KIDEODROME: scary "Kid's Youtube" algorithms, fringe programming, insert conspiracy theory here

Yeah sorry, not my intent to judge anyones approach at all, sorry if it came over as such.

nah you're good (I was actually referring to a tongue-in-cheek ILX thread title) and you have more direct daily experience with this stuff), I don't wanna play thread cop either but I'd like to keep the focus on the phenomenon itself for the most part

This is the thread where we judge other people's parenting

I dont get why its not just as easy to pop a kid in front of a big pile of pencils/crayons and paper and some books?

this is what my parents did with me ... very minimal effort on their parts ... mom worked like 10+ hours a day, 6 days a week during my formative years. I also watched a lot of TV when I was older, not to front like my parents were exceptionally virtuous. However, it isn't like there was the danger of someone editing scat p0rn into episodes of the Andy Griffith Show and CHiPS.

Eh, who would notice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_broadcast_signal_intrusion

I dunno there were a lot more boobs on TV in the 70s than now, I tell you that much. (well, HBO etc aside)

didn't get why this was terrifying until i read the Dutch medium article

btw i must give ilx0r Sparkle Motion massive credit & e-props for coining "KIDEODROME", it got me to click on this

I still don't fully understand how these videos are created. I didn't think ai was good enough to make ai off keywords let alone a lowly bot for a cartoon

The 'how does it all work?' is fascinating. I don't think AI as such is involved - it's real actual people gaming the algorithms. Original article says this:

A friend who works in digital video described to me what it would take to make something like this: a small studio of people (half a dozen, maybe more) making high volumes of low quality content to reap ad revenue by tripping certain requirements of the system (length in particular seems to be a factor).

But even half-a-dozen seems a lot with cracked software, pirated models, cut and paste sequences, etc. And then more questions - I don't know how they mine for those keyword strings that form the titles. Do they get a optimum sequence then glue together some stuff that matches it? At this point, can you just get your spiderman model and 3D motorbikes demo and say 'Give me 1 minute of spider-man having fun on a motorbike' and the computer does the rest? Do they just have a big box of sequences that are determined by the demos/what they've found for free on the web? Or is someone sitting choreographing hulk vs joker fight? I can see single sequences make sense (villains bury heroes; kids rescue heroes) but I haven't watched enough of these to work out of there's an end-to-end narrative over their half-hour - do they bother with that, or is it just an incoherent run of zombies/finger-family/hen-riding/shooting/Johnny Johnny/learn colour Elsa dance? Clearly they're doing the least possible work to game the system - but what constitutes the least, what are the attributes they're min-maxing?

idk - a fascination with the mechanics might not be a healthy response to this shit, but I don't have much to add to the good responses itt.

nb, not planning on setting up my own channel.

Can we agree there's a difference between the auto-generated cgi ones and the ones with physical actors - apart from anything else the latter has a bottleneck of physical logistics.

This has been doing my head in as well, and I don't have children.

Just reading the first English language article and watching maybe two-three of the videos (including BURIED ALIVE, my god) left me disoriented for several minutes afterwards. This sounds OTT, I know, but the uncanniness, the nightmarishness of those vids not only disturbed me but had me questioning reality..
The idea that these could have been put together by an algorithmic neural network with no sense of reason or responsibility. It had me questioning everything I looked at for about 30 minutes afterwards. Like, is ILX just a bot? Is Donald Trump a computer program? Are the lyrics to the song I'm listening to right now the work of a human or have they been formed out of a salad of popular lyrical themes and then executed by a bunch of Russian hackers?
Then I looked at the Dutch article. Then I had a very bad night's sleep indeed.

Since this thread got started yesterday I've watched quite a few of these and read both Medium articles a couple of times. I now feel physically sick whenever I as much as think about this phenomenon. It really is one of the scariest things I've ever come across.

Can we agree there's a difference between the auto-generated cgi ones and the ones with physical actors - apart from anything else the latter has a bottleneck of physical logistics.

Agreed. The latter doesn't scandalize me that much - I mean yeah, it's fucked up and despicable but the fact that there's trolls wanting to do horrid things to children's characters isn't surprising, some of my first internet experiences were sites dedicated to depicting grizzly deaths for Barney the Dinosaur.

