Sorry can you explain that a bit more literally? They must be online at the same level as they must read? I didn’t see any other posts referencing this elsewhere in the page.
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»?!