There have been several high-profile articles in respectable magazines and newspapers lately which detail how the "tech elite" very often send their children to special schools with little or no technology, and severely limit their own children's access to technology at home.

Meanwhile, they make billions off of feeding lowest common denominator content to everyone else's children.

I'm not sure, but if you email us we can probably sort it out.

We don't want a society where parents have to helicopter their children. We want a society where parents can give their children gradual access to freedom.

> We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes.

This is a completely different problem. Content is made for children. Those content creators don't want unsuitable ads in the content. The children enjoy watching the content. Those children don't want unsuitable ads. The parents are happy for their children to watch the content. Those parents don't want unsuitable ads.

All YouTube has to do is give content creators a checkbox: "Is this content aimed at people under 18?", then not place ads for gambling or alcohol or horror movies etc against that content.

YouTube needs to be aware that regulation is coming, and they're not going to like what the EU will impose.

You are partially correct. Yes parents are responsible for their kids but not always. We have laws making it illegal for kids to buy alcohol. If the store sells alcohol to my kid they have broken the law and it was their responsibility to not sell it to my kid. So as you can see there are examples out in the world where yes as a parent we teach our kids alcohol is bad and for kids wait to an adult but the responsibility for not allowing that actually falls on all of society. You can't legally serve a kid alcohol. And I also believe the same will be said of Youtube. You can't serve all this content obviously directed at little kids, and lets cut the bullshit this is directed at kids or do I need to go find several videos and link to them where they into the video saying "hey kids...today bla bla bla", and then fill it with predatory ads. The TV industry was hit with this years and years ago and made a standard for tv shows so children did not get exposed to crap. Youtube surely saw this coming? They let is happen for years so again I think they deserve this punishment but wish it was even bigger.

Yes they are, but you're leaving out the most important point here. It's content SPECIFICALLY designed for babies. The onus is on the producer - whether it's toys, videos, ads - for us to have some regulation saying x is ok but not y.

By your method of thinking...let's just make everything OK for babies and let the parents decide.

That makes no sense...it's why society has laws (Why can't I go buy a bazooka in Europe? Because there are laws).

Not at all. Those who have cars and can afford the fine consider parking fines to be a cost of doing business. Get a ticket, pay it on the web.

Now if the car is towed that becomes a problem because just pulling out a credit card does not fix it.

> That doesn’t really work for a company like google with a largely blameless culture.

That's only the case because the cost of mistakes are insignificant. Should the mistakes start costing them 5% of revenue you can bet a farm that the person would be fired.

There are many negative responses to inappropriate content, and with regards to the subtopic of "breaking", addiction is one. Addiction can exacerbate other responses such as depression or anxiety, but I wouldn't rule it out as a response.

As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are technology addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a sufficient logical claim.

Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences?

I was assuming the inappropriate content included videos such as the unboxing or adults playing with toys videos that seem to entrance children. I don't have data for technology increasing number of addicts, but my claim is that people seem to be susceptible to a number of cognitive biases that hinder their long term survival.

doesn't Facebook do that?

We're talking about monetised, profitable, video content aimed at children.

These other companies can manage it.

YouTube can't, but importantly YouTube wants it both ways - they want to include content that targets children without providing any of the protection that parents expect.

And that expectation isn't unreasonable. We don't want parents who helicopter every waking hour of their children's lives, we want to give parents some freedoms to allow their children to explore and grow.

the above poster is saying that parking fines don't work so you gotta escalate and tow the person's car. I'm saying you don't have to do that, just hire a few more meter enforcement people and stick with fines that are proportional to the offense. personally, I think $40-50 is a reasonable fine for attempting to subvert parking regulations. if you park in a way that blocks a whole lane of traffic, you have caused a big bigger and time sensitive problem that justifies a tow truck.

> Sure, just build a video streaming website with good UI, a good recommendation/discovery algorithm, it's own avertising network

I'm sorry to pick on you because I also disagree with the post you replied to.

In that list, didn't you forget to mention something very important that's at the heart of this discussion?

A competitor or even google should have all those things _plus_ it should be legal.

Currently, it isn't. Either change the law or change the business model, but don't implement a business model that breaks the law and hope it will turn out fine in the end.

You can't have every business breaking laws it disagrees with, not even if some or most people disagree with that law.

This is a perfect project for a successful entrepreneur who wants to solve a hard problem just like the Duckduckgo founder.

This is the type of hard problem I'm getting more and more interested in. Someone has to bring the future open and privacy oriented Web about some day. The current model is broken and the early Internet showed us what is possible. Web 2.0 brought none of the democratization it promised largely because of the old world model it attempted to deliver it with.

Plus none of the things you listed are hard. Technical problems are easy, it's the market and growth that's hard.

