I suppose I would flip the question around - why should I have to do that, when content platforms could do it? It's just another administrative burden that gets foisted onto the plebs because large tech companies want to scale, but won't moderate content properly at that scale.
The content you do not want your child to interact with is your personal decision, and of course, varies from parent to parent. There is no permutation of acceptable administrative oversight to this issue I can imagine that would satisfy everyone reasonably, nor is there one that would not have chilling effects on free speech.
When it comes to content that is illegal specifically - that of course, should fall on tech companies to moderate. But that is the exception, in my view.
In short, your child's oversight is not one-size-fits-all - it is strictly your business, and perhaps your school's and childcare professionals'.
Yeah you can't monitor 100% of the time but like.. moderating your child's experiences is kind of part of the job isn't it?
Edit:
I'm not saying the tech companies have no responsibility at all here, but surely the parent is the final responsibility in these matters?
When I was a kid if I went over to a kid's house and their parents let us watch R rated movies or whatever, if my parents didn't like that they would talk to the parents. If that didn't change, I wasn't allowed to go over there anymore
Why not the same with YouTube? If YouTube won't change, isn't it your responsibility to remove access?
> Yeah you can't monitor 100% of the time but like.. moderating your child's experiences is kind of part of the job isn't it?
Is the subtext here "don't have children if you can't do the job"?
If it is, then it's valid to discuss the difficulty of predicting what exactly the job of parent involves when it can drastically change due to technology and social norms over the interval of 5-10-15 years between making the decision and executing the role.
This isn't a blanket statement to abdicate responsibility, nor a blank check for unlimited responsibility, but certain unanticipated challenges are expected and some grace must be given in light of a dynamic environment.
Responsibility is an abstract concept that we operationalize in order to make judgements and decisions. Like any operationalization problem, how can you be transparent around its construction?
> Is the subtext here "don't have children if you can't do the job
I was going more for "you made the choice to have a kid. You have the job whether you want it or not, so you better step up and do it"
But I suppose the corollary of that is what you said. I don't think it's very valuable to say that to someone who already made that choice though
Anyways, like I said, I don't think Tech companies have zero responsibility here, but the buck stops at the parents, period
This generations parents should not be trusting algorithms not to show their kids bad content any more than 90s parents trusted the teenagers at the movie rental place not to rent children R rated VHS tapes
Edit: Television was a highly regulated and curated feed of media, maybe parents got a bit too comfortable letting their children sit in front of that without concern. But treating on-demand internet content like Television is a mistake
And expecting "the algorithm" to deliver a similarly highly regulated and curated feed is also a mistake
This is a pretty weak argument IMO. Try applying this argument to any other regulated context:
- Should McDonalds be allowed to put crack in their happy meals or is it the parents responsibility to keep those meals away from their children?
- Should kids clothing be free of asbestos or is it the parents job to avoid buying that?
- Should baby formula be free of lead or is that the parents responsibility to check for?
If a company is deliberately pushing a product that is harmful and (arguably in this case) addictive to children, that is a problem regardless of the parental role.
Perhaps a better example would be tobacco or alcohol. Also bad for adults, but we've at least agreed we should try to mitigate the harm that comes with early-development addiction.
If your problem is with the class of product, then you should know to stay away/keep your kid away. If the product has broken with the class (say, adding asbestos to kids' clothes), then we would want to regulate that. Really, as long as the product is staying within the general confines of the definition of the class, then it's up to the consumer to educate themselves and know better.
For a fun and controversial example, one could look at the RNA vaccines for COVID. Those had some properties that separated them from traditional vaccines such that people relying on the class of "vaccine" might have felt misled. As such, you would have expected government regulation to inform the consumer on the difference to expect in that scenario (which the government did).
I think you're saying that instead of regulating the experience for kids, parents should keep their kids away from that class of product entirely. In essence, treat all social media as adult-only products.
The biggest difficulty is coordinating this approach with other parents and institutions - it is punishing to be the only kid without a smartphone when peers (and increasingly, institutions) require you to have one to participate.
But that issue aside - it is still strange to allow for this class of products tailored to kids but parents are just supposed to universally agree should not be bought. There is clearly a society-wide issue here that we've left for individuals to solve. Predictably, it is not going well.
it is still strange to allow for this class of products tailored to kids but parents are just supposed to universally agree should not be bought
The US is all about freedom. We also allow people to smoke even though smoking kills more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined. That's weird...but we still allow it. Conversely, I would expect the EU to implement the kind of legislation you're advocating for.