YouTube 'Valuable' For Teens' Mental Health, Says CEO (bloomberg.com) 57
YouTube Chief Executive Officer Susan Wojcicki said Google's video platform is beneficial to adolescents' mental health, amid growing concern that rival Instagram may be "toxic" for teenage girls. From a report: "We certainly do see for a lot of really tough issues that YouTube can be a really valuable resource," Wojcicki said in a Bloomberg Television interview. "So body positivity, mental health, we see a lot of creators actually talk about mental health and that, for a lot of kids, really it destigmatizes, and enables people to talk about what's happening and what's going on with them. So we do take it very seriously."
Yea! No S%$# Sherlock! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Adiction is always tough on ones mental state.
Well, at least we know you're not addicted to your spellchecker, so you've got that going for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Them two I see being quite different. YT can be analytical, joy providing with movies, records, can be paused if you want to continue later, one can learn and discover whole lot there - clear educational and pastime value. Advertising is well contained (perhaps because of my blocker), not at all obtrusive. Just some suggested content appears to come as sponsored push. Otherwise happy with suggestions, they are solid to learn more, at the level I am present at, find things missed so far or worthy forgotten s
Re: (Score:2)
Them two I see being quite different. YT can be analytical, joy providing with movies, records, can be paused if you want to continue later, one can learn and discover whole lot there - clear educational and pastime value.
There is a wealth of information on Youtube. I can get intelligent WW2 history with Mark Felton, Great physics information with Sabine Hossenfelder, airplane data with Greg's trains and automobiles just to name a few.
And a bit of comedy with the obvious folks, as well as Replicant fish and Taylor the Fiend, the latter who do commentary on TikTok's and Instagram.
Yes - Instagram is a very toxic environment. WAP stuff, and giving young ladies a huge dose of misandry, which harms them in later life. Givin
Re: (Score:2)
Great, you feel the same. In a way, this openness and being charged with options and actual information/content very much resembles what Internet has been set for, while Instagram is a gimmick of it. Cheers!
It's time to pick some cherries! (Score:4, Interesting)
Behold:
Re: (Score:3)
These platforms can be wonderful sources of information if you know how to get to that kind of information.
But for people who lack that initiative and rather rely on the 'algorithm' to serve them the content they consume things can look quite different.
As an anecdote, on YT I mostly watch stuff about math, programming, science, sometimes listen to music. When it comes to music, the youtube suggestions aren't that bad. But when it comes to suggesti
Re: (Score:1)
A lot of younger people find comfort in videos about mental health, about people who are going through similar changes in their teenage years, about people with similar sexual orientation when the people around them might not offer understanding or even acceptance.
On the other hand there are incels and extremists looking to appeal to them as well.
Re:It's time to pick some cherries! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just that, but the CEO of YouTube is busy telling people that YouTube is good for you. What would you expect her to say, that her company's product isn't good for you?
In other news, the head of the Sinaloa Cartel has said that heroin is beneficial to adolescents' mental health, amid growing concern that cocaine from the rival Juarez Cartel may be "toxic" for teenage girls.
Re: (Score:2)
> What would you expect her to say, that her company's product isn't good for you?
Maybe... STFU and say nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
> What would you expect her to say, that her company's product isn't good for you?
Maybe... STFU and say nothing.
This. She has zero room to talk here regardless of the "better" content. There is no question about YouTube or the rest of social media UIs. They are quite literally designed to addict.
You want to feign social morality? Fine. Talk about the real problem here, which is massive addiction. Not how you want to destroy the competition fighting for your addicts.
Re: (Score:1)
> What would you expect her to say, that her company's product isn't good for you?
Maybe... STFU and say nothing.
This. She has zero room to talk here regardless of the "better" content. There is no question about YouTube or the rest of social media UIs. They are quite literally designed to addict.
You want to feign social morality? Fine. Talk about the real problem here, which is massive addiction. Not how you want to destroy the competition fighting for your addicts.
