[Radle]

The lawyers sound as if if kids aren't already using the internet.

It's fairly obvious that giving children a safe zone is still better than throwing them in the 18+ internet right?

Are there any arguments as to why a platform for under 13 y/o would be worse than these demographics using the normal platform?

[quadrangle]

In https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/26-are-the-kids-alright interview, I heard the claim that mental health issues for kids are not correlated with internet use or technology but strictly with social media in particular.

Kids reading stuff or watching videos or playing games, none of that amounts to a constant numerical score of whether or not their peers "like" them.

[toast0]

> Are there any arguments as to why a platform for under 13 y/o would be worse than these demographics using the normal platform?

Without knowing anything about Instagram Kids, more parents might let their children use it if it appears safe for children. If it's not actually safe(r?), then that's more exposure.

For example, YouTube Kids is almost the same garbage as YouTube, but the name implies otherwise. Neither flavor should be left unsupervised with children.

[Syonyk]

> For example, YouTube Kids is almost the same garbage as YouTube, but the name implies otherwise.

Except that everything on there is going to keep kids "engaged." Even the weird toxic clickbait sort of stuff. On regular YouTube, they might at least wander off into something less interesting and put it down, but in the "Kids" sphere, you can safely bet they won't put it down of their own "This has gotten boring..." accord.

I entirely agree that unsupervised YouTube of any form for kids is a terrible idea.

Google's general concept that "algorithms and machine learning" can do anything useful against unlimited attacks from motivated adversaries (some of the bizarre Elsegate videos made quite a bit of money) hasn't worked out very well in practice, and that's before you get the 4chan trolling style attacks. And YouTube's volume is far, far too great for humans to actually watch everything coming in. I can't solve that problem, but I sure can solve the problem of not giving my kids an unsupervised pipeline into that world.

[nineplay]

Youtube for kids is fine - at least the Apple TV app. it's carefully curated. They show The Wiggles, Yo Gabba Gabba, Kid's Bop, and some Sesame Street. It may make parents want to run and hide but I'll happily leave my 3 year old in front of it.

There are ads, of course, but tolerable ones. Certainly not any worse than what I watched on commercial television back in the day.

[tastyfreeze]

Youtube Kids for the 7-13 group is terrible. Interesting harmless videos (mostly science related) are not available on Youtube Kids. The problem seems to be that the creator needs to label their video as kid friendly or it doesn't have a chance of being available on Youtube Kids.

Videos from channels like Cody's Lab, King of Random, Smarter Everyday and similar are not available on Youtube Kids. This wouldn't really be a problem if Youtube allowed parents to mark a channel or videos as OK for their children. But, it is an outright block for children under 13 with no capacity for discretion.

[throwaway3699]

This comes down to COPPA regulations and the fact that child friendly channels are not allowed to use targeted ads, which really slashes revenue on a site like YouTube. Creators actively avoid it.

[nineplay]

Totally agree, there's a gap there. I block youtube.com completely, only opening it up briefly when there's a school assignment to watch a video which I think is playing with fire.

I tried to create a youtube account with whatever checkbox they have that is "please only show safe content". I subscribed to kid's science channels. The garbage that came though was astonishing.

[throwaway3699]

Have you found any problems with them being left out of all the in-jokes and culture? I don't think kids culture (esp. for boys) really exists anywhere online outside of YouTube. That's part of why gaming is so popular on that site. I no longer watch TV because YouTube has way better stuff.

[toast0]

You can get in-jokes by second hand exposure. I understand a good amount of Simpsons jokes from tireless repetition by friends, even though I haven't watched the show much at all. (It was forbidden in my childhood home, and passe when I left)

[herbst]

Youtube kids contains things i think are creepy. I know they heavily decreased the sexualized content, but some of the scare stuff IMO still goes to far.

[CountDrewku]

Well let's take a look at other media targeted towards younger children/tweens. How about Fortnite? They're training to children to be degenerate gamblers by tapping into base impulses of addiction. Any company that does this only does it for purposes of getting them hooked at a young age and hoping to turn them into future coffers. They're not doing it for altruistic reasons.

>It's fairly obvious that giving children a safe zone is still better than throwing them in the 18+ internet right?

Yes, but this shouldn't be done by a company that's only looking for profit. There's only so much that can be done legally to keep them away from these sorts of things and the rest of it HAS to be done by the parents. Children shouldn't have free reign of the internet and need guidance on what's appropriate and discussion on what they're seeing. I'm probably in the minority but I don't agree with just giving them smart phones/devices that just allow them to be connected to whatever they want 24/7 either.

