring, are free to let their kid have full access to YouTube.

 

But many parents rely on YouTube Kids to ensure that there is content there that they don't have to worry about. I have no problem with YouTube cracking down on the Kids content.

 

Kids should be educated about violence, etc, but randomly exposing them to graphic violence/gore, etc, especially before a certain age, is definitely not healthy for their development. If a parent wants to expose their kids to that stuff? They can do it outside of YouTube Kids.

Then my question is, now that there is YouTube kids which means that YouTube is responsible for that content and in turn will be responsible for everything unethical/not suited for kids, wouldn't that then make them open for lawsuits?

Also, shouldn't all the content that goes into YouTube kids be screened by humans in the first place so this doesn't happen?

Why have it the other way around and that parents need to hit report before a human looks at it?

Isn't that like "Yeah we can prevent a killing but until it's reported we won't do anything about it and then we stop this person from further killings."

[dalekphalm]

9 minutes ago, Marcel Kipka said:

Then my question is, now that there is YouTube kids which means that YouTube is responsible for that content and in turn will be responsible for everything unethical/not suited for kids, wouldn't that then make them open for lawsuits?

Also, shouldn't all the content that goes into YouTube kids be screened by humans in the first place so this doesn't happen?

Why have it the other way around and that parents need to hit report before a human looks at it?

Isn't that like "Yeah we can prevent a killing but until it's reported we won't do anything about it and then we stop this person from further killings."

Manpower (and to a lesser degree, cost). It's simple.

 

The sheer amount of content being uploaded every single day, even if we ONLY look at YouTube Kids, is so much that even a dozen full time employees would not have enough time in the day to keep up with it.

 

So they rely on algorithms and the reporting system to try and keep on top of it.

[mr moose]

39 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Manpower (and to a lesser degree, cost). It's simple.

 

The sheer amount of content being uploaded every single day, even if we ONLY look at YouTube Kids, is so much that even a dozen full time employees would not have enough time in the day to keep up with it.

 

So they rely on algorithms and the reporting system to try and keep on top of it.

Yes, like many similar things in this new world, it is so large and complex, that there is no simple catch all solution that doesn't have a down side. 

[vorticalbox]

so why is googles job to look after other people kids while online? If you're going to like your kids on YouTube there is an app for that called "YouTube kids" no parent should be giving their child unrestricted access to the internet. 

 

All this is doing is removing content for everyone else.

[Dabombinable]

Wait, does this means anything related to "Titans Go" will disappear off Youtube?

[vorticalbox]

8 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

probably because there are lots of parents not savvy with dealing with their kids with regards to the internet ._.

still failing to see how is that is anyone else responsibility than the parents. 

[Phate.exe]

7 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

If you're going to like your kids on YouTube there is an app for that called "YouTube kids" no parent should be giving their child unrestricted access to the internet. 

 

All this is doing is removing content for everyone else.

Wanna know how I can tell you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about on this topic?

 

 

This shit shows up in the youtube kids app.  That's the entire reason why this is a problem.

 

The titles are a word salad of search-optimization designed to push them into the related videos queue, and the thumbnails have a colorful (usually yellow) background with pictures of recognizable characters.

 

You can load a playlist of perfectly appropriate things for your kid, hand them the phone, and 2-3 videos later the app will either auto-play or at the very least suggest bizarre and inappropriate skits of spiderman knocking up elsa.  Or bot-generated low-grade animations of the PJ Masks getting into a love triangle, and one of them ending up eating poop.  Or countless other violent/sexual/generally not kid-friendly scenarios.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

so why is googles job to look after other people kids while online? If you're going to like your kids on YouTube there is an app for that called "YouTube kids" no parent should be giving their child unrestricted access to the internet. 

 

All this is doing is removing content for everyone else.

1. this content is found on the youtube kids app, that's the first problem, and 2. google isn't looking after kids online, google is just looking after their income. 

 

Their income is dictated by the advertisers whose income is dictated by social appeal and that social appeal is dictated by the parents in the social media sphere(in this case loud mum's complaining about violent peppa pigs). 

 

 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

doesn't stop comments on news subreddits along the lines of "those poor kids don't deserve those asshat parents"

 

sometimes responsibility gets thrusted upon. others adopts some of that responsibility even if they have no obligation to. iunno ._.

 

It always amuses me how quickly people jump to blaming the parents and demonize the company for intervening.  I mean, yes some parents are shit, that's a fact of life, but you can bet your ass the parents that don't complain are probably even worse than the ones who are demanding change.   And what if google is doing this for no other reason than because they care about the development of kids who's parents aren't that good?  good on google for thinking about the future rather than a few dollars. 

 

In all honesty I can think why someone would even have issue with this.

