[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.