I'm personally focused on Reddit, mostly theoretically atm, but YouTube is something I've considered as well.

Personally only some small fraction of the creators I watch on YouTube monetize their videos and all of them have another source of income in addition to that (paid promotions, merchandice, pattreon, concerts etc.)

I think everyone would be happy without the revenue sharing.

What we really need is a good video podcast viewer.

Well in any case it's pretty clear which one needs to come first, convince the creators and they'll push existing users to the new platform.

The chicken problem is more about the ad buyers and the users, not creators. The patreon system scales better this way but the ads are what holds most back.

I know quite a few YouTube channels who tried pushing one of those awful decentralized versions of YouTube that look like Chinese knockoffs when the either the demonetization and copyright stuff bit them hard and threatened (or simply ruined) years of their hard work, but there was never a proper alternative to offer. I'm sure they'd love a legitimate alternative designed by top tier designers and developers for once.

Otherwise the creators will have no financial incentive to route users to another platform. Which is a far higher problem than not having enough other people commenting on the same video as other users.

You don't have to convince creator's to switch, just to use your new platform as well. YouTube doesn't have an exclusive license on the content.

And? What does a page full of data tell me? At a quick glance I can see a lot of violations made repeatedly for the same licence plate; there's no data on whether certain violations are made multiple times by the same person with different vehicles; it's not easy to tell what kinds of violations there are, how much of each, and which are easy to get tickets from unscrupulous parking attendants or which would require actual lack of action by the vehicle's driver or owner… this isn't evidence of anything.

The population of New York may be only 8.5 million, but that doesn't make 11 million infractions an indicator that the majority of those people are the sorts of people to accept parking fines as the cost of owning a vehicle.

Then it seems like you misunderstood my points, or I failed to get them across adequately. Your children are your responsibility. If they take your credit card (and you know that it does not require any code to enter on the online bank interface to authorize/allow a purchase) and use it to buy whatever, then indeed you are at fault here, not the store. Do you need the Government to do the parenting for you? As it is, kids are not even supposed to have credit cards, and most websites have it in their ToS that if you are under X, you cannot make a purchase, and so forth. What more do you want? Camera identification each time prior to making a purchase? What about anything else, if your children swallows, say, your ring, should we blame whoever made the ring, or whoever sold it to you, everyone but the parent? Should we ban rings (at the expense of everyone else) because some parents are not capable of parenting? In my experience, this is what most people seem to be in favor of, "ruining things" for everyone because of some other people who are neglectful or reckless or whatever. This is what I am against. Feel free to make the world a safer place for children, but not at the expense of everyone else because a parent failed to do their duty. We should hold the parents responsible, and thankfully some do.

I am not telling them to not complain. They can complain freely, just as I am allowed to point out that no amount of regulations (sometimes at the expense of other people) will replace parenting. I, for one, would totally be against camera identification prior each purchase because parents cannot keep their credit card away from their children. They are also free to complain about issues that can be easily resolved were they to care enough and put some effort into it.

I am not sure what to reply to this. Do not use the YouTube app, then?

Are you saying there are no ad blockers on iOS? I can think of two ways and I am not an iOS user: 1) you can use RSS and open in Safari which has full adblocking support, or 2) you can auto download the videos. No ads in downloaded videos.

What do you mean by "without root"? Could you give me a specific example?

Out of curiosity, what is the reason for you or your children not willing to give up the YouTube app so that you can use a browser with an ad blocker installed to avoid ads? What is that feature that you (for yourself and your children) or your children prefer over not having ads?

You could pay for YouTube premium instead of trying to use third part ad blockers.

Hell, one of them (probably the most interesting one to HN readers) even has its own video platform: https://watchnebula.com

To name some of the creators: CGP Gray, Kurzgesagt, Minute Physics, Real Engineering, Philosophy Tube etc.

I'm talking about any parking violations, from not paying metered, to parking in the no parking zones, to double parking etc.

> if they're double-parking, do they do this because there isn't a reserved dropoff space? what do USPS trucks do when they deliver to these buildings?

USPS delivers significantly less often - typically there's going to be a single delivery vehicle for all USPS services, while FedEx/UPS/DHL will have a vehicle per class of service.

USPS also double parks, parks in a non-parking spots but they tend not to have tickets on their vehicles.

Any YouTube competitor will immediately be filled with stolen content, porn, and original content that violates some copyright or other.

Unless that competitor adopts an extremely pro-content-owner stance (which would put them diametrically opposed to their content creators, and render this entire experiment moot), they are going to get sued out of existence.

Why do you think YouTube's copyright systems work the way they do? YouTube's incentives are aligned with content creators - or, they would be, if that pesky lawsuit thing wasn't a constant threat.