If you can compare your product to all others? Other's like Tik Tok which my well be some Chinese attempt to do exactly what your are addressing. Yes I can honestly say that Youtube has a right to claim that. Interesting note; the taliban did not see youtube as a platform of choice during their social media alignment...
Re: It's time to pick some cherries! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube is full of crap and it will happily recommend it to you and everyone so long as it is 'viral'. Youtube algorithms don't care about quality or children's mental health, all they care about is that you watch as many adverts/videos as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting thought, but there was no information of what those 'bins' might look like and how it could be verified. It's possible that this is a reason why I see some weird recommendations on youtube from time to time, despite even telling it that I'm not in
Re: (Score:2)
I do expect the algo' is very simplistic such as, Person likes X genre, so what is the more viral video in X genre, recommend that. It's knows you like tech but that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
Though you'd think that an "users who liked this content also liked this content" approach would lead to more accurate results. According to what youtube claims on my phone, that's how they do at least some of their recommendations.
Likely it's a mixture of different approaches that are used to compose recommendations where again and again they try to push some of the most viral stuff.
What follows are more general questions, not addressing you in par
Re: (Score:1)
Youtube got the porn off their site firstly at least off the pubic pages, and filtering will punish the account pages.They were already and still are the model for their web social media agenda and are technical standard setters also. And I must point out that they successfully fought the porn content THEN offered account services, when so many "experts" swore that position would kill them....
Re: (Score:1)
please mod that comment up.
It's not true. YT shows you more of what you're looking at. It's not going to show you that you're nuts or help the crazy leftists. It'll only try to convince them they're the 34th gender or the 56th (or some other BS gender.). 50 years after your death you'll be - male or female because they won't know about the mental illness. You're bones. In fact, it only makes things worse. Kids don't get their homework done. They don't interact with each other and that's really important. We really need each other. Ch
Re: (Score:1)
I will say this selling a new "self image" is the intent of social media today. Not to inform first, not to open the forum to as many informed participants first. The CEO in question cannot help but sound biased, but just the same they cannot get into the development history either. Sometimes that flash of blinding light in your way are actually headlights coming straight at you. I mean, the wrapper is pretty on so many sites but the ingredients are not what you want, lacking... And most social media sites
YouTube is much different that FB/IG-effort needed (Score:4, Interesting)
We wonder why the world sucks today and blame social media. IMO, there are 2 reasons social media made the world a hellscape: 1. they have algorithms that encourage long discussions and thus conflict and 2. anyone can do it.
Facebook lowered the bar to entry to barf out your stupid thoughts. Prior to Facebook, you had to learn HTML and get a host account and often pay a small fee and register a domain and even then, it was really hard to go viral and get a large global audience. The reason my YouTube feed is not festering the way my FB/IG ones are is because in order to publish a video, you need to make some commitment.
My alcoholic redneck piece of shit distant cousin can rant about the work ethic of "urban people" (he thinks it's less racist than saying blacks) just by typing out his thoughts. He can get a global audience. He's too fucking dumb to be steadily employed for more than a 5 year stretch. He's not smart enough nor committed enough to learn the basics of editing a video or even an HTML page, but he can repost racist shit and add his own misspelled commentary.
My Facebook feed is filled with absolute garbage, an equal mix of mundane kid photos and political ramblings from elderly relatives or the dumbest people I went to high school with (I grew up in a rural deep red redneck area, but live in the polar opposite today). The smart people I know avoid social media and find different ways to express themselves and often have too much going on in their life to waste much time on facebook.
Instagram? Mostly my local friends are on there, one-upping each other with carefully staged photos trying to make themselves look cool or their kids look perfect. I get the social media depression because I rarely look at those and feel better afterwards. I post on occasion so my relatives can see my kids grow up, but I avoid that site and hope to keep my kids away from it as long as I can.
Nextdoor? That's the worst of them. The very worst ranting from the worst homeowners with tons of vitriol for minor nuisances, primarily cyclists (they're portrayed as super-dangerous terrorists daily) and people who don't clean up after their dogs. Their algorithm is super-thirsty and sends me frequent flame bait.
