Hacker News Reader

Comment by rTX5CMRXIfFG | Hacker News Reader

I’m also horrified by the responses of parents here who are lax with YouTube, even to a slight degree. It’s like they feel that they are morally bound to find a middle-ground stance despite not having a good mechanistic explanation for why YT is OK even at small dosages, given how it has already radicalized people and impacted the global political order on the basis of fake news? Why isn’t the concern far more sweeping? Like, what harm can erring on the side of caution actually do and not letting your kids access YT before their cognitive development has progressed far enough so that they have self-control and have explored their own interests without the interference of internet culture?

View on HN

My kids watch a bit of YT kids. I used to be dead against it. Two things happened:

- One, my attention and energy is in fact finite. Perhaps I could work less, earn less, have more energy to give to them, but I just can't.

- There is a lot of good stuff there, and I see positive aspects of it on my kids. They learn songs. One of my daughters knew the alphabet by the age of 2, the other could count to 20. The oldest one comes up with so many nuggets of information: how volcanoes work, where the Eiffel Tower is, and so on. I also find the bad stuff on YT kids is fairly rare, and easy to ban.

In moderation I really think it's fine, and arguably even beneficial. Like most diverse experiences of life.

But why is YT necessary? Couldn’t you have given your kids access to a more curated and education-dedicated video platform instead? Heck, even Disney+ sounds better here.

> despite not having a good mechanistic explanation for why YT is OK even at small dosages

Do you have an explanation for YT is NOT ok even at small dosages?

Did we miss out on all of the HN articles and studies about how socmed consumption negatively impacts people’s levels of happiness, self-esteem, and ability to focus, and have we no experience of it?

We didn't, we just read and understood it - in particular, just because a site is classified "socmed", doesn't mean any kind of contact with it will instantly materialize those negative impacts you mention. Or that just because a site is classified "vod", it's substantially safer.

YouTube is mostly just a video-on-demand site. The social aspects are immaterial to how kids use the platform.

No, it’s not instant. As a matter of fact it starts with a click, then another, then another, and before you know it you’ve lost an hour just doom-scrolling low-intelligence content.

The actual studies are way more nuanced then that. It is actually funny to compare what actual studies, whether sociological or psychological say and what gets written on HN.

"Necessary" is a strong word. It's acceptable IMO, and my kids like it. If you want some more reasons:

- I strongly feel my children have agency, within reason. They like it, more than Disney+, and it's not a strong detractor.

- Frankly, most of the YT stuff they watch is, really, more appropriate. Bite-sized sciency or crafty things, with a silly song. Disney+ stuff I could find myself was genuinely either a bit boring, or a bit naff, or for older children. [EDIT] Timeless classics like Lion King are often too scary for them, and there's plenty of inappropriate stuff there too, just due to the passage of time. Let's just say, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves hasn't aged well.

- There is a much wider selection. My younger daughter is fascinated by aeroplanes. She watches video after video of planes taking off and landing, helicopters hovering and so on. Where do I find it on Disney+?

- Sometimes I see things I don't like on YT, it's a one-click ban for the creator. I have never seen anything wildly inappropriate. It's maybe an issue if your kids are watching it for hours on end, not so much if it's 20 mins after dinner, and I'm in the room.

I was talking to my mum about this, who remembers the same laments about letting children listen to the radio (mindless entertainment, no parental control), and her mum remembers the same thing about children being allowed to read their own colorful children's books, as opposed to adults reading a boring small-print book. When my younger cousins were growing up, there was family lament that they meet up with friends and play video games - yet they didn't grow up to be antisocial psychos. IMO we tend to over-demonise the new.

I get the parallels with past generations but YT is different and you as a parent should be thinking about its specific properties as a platform. It might have some thought-provoking entertainment but it is too huge and assorted, and where I come from, it has been weaponized by corrupt political families to spread historical revisionism packaged as “educational content” which ultimately brought them back to power. Then there’s the flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, etc. It’s not worth the trouble as I’m not going to be able to watch my kids all the time. I’d rather they develop their critical thinking and hobbies through offline avenues before they are exposed to addictive apps that make it too easy to discover disinformation.

> you as a parent should be thinking about

I'm sure you mean it well, but verbatim, you are in no position to tell me what I should be thinking about, especially as a parent.

I sympathise with your view, but I haven't seen a single anti vax or fiat earth snippet. There is a really nice Canadian lady who builds stuff out of Lego, I quite enjoy it.

> why YT is OK even at small dosages, given how it has already radicalized people and impacted the global political order on the basis of fake news? Why isn’t the concern far more sweeping?

That concern comes in during puberty and above, not when the kids are small. When they are 16-23, not when they are 1-9 years old. You have significantly less control at that time and crucially, should be transitioning to loosing control. They are getting ready for independent living or college.

Can you explain how you are sure that the concern is limited to the age range that you specified? You make it sound like there’s just one way that kids can grow. It’s completely possible for kids to gain access to bad internet stuff at a far younger age and they could carry it with them for a long time.

You will never be _sure_ that it's limited to that age range, because what's appropriate for a given age is pretty subjective. I don't know why people are obsessed with making perfectly isolated bubbles for kids, it's just not possible.

Because internet consumption has addictive properties that can negatively impact the cognitive development of a child regardless of age range? Gosh, I feel so irresponsible for intervening with the kind of information that children consume. Perhaps it’s better I expose them to alcohol and drugs sooner than later!

Inoculation against the downsides of socmed is impossible without exposure. Given that we discuss this on socmed, it would be purely hypocritical to argue here that any access is giving in to addiction - unless you believe us no better than meth addicts fighting in the street?

You literally talk about "radicalized people and impacted the global political order". I dont worry 4 years old will do any of that.

You think 3-6 yo kids can get radicalized by YT fake news?

It seems like YT's horde of psychiatrists has tapped into parents' minds as well, so they are programmed into believing they can't downshift in any aspect of their lives and won't sacrifice shit to actually pay attention to their very own children, because: work, money, stress, no time, no energy. Better let YouTube take care of them.

Society is fucked.

This comment is the kind of doomposting I use HN to avoid. If you seriously think this, I believe you ought to reread the comment guidelines and refrain from sharing this belief in the future.

I believe if your rainbow bubble is strong enough, you don't have to react to any doomposts out there, because everything's good in the world and nothing can shatter your mindset.

Besides: refrain from sharing this belief in the future? Are you from the belief police or something?

YT, like the real world has the same malicious components. Newspaper, TV, dipshit relatives.

If there's a questionable video being watched, you ask questions, walk them through it, ask them their thoughts "does this seem to make logical sense?", and guide them through it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com