[fungu]

What about fortnite do you believe is "training children to be degenerate gamblers"?

To my knowledge there is no "gambling" aspect of the game. Did you just randomly pick fortnite because other games have loot box mechanics and you assumed fortnite did too?

[CountDrewku]

Fortnite did have loot boxes until they were sued recently. https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295676/epic-games-fortn.... The ability to buy skins isn't much different really. Just because you know what you're getting doesn't mean there isn't an addictive aspect to purchasing skins etc. especially when they're advertised in a manner to elicit an aggressive "i need this" response.

Additionally, the actual game-play is made to be addictive and young children don't have the ability to keep this in check.

[kfrzcode]

Not just a specific game, but gaming culture in general, especially for the Gen-Z market, is steeped in microtransactions. I don't have specific citations but Adam Alter's book _Irresistible_ dives into this and other topics related:

https://adamalterauthor.com/irresistible

[ixacto]

While it might not make sense to give children smartphones, they will find a way to see what they want.

This is preferable to sheltering them until they go to college where it is all on display for obvious reasons.

One of my fondest childhood memories was figuring out how to get past the high school’s filtering software so we could get hotornot/MySpace/deviant art available.

Just remembered hotornot, kinda crowd sourced child/teen body-image shaming but it did help everyone develop a thick skin unlike today when parents try and micromanage their kids lives.

[throwawayay02]

I'd argue advertising this Instagram as a "safe zone" for children while still containing ads and allowing adult predatores to sign in would be much worse.

In the normal platform at least they can be disguised as average users that seldom post anything, and there is less pressure to post anything since it's a hostile place to children in the first place.

[nineplay]

The article doesn't go into detail. I've been happy with messenger kids but for me the problem would be any ability to do likes on posted content. I think one of the big self-esteem killers of facebook is posting content with 3 likes while another kid posts the same content with 30 likes.

Also the option of potentially putting up content that mocks other kids. It's somewhat possible with messenger kids but the only information shared is between the few kids on a chat. If 3 kids chatting together make fun of a 4th, that sucks but that 4th kid is never going to see it. If kids Instagram mean everyone in a contact list is going to see the same content, that could be really damaging.

I don't know how many people watched "American Vandal", season 2. I don't necessarily recommend it in a vacuum, but it does an amazing job showing how much kids can be devastated by social media. When I was a kid, the popular kids could make fun of me ( and probably did ) but at least it wasn't in my face - or the face of the rest of the school so they could easily join it.

[tjpnz]

Given Facebook's appalling track record with moderation I wouldn't want anyone under 13 (in my own care) near it. And that's before we've even gotten to privacy.

[saddlerustle]

What large social media sites do you consider better moderated than Facebook?

[nineplay]

I might let my kids on HN - they'd probably learn something useful.

Certainly not reddit which one of the worse places on the internet for developing minds. It doesn't get mentioned much in discussions of "damaging social media" because it's anonymous and can't target people personally, but I'd wager that a lot more people have absorbed a lot more damaging content than just about any site I can think of.

[herbst]

Does it have to be a large site for some reason?

I am sure there are hundreds of (likely paid) walled gardens for kids out there where a bunch of them even comes with proper moderation.

[spicyramen]

Have you used Instagram? I get recommendations for buying weapons, porn, escorts, just by reading Premier League comments

[throwaway3699]

OPs point is that kids are exposed to that right now, and no turning back the clock will change that. Creating a safe zone away from alcohol, guns, etc... and adding parental controls is a step in the right direction.

I'd prefer kids didn't use Instagram at all though.

[spicyramen]

You need to see a new big trend for fake profiles that are using big platforms such as sports and music to advertise their products. Has nothing to do with your search preferences

[ipaddr]

If they are making a separate kids platform why would your adult ads show.

You realize that by sharing those ad topics you are probably sharing too much of your interests. I get baby products.. it depends on what you've searched for lately.

[e-clinton]

Yea, that says more about you than it does about Instagram.

[DSingularity]

And how do you know that this is not the default bet of their recommendation algorithms?

[DSingularity]

Why do you hate progress? Look at how much progress humans have made in socialization all thanks to the great Zuckerberg! Humans are now closer then ever and living meaningful, happy lives!

[nicoburns]

Not many under 13 years olds I know get unrestricted access to the internet.