zlacker

>>furcyd+(OP)
"If YouTube won’t remove the algorithm, it must, at the very least, make significant changes, and have greater human involvement in the recommendation process.", man does this person know how many videos and how many users YouTube has? They cannot use anything except an algorithm to recommend videos. They cannot use anything except an algorithm to detect videos inappropriate for children. It seems YouTube is working on this, and this opinion seems like a ill thought out fluff piece to enrage readers and sell this persons book.

>>strike+jh
Maybe they can't make editorial recommendations for the long tail but they absokutely could do so for the top few thousand videos each week.

Would that yield an improvement? I don't know, but it would have an impact.

>>andrew+mi
I'm kind of wondering if a "Ned Flanders" user-detector is possible.

Search for users who stop videos at "offensive" moments, then evaluate their habits. It wouldn't be foolproof, but the "Flanders rating" of a video might be a starting metric.

Before putting something on YouTube for kids, run it by Flanders users first. If Flanders users en masse watch it the whole way through, it's probably safe. If they stop it at random points, it may be safe (this is where manual filtering might be desirable, even if it is just to evaluate Flanders Users rather than the video). But if they stop videos at about the same time, that should be treated as a red flag.

Of course, people have contextual viewing habits that aren't captured (I hope). Most relevantly, they probably watch different things depending on who is in the room. This is likely the highest vector for false positives.

The big negative is showing people content they obviously don't want for the sake of collecting imperfect data.

>>scj+9o
Should we filter all the pro-choice videos or the pro-life videos?

Should we filter all the Santa-is-fake videos or the Santa-is-real videos?

Do you agree with Flanders?

>>gus_ma+Lt
Why would Youtube for Kids show anything on the topic of abortion?

>>scj+Ww
Last year we have a very big mobilization here in Argentina because there was a vote in congress to legalize abortion. It was very big and the discussion split all the political parties.

The big square in front of the congress was split at the half, the pro-choice "green" group was on one side and the pro-life "sky-blue" group was in the other side. Each group had a strong opinion, but the mobilization was quite civilized, I don't remember that anyone get hurt. Anyway, there were small kids on both sides with the handkerchief of the respective color.

Also, what is your definition of kid: 6? 12? 17?

Just imagine that the Church release a video on youtube where Santa visit a lot of children to give them presents, and in particular to a unborn children during the 8 month of pregnancy, and add to Santa a "sky-blue" handkerchief in case someone didn't notice the hidden message. Do you think it should be censored for kids?

>>gus_ma+1G
Kid: I'd say the lower bound is around 5, and the upper bound is variable depending on the individual...

In this case, I'd suggest the upper bound doesn't matter, as the criteria for filtering should be "a semi-unattended 5 year old could view it without concern."

All your examples are of topics where it's probably best for parents to initiate their child's education on the topic rather than Youtube randomly putting it in some kid's feed.

>>scj+rO
So a 4 year old kid is not a kid?

>>aldous+g11
They're toddlers or babies if we're arguing semantics.

Kids < 4 really shouldn't have access to YouTube though.