Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Parents Can Now Limit YouTube Kids To Human-Reviewed Channels and Recommendations (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the parental-guidance dept.

Google is announcing an expanded series of parental controls for its YouTube Kids application. "The new features will allow parents to lock down the YouTube Kids app so it only displays those channels that have been reviewed by humans, not just algorithms," reports TechCrunch. "And this includes both the content displayed within the app itself, as well as the recommended videos. A later update will allow parents to configure which videos and channels, specifically, can be viewed." From the report: The controls will be opt-in -- meaning parents will have to explicitly turn on the various settings within each child's profile in YouTube Kids' settings. [...] First, videos are uploaded to YouTube's main site. They're then filtered using machine learning techniques through a series of algorithms that determine if they should be added to YouTube Kids' catalog. But algorithms are not people, and they make mistakes. To fill in the gaps in this imperfect system, YouTube Kids relied on parents to flag suspect videos for review. YouTube employs a dedicated team of reviewers for YouTube Kids, but it doesn't say how many people are tasked with this job. This system, parents have felt for some time, just wasn't good enough. Now, parents will be able to toggle on a new setting for "Approved content only," which also disables search. A later version of YouTube Kids will go even further -- allowing parents to select individual videos or channels they approve of, for a truly handpicked selection. The new features in YouTube Kids will roll out over the course of the year, the company says, with everything but the explicit whitelisting option arriving this week.

18 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. Great! by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Funny

    So now that you've got an approved messaging "safe space" section, can we assume that Youtube will stop pulling down any channels / demonetizing ones which are seemingly "wrong-think"?
    Maybe you can leave those alone since the kids are safe now, right? Right?

    1. Re:Great! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the take-downs and de-monetization are unlikely to stop.

      The illegitimate take-downs are mostly due to false flagging attacks. Dick Coughlan was hit for the 4th time yesterday. If there is any human oversight, it's not working.

      De-monetization is driven by the advertisers, not YouTube. You can't force advertisers to give you money. The most you can do is appeal to them to not remove their ads from your content, but they seem to have little interest in that because most of them are pandering to the lowest common denominator of prudishness, i.e. ultra conservatives who don't like swearing, gay people, violence and being made to feel uncomfortable.

      By the way, YouTube does allow advertisers to be on less conservative videos if they like. It's not all-or-nothing. It's just that few choose that option because they don't trust YouTube not to put them on a Paul Logan video or something. They are fine with swearing and bikinis, but not dead bodies or antisemitism, and YouTube can't make guarantees about the latter.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Great! by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      To be honest, anything that removes support from Paul Logan and all the other fucked-up attention seekers has to be a good thing. I don't care about blocking racists, terrorists, gay porn or monkey fucking cannibal misogynistic rape gangs - as long as we stop rewarding the fucked up attention seekers. It scares me more than anything that my kids will see any of these people as role models, or anything other than people to be pitied.

    3. Re:Great! by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Demonitization is also driven in part by corporate 'news' organizations. It wasn't enough for youtube to adjust their recommended algorithm to favor corporate mouthpieces for propaganda, they want to eliminate income for independent news commentators as well.

      And before you say "but infowars!", CNN is also targeting Jimmy Dore with this hatchet piece.

  2. Bullshit. by jcr · · Score: 1

    What stops the kid from simply making another YouTube account?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Bullshit. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you can explain how to restrict a browser in such a way that your kid can access YouTube but not log out and create another account.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Bullshit. by fussy_radical · · Score: 1

      My guess is if they are capable of doing this, they are too old for YouTube Kids anyway and you probably should worry about them creating a porn account.

  3. She doesn't have a browser, and wouldn't know by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My kid doesn't HAVE a browser. She has several games and puzzles, a piano app for playing music, PBS Kids, YouTube kids, and a couple other apps.

    Before she was born, I thought I'd never let her watch anything unless I was watching with her. After she was born, I discovered that parents have to poop sometimes. And cook. And wash the dishes. And shower. I actually can't be staring at her and her play things 24/7, so PBS Kids, YouTube Kids, etc are very helpful - I can poop, knowing that Daniel Tiger isn't going to do anything crazy.

    1. Re:She doesn't have a browser, and wouldn't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My kids only watch infowars which isn't even on youtube kids. Rather suspicious, until you realize that youtube kids is run by the globalists.

    2. Re:She doesn't have a browser, and wouldn't know by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Modern life can make good parenting rather difficult. For example, new houses built in the UK are usually too small. The kitchen is just barely big enough for one person to work in, meaning they can't have the children playing on the floor in there too. Designers make sure you can't see from the kitchen to the living room directly, because that makes the house feel even smaller and kinda cheap.

      One thing that really stands out about countries with good educational results is that they design their societies to facilitate raising children.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re:What kind of human? Who watches the watchmen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) They're wageslaves with an audit log
    2) It's an opt-in

    >For them to gain the right to verify videos
    They have the right to do fuck all with their website and your entitled bitch ass tantrum is irrelevant.

    You obviously didn't consider youtubekids adequate to begin with, carry on with your personal vetting approach that isn't being imposed on.

    I'm all for having a conversation about arbiters who can exploit selective enforcement and discriminate executive power. There aren't any here.

  5. Google finally gave up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So much for those algorithms, huh?

  6. Re:What kind of human? Who watches the watchmen? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    The real question being how much will an expedited review of your channel cost.

  7. Re:Reviewed by a Democrat or Conservative? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Reviewed by the trolling community du jour.

    What? Please tell me you don't think this looks like a worthy target for trolls.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Just now? by ruddk · · Score: 1

    I figured that they did that already with a feature like that and that it wasn't just built on a subset of searches in their database.

    --
    L'Idiot
  9. Which humans? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    What they didn't tell you about were the "humans" they hired to review videos: Pee Wee Herman, Bruce Paddock, Mark Salling, and a group of former Catholic priests from San Polo.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  10. Humans? by Threni · · Score: 1

    Well, there's humans, and there's humans. Are these correctly motivated, engaged humans, or very very cheap humans for whom there's little consequence for clicking "yeah, pass, whatever"?

  11. Youtube is the best. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

    So in other words what they are saying is animal porn videos won't popup in kid's searches, but videos by the LGBTQQIP2SAA community on how they identify as a sheep and really are a sheep on the inside and like to fuck other sheep because that is natural and beautiful, and hey while we are at it here is a some footage of a guy covered in glued on cotton balls buggering a sheep, but you know YouTube aren't fascist bigots so that's ok, will show up in their search results.