The auto generated CGI ones scare me more because there's no motivation beyond SEO; I'm not really sure if there are auto-generated ones that do the really disturbing shit (it certainly looks like it - haven't clicked on anything tbh, I'm a wuss), but if so I guess that the animation studios must see the success of the troll videos and just incorporate their plots into their word salad? Which still means at the end of the day there's human motivation behind them, but it's not "hahaha let's traumatize kids" it's $$$$

(though I guess that's the motivation with some live-action ones too, as per that video of the prank guys that turned to them - that's still really puzzling to me)

Plus I guess it isn't humans compiling those "six hours of Peppa" videos? So the troll vids can sneak in there, too, and that's pretty terrifying.

yeah I watched some of these. they are fucking terrifying and undoubtedly the work of some malevolent force, human or otherwise

also, the tune of that 'five little (x)' is the same creepy tune I heard blasting from the back of a bus a few weeks ago, except in that case (x) was monkeys. this kid was listening/watching the same tune for about half an hour. it was profoundly annoying & disconcerting then, not even knowing what the visual component might have been

Well indeed, but I dont get why its not just as easy to pop a kid in front of a big pile of pencils/crayons and paper and some books?

Both the crayon box and the book will be much less effective. Basing this on my own childhood memories (I don't have kids), the thing was that if you gave a kid some crayons they'd be occupied for a while but then they'd want to show you what they drew, talk about it, etc. Book keeps them occupied until they finish it (if they're a super fast/passionate reader) or (more likely) they get tired of reading. But give the kid a Game Boy and they're mollified for as long as you could possibly want them to be. I imagine the same is true for tablets.

(This is also one of the reasons why, in absolute terms, giving them crayons or books is better - but in terms of efficiency, this is how it plays out imo).

the screen obsession in kids is pretty crazy - my nephews are 5, 9, and 11 and they are obsessed with playing games on their kindles. kindle rules all in their house. kindle is the currency, the penal system, the reward. the tantrums they have or the good things they do mostly seem related to kindle, eg it's an incentive or a punishment, a cause or a cure. it seems incredibly difficult, i don't know how a parent is supposed to cope, presumably if you tell your kids they're not having this then they're alienated from all the other kids who do.

another part of me is suspicious of any moral question about new technology, not the stuff itt but the associated discussion of the effects of technology on kids. i never know whether to think "humans are resilient, we've been responding to new technology for years and people have been saying it will destroy us for years" or "maybe this new technology actually is dangerous"

perhaps both: human beings have always been shaped by technology, and mass cultural technology in particular: printing press, recorded music, broadcast media, internet. but there's no pre-lapsarian humanity, no innocence to lose. each technology shapes us in good and bad ways, and maybe more bad than good, as each technology has come out of and been evolved by the socioeconomic base that produced it. but there's no "humanity" outside of those cultures and those technologies. our current notions of childhood are themselves historical, contingent, probably transitory. childhood was not childhood even 100 years ago in the way we think about it now. what we expect children to be, know and understand is in constant flux, and not in some Whiggish progress towards the best.

but nor in some progress to the worst either, i guess.

this is what makes these discussions so complex - trying to gauge progress or decline is like some gargantuan game of whack-a-mole

Most of the adults in these children's lives are never without their phones, always checking email or twitface or whatever. Indeed, you're reading this on a screen right now. If we're waiting in line we take out our phones and scroll through r/eroticfurries or swipe some stupid candies around. In many homes, TVs have been left on as background for decades. Adults are constantly talking about what meme they saw online, what movies are good, what TV shows are interesting, what video games they're obsessed with. Every bar has five TVs; there is a screen at every airplane seat; gas pumps have screens; taxis have screens; etc.

And then we turn around and get all judgy at "the kids today" for thinking screen time is highly desirable and wanting more of it. Hmmm, where do you think they got that idea?

but nor in some progress to the worst either, i guess.

nah exactly. and there are probably billions of children and adults who have more or less inarguably "better" lives than their ancestors of 3 or 4 generations back

are there any technological developments that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say were overall bad for kids?

anything that gives them dreams or aspirations

oh, and heelies

And then we turn around and get all judgy at "the kids today" for thinking screen time is highly desirable and wanting more of it. Hmmm, where do you think they got that idea?

Definitely. But this isn't a "do what I say not what I do" scenario, I don't think. Parents are getting worried about kid screen time and simultaneously parent and non-parent adults alike are getting worried about their own use too. I've clamped down hard on how/when I use screens, especially when F is around, and when I tell other adults about it I've been pretty surprised how often they tell me some new rule they've instituted for themselves -- from "airplane mode at dinner time" to "my phone stays in the kitchen now".

One team of app developers I know who focus on kids apps have also said they're a big backlash pretty soon, and they've scaled down their plans for big new app launches. They're now trying to figure out the "post-app world", and thinking about voice and other ways we'll damage kids brains in the future.

i guess i feel like there's so much you can do on a screen that it's hard to find a blanket ban or the like.

eg i could be writing something or reading - that never feels bad. i do buy a lot of paperbacks but i always have something on my kindle so i can use my phone as a book on the tube, and there's so much good non-fiction online.

or i could be rapidly flicking from one tab to another, the time i spend in each one gradually diminishing, clicking back on a tab i just clicked on, stultified.

maybe phones are the real issue - i know when i write i often put my phone in a drawer or under a pillow or something - have tried similar for watching tv and movies.