In contrast, my YouTube feed is lovely. I follow lots of people who make really valuable videos about my hobbies. Often time, I can watch reviews that tell me more than a print review ever could. My opinion: In order to make a good video, you need software, a real camera, and to commit more than an hour in post-processing alone. It's like the web in the 2000s. Sure, there's crap on YouTube and there were absolute shit websites in 2001, but my piece of shit cousin and people like him weren't motivated enough to do more than browse some porn and maybe buy a concert ticket. The commitment barrier keeps a lot of the worst people off YouTube. Also, most of us just don't have it in us to make a video. We don't have compelling ideas nor the gear nor location nor motivation. It's easy to write something or take a picture. I think only the creative and/or motivated post videos.
YouTube helped me learn a lot about woodworking, 3D printing, simple home maintenance, cooking, cool organizational ideas, movies, growing stuff, photography, etc...it really has enhanced my hobbies and interests.
It's definitely different than FB/IG. I guess it has enough good content they don't need to trick you into viewing it with algorithms. Everyone I know often just thinks...hmm, I wonder what's the best way to do this? I wonder if that's on YouTube? We never think the same with Facebook or Instagram. I leave YouTube feeling better than when I entered on most visits, not the case with FB/IG. I think YouTube has more in common with wikipedia than social media. Its much more of a reference place than an easy means to publish simple content, which is how I view FB, IG, Twitter, Nextdoor.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, video is hard (Score:2)
You know that Youtube wants to introduce (tiktok-like I guess) Shorts, right? Youtube being useful is more like a happy accident thanks to users, and is tolerable only with an ad blocker. I'm pretty use the company wants to get everyone to their platform, your dumb fuck of a cousin included, to post attention-grabbing and flame-baiting videos
True, but fortunately, video is hard. Good ones stand out, but some dude holding an iphone, selfie-style, just sucks. Who wants to watch those?
Also, words power your imagination. You could be filthy and naked in a rat-infested apt and write compelling words. No one knows you're a loser. They can imagine you however they like. Get on video and they see you're a twitching wreck with stains all over who looks he was dragged indoors from below an underpass.
People who put effort into their appearance
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently 1 billion people these days?... [cnbc.com]
Effort surely pays off, agreed, and Youtube creators had plenty of time to optimize and refine, leading to some pretty high quality content there these days
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook lowered the bar to entry to barf out your stupid thoughts. Prior to Facebook, you had to learn HTML and get a host account and often pay a small fee and register a domain and even then, it was really hard to go viral and get a large global audience. The reason my YouTube feed is not festering the way my FB/IG ones are is because in order to publish a video, you need to make some commitment.
Prior to Facebook and other social media you had things like Angelfire [wikipedia.org] that made it easy to publish a website. It even had a in-browser WYSIWYG editor that required no knowledge of HTML. Additionally there were WYSIWYG editors for HTML at the time. For example offered by Microsoft with Frontpage, (although that resulted in Microsoft-HTML which wasn't really HTML but rather Microsoft-specific HTML-ish crap with lot's of mistakes that only Internet Explorer would render somewhat correct). Mozilla at the time
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook lowered the bar to entry to barf out your stupid thoughts. Prior to Facebook, you had to learn HTML and get a host account and often pay a small fee and register a domain and even then, it was really hard to go viral and get a large global audience.
I guess the newbie doesn't remember USENET.
USENET was obscure + FB gives global audience (Score:2)
I guess the newbie doesn't remember USENET.
I appreciate being called a newbie! It's nice to feel young again. However, USENET had a significant relative barrier to entry. I used it quite a bit in 1995 or so. Getting online in 1995 was an accomplishment for the average American. Getting a usenet client also was non-trivial for a non-technical person until the end of its relevance. It wasn't hard, but it wasn't common knowledge, like Facebook is. It was a domain of nerds and enthusiasts. Facebook/Twitter couldn't be easier and more importantl
Youtube front page today: "Become A Sniper!" (Score:2)
I'll let that one speak for itself. However, note most of the other thumbnails surrounding it were youth-oriented.
