Slashdot Mirror
Why Doesn't 'Google Kids' Exist?
theodp writes "Slate's Michael Agger wishes there was a website his 6-year-old son could visit on his own to watch amateur Star Wars Lego movies and other stuff he's curious about. 'But I don't leave him alone on YouTube,' he laments, 'because I never know if some strange-ass video will appear in the 'Related Videos' section.' Agger suggests that Google should create Google Kids, a search engine that filters the Web for children. 'Think back to when you were a kid and your parents dropped you off at the library,' explains Agger. 'In the children's section, the only "inappropriate" stuff to be found was Judy Blume's Forever, which someone's older sister had usually already checked out anyway. Similarly, Google Kids would be a sort of children's section of the Web, focused on providing high-quality results based on age.'"
One bad video/image slipping through could cause Google a lot of problems. Think wardrobe malfunction x 1,000,000 Its why many companies shy away from this.
Parents use the Internet as a babysitting tool more often than not these days. Then when they find that little Johnny or Judy finds something inappropriate on the Internet they cry foul about it and say that it shouldn't be on the Internet for their kids to find thus punishing everyone else. Or they run to some filtering program to hopefully block the bad stuff and then the kid finds their way around it and then the parent has a fit about it.
How about actually being a parent? Sitting down with your child and help them use the Internet safely is far better than trying to either force the usage of filtering applications or ranting about why the content is there to begin with.
Google kids? Why don't you have a seat over there.
According to the ALA's Freedom to Read statement, librarians should not be censoring what children read, either. If a child you've dropped off at the library wants to wander into young adult or the regular adult stacks and start paging through books, the librarians should only be stepping in if the book is being mishandled. So while children's content is collected together in the children's area, the child is not prevented from accessing adult materials. You know, because the librarians aren't babysitters and are also not meant to be filters for your children the way you are, being their legal guardian and all.
It surely would be a Nice Thing to make a playground on the Internet for kids, but why should Google bother to do it? Go make it yourself if it's such a good idea. "Oh, I don't have the resources to do that," you say. Well... there you go. Google isn't a charity.
Now, YouTube Kids or something like that, maybe you can see something there. (Think, vetted content from the likes of Nickelodeon and PBS, actually rated as 'G' or 'E' or whatever by a real ratings agency.) It's probably easier to get profitable advertising in videos there as well; kids can't be the best at operating click-through ads.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Comments like this always come from non-parents. True ignorance. You have no fucking idea how much harder life is when raising children. Perhaps the world should just stop reproducing so "we people" won't disgust you.
Comments like you're always come from parents who fucked their lives up and have somehow convinced themselves that their mistake actually makes them saints and sages able to dispense advice to everyone else and trump those who did not fuck their lives up. I'm not a drug addict, but I can also comment fairly astutely on addiction and the wisdom of not putting yourself in a position to potentially become one.
You are not some hero for breeding. Trust me, if you don't breed, the world will still go on. This isn't 1640, where having a healthy child that lives to the age of twelve is rare and you need to spread your seed far and wide just to hope for a chance of humanity's continuation. And my having the sense and wisdom not to have children doesn't make me selfish or unqualified to discuss parenting. (For one thing, I *HAVE* parents, just like everyone else has).
Anyway, people like me know EXACTLY HOW FUCKING MUCH HARDER LIFE IS WHEN RAISING CHILDREN. That is why we don't do it. If you insist on doing it, then just fucking do it and shut the hell up. I didn't force you to squirt one out. I didn't even ask you to. If it's so difficult or you can't afford it, then don't do it. I've somehow managed to avoid breeding as has every single person I know who doesn't want kids.
Now, that said, the idea that it's disgusting that someone wants a corporation to provide a service that helps them do that parenting is kind of absurd. Letting that company control the content your children receive entirely blindly, without having any personal insight into just what is being filtered is absurd, but as long as you know what is being filtered out or opted in and you agree with it, then what's the difference between having a service to do that or coding something to do it on your own? Or watching over your child's shoulder?