[Phate.exe]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

It always amuses me how quickly people jump to blaming the parents and demonize the company for intervening.  I mean, yes some parents are shit, that's a fact of life, but you can bet your ass the parents that don't complain are probably even worse than the ones who are demanding change.   And what if google is doing this for no other reason than because they care about the development of kids who's parents aren't that good?  good on google for thinking about the future rather than a few dollars. 

 

In all honesty I can think why someone would even have issue with this.

Because they, like our buddy @vorticalbox, haven't bothered to read a single article about the issue, since it's a lot easier to attempt to turn things into a circlejerk about censorship rather than discussing the massive failure of the "safe environment" that is the entire concept of the Youtube Kids app.

 

[NumLock21]

On 11/11/2017 at 8:53 AM, Okjoek said:

WTF Is "dark kids videos"? More violent than Tom & Jerry? That's the most violent cartoon I can think I watched growing up.

Looney Tunes are violent and yet majority of those who watched them turned out to be normal people. Ren and Stimpy is another one. 

[Okjoek]

7 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Looney Tunes are violent and yet majority of those who watched them turned out to be normal people. Ren and Stimpy is another one. 

 

[Phate.exe]

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

Looney Tunes are violent and yet majority of those who watched them turned out to be normal people. Ren and Stimpy is another one. 

JFC.

 

It's not that the stuff is has violent or otherwise inappropriate content.  That is not the point of this story at all.

 

The issue is that this stuff has made it into the "safe" youtube kids app, and features popular children's characters.  If you set the kid up with Peppa Pig (which you probably shouldn't do anyways, Peppa is a little shit), a fucked up knockoff version shows up in the related videos for your 4 year old to click on.

 

Not sure what your issue with this is.

 

Would you want this showing up in the related videos after setting your 3 year old up with an episode of PJ Masks?  33.7 million views, likely from a mix of bots and toddlers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqfawL_VLcw

 

Don't get me wrong, stuff is a bizarre trip to watch if you're high, but that titlegore is designed to slip into the related videos of actual stuff for kids.

[vorticalbox]

8 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

Because they, like our buddy @vorticalbox, haven't bothered to read a single article about the issue, since it's a lot easier to attempt to turn things into a circlejerk about censorship rather than discussing the massive failure of the "safe environment" that is the entire concept of the Youtube Kids app.

 

videos with adult language shouldn't be in YouTube kids, if it is then sure google should indeed step in a fix that error.

 

however on the normal YouTube, no video should be removed because "a kid might see it" the point of YouTube is a network to share videos. Sure "extreme" videos or out right legal videos should be pulled but a video where peppa pig called her dad a "twat fucking twat" is neither of the above. 

 

The censorship was a valid point as that's what it is, the issue for me here is that YouTube is not YouTube kids and none kid friendly should not be pulled from the main platform. 

 

p.s bubby love ❤ 

[Ithanul]

On 11/11/2017 at 7:57 AM, herman mcpootis said:

not violent, but i've seen some cartoons with pretty creepy shit like courage the cowardly dog before

 

O god, yeah, that cartoon pushed it at times.  Still, darn, I enjoyed that cartoon.

Want to talk about wacky, The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack.  That had some weird crap at times.

 

Or, the Lich in Adventure Time...that some trippy stuff.

 

Though, if you want to talk about really pushing it: Ren and Stimpy.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, vorticalbox said:

videos with adult language shouldn't be in YouTube kids, if it is then sure google should indeed step in a fix that error.

 

however on the normal YouTube, no video should be removed because "a kid might see it" the point of YouTube is a network to share videos. Sure "extreme" videos or out right legal videos should be pulled but a video where peppa pig called her dad a "twat fucking twat" is neither of the above. 

 

The censorship was a valid point as that's what it is, the issue for me here is that YouTube is not YouTube kids and none kid friendly should not be pulled from the main platform. 

 

p.s bubby love ❤ 

They aren't removing content from main youtube, they are simply updating their policy to put such content behind an age wall when flagged. Which already exist for mostly adult content.  

 

 

Quote

“We’re in the process of implementing a new policy that age restricts this content in the YouTube main app when flagged

 

I really don't see an issue with this, you and I and anyone else who is old enough to work out how to create an account and tell them we are 18 can view this content.

 

 

Also they are demonetizing videos that rework kids characters and family shows to make them inappropriate, which I agree with anyway because if people want to do that they need to do it under fair use which deems they not be monetized.

[Sauron]

On 11/11/2017 at 2:53 PM, Okjoek said:

WTF Is "dark kids videos"? More violent than Tom & Jerry? That's the most violent cartoon I can think I watched growing up.

Even a kid can tell that Tom and Jerry are fake and you're not supposed to murder each other. These are more confusing, aside from being shit.