I have no issues with my own screen use, I don’t feel like I suffer in other areas of life or am missing out on anything. I can have sufficiently rich experiences in virtual spaces as I can in non-virtual ones. So I don’t have as many concerns with my kid using them either. There are limits and moderation, she still has to eat dinner and things like that. But she’s going to have to interact with people through screens/VR/whatever for the rest of her life, I’ll try and impart what is bad/good/enriching/time wasting/quality/harmful/etc while she is young, but realize it will largely be out of my control when she reaches a certain age.

surely every parent, who is concerned for the usefulness and happiness of his child, will, with deep solicitude, watch over his reading. He will remove from his reach such books as may tend to instil false sentiments, vitiate the taste, or corrupt the morals of his beloved offspring

the arrival of the book in the 15th century -- moveable type hence mass printing hence significant broadening of vernacular literacy and self-informed debate -- was a major factor in the length and all-pervasive viciousness of the religious wars europe was very soon plunged into, for a couple of centuries (with several follow-up outbreaks)

we have always already been on this hook :(

(the "surely every parent" para shd be in quotes)

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/9/16629788/youtube-kids-distrubing-inappropriate-flag-age-restrict

well then

so distrubing

This stuff is terrifying. I've noticed how difficult it is to keep kids away from default being on ipad/being on smartphone with my nephews, and those kids are being raised by a Sport Dad

it's not difficult

speak for yourself

I am!

How do you go about it?

When I say 'difficult' I mean they'll kick off and snivel and want another ten minutes or whatever, and it all has to be talked through. They prise the ipad away eventually.

at some point with iPads it's probably a bit late to put the genie back in the bottle so to speak, so it has to start from birth. w/my example i'm pretty surprised that he has actively chosen not to engage w/TV, and i've told him to call me out if he thinks i'm on the computer or iPhone too much. he'll say something like, "is that *really* important?" and it's usually not. so i shut it down at that point. it's embarrassing, really!

Haha yes to all that. The two components afaic are 1) set a good example and 2) set limits early (and stick to them)

I've noticed how difficult it is to keep myself away from default being on ILX.

I work in front of a computer almost every hour I'm awake so unfortunately I set a terrible example, and my kid loves screens. he's almost 12 now though.

What age is this cool child, omar?

He's six ("and a half!", he'd shout)

Need a cool kid to boss me off social media tbh

Tell him your imaginary internet friends have a lot of respect for his lifestyle choices. Right on, kid!

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/9/16629788/youtube-kids-distrubing-inappropriate-flag-age-restrict

there. it's over

“We’re in the process of implementing a new policy that age restricts this content in the YouTube main app when flagged,” said Juniper Downs, YouTube’s director of policy. “Age-restricted content is automatically not allowed in YouTube Kids.” YouTube says that it’s been formulating this new policy for a while, and that it’s not rolling it out in direct response to the recent coverage.

The first line of defense for YouTube Kids are algorithmic filters. After that, there is a team of humans that review videos which have been flagged. If a video with recognizable children’s characters gets flagged in YouTube’s main app, which is much larger than the Kids app, it will be sent to the policy review team. YouTube says it has thousands of people working around the clock in different time zones to review flagged content. If the review finds the video is in violation of the new policy, it will be age restrictied, automatically blocking it from showing up in the Kids app.

YouTube says it typically takes at least a few days for content to make its way from YouTube proper to YouTube Kids, and the hope is that within that window, users will flag anything potentially disturbing to children. YouTube also has a team of volunteer moderators, which it calls Contributors, looking for inappropriate content. YouTube says it will start training its review team on the new policy and it should be live within a few weeks.

Along with filtering content out of the Kids app, the new policy will also tweak who can see these videos on YouTube’s main service. Flagged content will be age restricted, and users won’t be able to see those videos if they’re not logged in on accounts registered to users 18 years or older. All age-gated content is also automatically exempt from advertising. That means this new policy could put a squeeze on the booming business of crafting strange kid’s content.

tbh i'm kind of shocked that most of this shit wasn't already removed for copyright violations

I just want to add that the stuff I wrote about poor parents was not "concern trolling" but meant as a pre-emptive measure agains all the kool-aid men and kool-aid women ready to swoop in and just say "people should be better parents" like that's something everyone has equal ease and ability to do