They ___must___ at the same level as they must read. See posts elsewhere in this page.
--
Oh, a sniper. I will be even more clear: either the kids get cultivated, or they are wasted and waste. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50140206
Among other severe faults: read the site Guidelines.
You are posting on HN, you take it for granted we use "apps"?!
> Maybe make your own video museum that's separate from the slop machine
The states have not done it and they are attacking the imperfect third party-treasure!!!
Moderation!...
See also: the internet archive emergency digital lending program.
And where is the basicmost consideration for the crucial fact that YT is doing a paramount, invaluable, priceless service to the democratization of knowledge and culture and education worldwide. Because again, if administrations do not notice that, they cannot be considered anything of worth.
-- age verification is there to block access to minors, while obviously, as already stated many times here, minors are ___mandated___ to get cultivated, and that involves looking for those "Jung, Boniface, Fukuyama, Borges, Mead, Stravinsky, Picasso, Dirac, Sanderson (etc.)" on YouTube. If they don't get cultivated they must be either confined where they won't do damage or directly thrown in a ditch - they cannot be an active part of anything.
-- age verification blocks access to all developed people, to all Men, if there is a mechanism involved that does not perfectly defend privacy or other requirements (from dubious equipment to contracts with dubious entities). If anyone peered into the private matters of a Man, especially cultural matters, the response of all Men is the highest full violence. Nobody worth it will ever have access to the museum again, if entrance involves identification or perversion (e.g. smartphones).
-- current administrations seem largely oblivious of the above, which makes them satanic (both perverse and detrimental), strictly structurally inadequate (proposing one-step mental processes instead of full-framed plans), and substantially massively ignorant.
--
Whatever your age and causes, poster, get out of the level you declare with your impressively chosen nickname and as of today, now, cultivate yourself intensively because if you can type or similar you are not a cow, and if you are humanoid you have duties which you are not fulfilling. That implies for you also to spend all the time you otherwise waste on effing YouTube, while it is available: the pointers are there above, proceed from those given (since you stated and showed you have no idea how to search for quality material - start from those written and build on them), start immediately. You cannot be a liability if you partake in societies.
I will not post the hundreds of channels I follow on YT for privacy reasons, but you can check yourself (if you never did that): think of some cultural matter of the past or the present, in video form, and it will be on YT.
Already that the MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Yale etc. have an important presence there is telling of the foolishness to block access. Add things like the "Curiosity Show" and Julius Sumner Miller and all daily published new divulgation, and you can see how blocking access to kids and students is near the most stupid idea ever.
Where? See the start of the submitted (which does not mention youtube, but if you follow the news it is there):
> In July, France joined Australia in restricting minors from accessing social media—barring children under 15 from major platforms, before the ban was blocked by the country’s top court on human rights grounds. The UK aims to forbid kids under 16 from accessing Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms in early 2027, and the EU has announced its own plan to prohibit social media for kids under 15
> the core liability is already there, proposing the satanic
We cannot be in a situation in which ___trash___ is making proposals (threats) and our reassurance should be "maybe they will not". The reassurance happens when they are called with their deserved name by a critical mass.
So it's still just talk?
And your insistence on "not there yet" is again completely bypassing our arguments about the severity of the context.
My general position is that assuming that children ages of 10 to 16 _need_ to be or _must_ be online to communicate with their peers, without considering the negative impact on developing brains, is intellectually dishonest at best.
No, you misunderstood. Online "for the purpose of communication" was not defended. Online "for the purpose of cultivation" is morally mandatory.
I do not see how there can be a misunderstanding: they blocked and/or are planning to block and/or trying to block access by minors to crucial resources like YouTube. Kids are mandated to read good books, and they are similarly mandated to watch good video material. Do you understand what I mean for "good video material" or would you like me to improvise a list with some examples?
You clearly have no idea about what YouTube contains, to compare it to what can be met in local collections.
And a similar wild comparison is that about the «negative consequences [YouTube would] introduce» - and without even considering the easy circumventions. Which «negative consequences»?!