Re: (Score:2)
Also will point out that I was using a VPN w browser in 'anon' cookie-less mode. This was not the result of my viewing habits.
Re: (Score:2)
To this my lawyer sighed "Oh fuck, here we go again..."
If only Restricted Mode worked... (Score:1)
So, Youtube's Restricted Mode claims to block swearing and sex and stuff. When I turned that on, we were still bombarded with all the swearing you can imagine, and plenty of sexual innuendo. But, it did block SpaceX launches. Kindof like how Outblook online email (where hotmail takes you now, for example), the in-front "focused" messages are all garbage for me, and anyhting I want to read I have to click more to get to other conversations area. Completely backwards.
The Youtube Kids is of limited value anywa
Hell, just longer, well produced videos can help (Score:2)
He's not wrong, but he's wrong (Score:1)
Re: He's not wrong, but he's wrong (Score:2)
Youtube has authors that make meaningful content (Score:3)
I wish more of them would also have their videos on alternative platforms like odysee or others, but I frequently watch science channels like Sabine Hossenfelder and even this ElectroBOOM guy. I don't think these channels are bad for mental health of children. Rather very educative.
Platforms like TokkeTok or Tikketik (or what is it called again?), and Ingramgestam and Feesbook or Fecesbook almost have none of such content.
Notwithstanding I do think Youtube contains toxic material too.
I think more local moderation is needed. Local to geographically, but also to age group. Youtube is too monolithic and tries too much to be the one big platform for all. I would probably also be good if Youtube would get a lot of competing platforms. I wonder why that competition is taking so long? Can't be that hard to build a competing service. For example look at Odysee.
What, us no, over there (Score:2)
YouTube's biggest hit on mental health... (Score:4, Interesting)
...is the constant and annoying ads, especially those that just cut in in the middle of a sentence, or mid way through the 1st movement of a symphony.
Get rids of the ads, or maybe limit them to 1 or 2 minutes per hour (let me watch a 2 minute ad for a hour of ad-free youtube, say), and it will certainly be a major boost to my mental health.
I might then stop turning off YouTube and switching to Netflix again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you can pay to remove ads.
Some CEO has not seen the evil crap out there (Score:1)
She got it just slightly wrong... (Score:2)
She got it slightly wrong... Beneficial to therapists treating adolescents' mental health.
More proof (Score:2)
More proof that our society is being run by morons.
So...Good at telling you what you want to hear? (Score:2)
Good at telling you what you want to hear? Is that their core argument? Youtube is more positive and tells you what you want to hear, whereas Instagram has more blunt and less censored opinions?
Yeah Ok.
Reading between the lines (Score:2)
This is true in much the same way that Pornhub can be a really valuable resource for adolescent mental health. Is it likely to turn out that way for the average teen? No. But that's not what I said, is it?
Youtube (Score:1)
YouTube as on its "side" that authors often write and edit scripts. They shoot their content and edit it together. Some times they even "preview" to editors or friends. So much work and thought goes into their projects.(Usually)
This is not the case when just doing a VLOG, streaming, or just random shit posting on the main social sites.
Internet discussion is often very FAST and REACTIONARY. That means unless you are very STUDIED in the subject, you will have a hard time replying with a useful comment.
I r
No it isn't. (Score:1)
It's a de-socializing loneliness-breeding plastic people TV-like life-wasting madness machine.
With the worst algorithm I have ever seen, that literally suggests a video to you that it literally tells you you already watched.
Do what my sig suggests instead: Go outside. Meet real people. They are not perfect, ... but the feelings are real.
And frankly, video is a horribly bad format for education too. Because you can't adjust the pace on the fly, or easily loop a part to word boundary precision for a bit until
Reminds me of 70s cig ads (Score:1)
Hell, go back over a hundred years ago, and you see ads that claim cigarettes are good for you -- help clear out the harmful vapors.
Funny to see history repeating itself. We humans don't seem to be able to learn from the past.