160
I wonder how much this compares to kids and tv viewing habits before household internet.
Man even Cinemax didn’t have hard core porn and beheadings. The shit that those two apps show you should never be seen by anyone.
You think teens are being exposed to porn and gore on YouTube and tiktok??
Not, ya know, pornhub and liveleak?
That's a pretty fuckin weird take since YouTube and tiktok are well known for overly aggressive content moderation
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yeeeeeah but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of teens aren't actually filling the majority of their view time with porn and trauma. Though I'm sure there is some significant porn watching, the beheadings part is far less so I am willing to bet.
I just know what I have seen the algorithm push. They are not actively seeking it, it is being shown to them by the algorithm. Is it all the time? No, but once is enough to do some serious mental damage.
I don’t think the issue is the content – in fact, I feel our ability to interact with anyone anywhere is a net gain for humanity for many reasons.
I think the issue isn’t what they’re seeing, but how.
Learning worldviews from 2 minute TikToks or YouTube shorts where everything is surface-level with no incentive to expand that knowledge, presented as authoritative and bracketed by ads, does bad things to young brains.
There’s no depth to understanding, it’s just hot take after hot take, with no real discussion about the whys of things. The brain is actually trained away from developing deep understandings of things, and misinformation flourishes.
It’s not so much the content as the delivery. Junk food isn’t bad because it contains sugar and fat – that’s okay if it’s not your main diet.
TikTok, YouTube shorts, and similar superficial media are Pringles. And now kids are living off Pringles and little else.
I bet about 15% of teens also wildly exaggerate.
omg that is sssooooo exaggerated like 1000% take that back pls
I'm surprised it's that low, it's certainly looking more than that here. It's not getting any better with parents using phones to shut their little ones up, toddlers are growing up with them around the dinner table.
You missed a 0 on the end of that number
Source: "a teen"
What are they doing there? I spend a lot of time on YouTube (probably max 2 hours per day), but if there are no new videos from channels I subscribe I just quit.
They are using YT shorts. The next video auto populates with something the algorithm thinks you'll watch for 15 seconds and it's usually correct. Its like a slot machine. Quick and easy entertainment that people can lose hours in
YT shorts is garbage. It will show the same videos to me over and over again.
I have seen that almost every time I used yt shorts.
I've spent over 2,000 hours on YouTube this year alone and am in the target demographic of this study. I watch a lot of videos in the background while I work, commute, or just chill, to keep myself stimulated.
Although not all of the content I watch is necessarily educational, a grand majority of it is. Whenever there's a science video in my feed, I'll probably click it. I'm subscribed to Veritasum, TED, Vox, No Boilerplate, etc.
I'm on it about ten hours a day when I'm at home, sometimes 15. About the same amount of time I used to listen to the radio - it's great background for when I'm coding, modelling, video editing or whatever plus a great way of relaxing in-between as well as being a great learning resource.
It's great because I can choose what to watch based on the task I'm doing, background waffle about interesting but missable subjects works well for a lot of stuff. I like twitch too but at it's live I can't walk away so easily if I get absorbed into someone's stream so find YouTube much more functionally useful.
15 hours...sleep for 8 hours, and you have 1 waking hour where YouTube isn't playing.
I guess old people are/were like this with TV and/or radio, though, so it's nothing new.
you're just not subscribed to enough channels. I probably spend 4h+ a day on average, mostly watching channels I'm subscribed to, and I don't usually watch everything. Ah, and no shorts, that's garbage.
Back in 2005, I never would have thought YouTube would be so popular as it is now. But here we are over 15 years later. Teens probably think Facebook is uncool, and apparently they're not all on Instagram "almost constantly" the same way as TikTok. Yet there is YouTube, chugging along, hugely popular for young and old.
Video is expensive so competition is harder to kick up unless it does something very different.
I think it makes sense. Visual media just work well and universally so for all humans I’d say. All the other limited platforms are stuck with some indelible fashion like a haircut from a certain era and so always show their age eventually.
On top of this I think there’s an argument that YouTube have been uniquely successful in their attempt to take a middle path between profitability and facilitating creators, the result of which is that you get a performant and easy to use service (with a pile of ads) that connects with what feels like a huge range of real people talking about real interests.
YouTube has pushed itself more as a product than a community. People won't stop using Amazon because it's 'uncool'. I imagine this is similar.
I don’t know how successful it is as I’m not a big consumer on there, but from what I’ve seen a number of YouTubers create community around themselves using whatever they like including other platforms, which again, is the way to do it.
Yeah, most of a creator's interaction with their community probably happens on other sites, with YouTube just being the video delivery platform.
Instagram is for 20-40s, Facebook is 30s+, TikTok is 20s and under.
You people make up the wildest shit lol.
Lemmy is for 16-25, but not 26-28 year olds, but then 29+. It’s the darnedest thing
I mean of course YouTube is popular. User-generated videos have always been popular (even pre-internet, like home videos on TV etc), but it's never been the case that storage and bandwidth was cheap enough to not operate a website with videos at a loss.
The only ones being able to operate such a site are entities that have lots of spare cash. Otherwise, if the site gets too popular, it'll have to shut down or become unusable because of having to limit access behind paywalls or similar, hugely stifling its popularity and likely killing it.
Google created a very good service with YouTube that no one else could compete with because no one had so much money to "burn". They kept this up for years to a point where it didn't really make sense for neither creators nor viewers to want to go anywhere else.
And now there is a lot of good content on YouTube. The content is good because creators can actually live off the YouTube payments, thus being able to spend a lot of time on the videos. It will thus stay popular, because creators will not start risking their livelihoods on any other platform.
So... 16%?
Now we need Neil Degrasse Tyson to buy these platforms and switch all the videos to physics and math videos
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
160 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
59312 readers
4559 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS