I’m sorry what. What is wrong about weight and fitness videos for youth? Watching those types of videos is what has lead me to lose 100 pounds in real life? Out of everything they have the option to restrict not that I want anything restricted to be honest.
They think being bombarded by them can cause body shame issues, and that teenagers are particularly vulnerable.
They’re not removing access, just limiting the volume of recommendations.
Yeah, I think we had enough anorexia cases.
There a lot of fatties out there that think they are healthy and that someone who got visible ribs in anorexic. Heard quite a few stories if people going to the doctors and finding out they are obese when they thought they were a healthy weight.
People need more education on this matter not less.
FTA: YouTube’s global head of health, Dr Garth Graham, said: “As a teen is developing thoughts about who they are and their own standards for themselves, repeated consumption of content featuring idealised standards that starts to shape an unrealistic internal standard could lead some to form negative beliefs about themselves.”
And while I’m sure this is true, this is a minority of people, and they should seek help for their problem. There are far more who benefit from hearing about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and how to achieve it.
They should already be hearing that stuff from their parents and teachers, but I have my doubts. And they’re much more likely to listen to influencers than authority figures at certain ages.
But the whole thing is even more pointless. They’re mostly influenced by seeing these beautiful people constantly on TV, movies, and Youtube, and thinking that they don’t measure up to them. Simply stopping some health care videos is going to do nothing for the problem and only prevent videos with the information they need.
I’m going to push back and say this is actually still a good move. You’re assuming the weight and fitness videos are created equal, and I can assure you, they are not.
Most aren’t qualified to be sharing exercise or diet information, many are little more than to show off the person’s physique or sell a product, and some offer potentially dangerous or pseudoscientific advice that could sabotage a person’s progress.
Knowing how to spot those problematic videos comes with experience, and I don’t believe teens (in general; there’s obviously exceptions) have a well-developed skillset for spotting bullshit.
So while I agree this is probably a PR move, I think it will still be a positive outcome.
We definitely don’t need more Andrew Tates in the world.
Yep.
Something tells me that Google won’t be turning down fast food companies that want to advertise with them, or reducing recommendations of channels that show off/review fast food a lot.
Maybe I’m being cynical, but this seems more like a “let’s get some good headlines” ploy than something that will seriously help anybody.
I don’t know what the best course is, but screwing over channels that promote exercise and healthy living doesn’t sound like a good option to me. Even if they can exacerbate some people’s perceived body issues.
hi, what does FTA mean? google shows a lot of different answers, thanks
“From The Article”
thank you :)
Weightlifting at certain young ages can be harmful. I’m not sure if that’s part of the motivation as I’m not certain what the ages are, but that’s something else to consider.
EDIT: Typo
Not more harmful than being obese. Or damage caused by body image issues.
Obesity is one of the leading risk factors for early death Obesity is responsible for millions of premature deaths each year
I didn’t say that it is.
But to your second point, as others have mentioned, body image issues are likely the biggest reason for the change discussed in the OP.
This is a great idea, we don’t need more Gymcel videos targeted towards the youth
Read 👏 the 👏 god 👏 damn 👏 article.
Every time someone claps to their own words, their intent is to antagonize instead of communicate a point
I can do both for lazy shit like this. Fuck them if they can’t make it to paragraph 2.
You 👏 are 👏 right 👏
I can’t hear you! Don’t clap your hands while you’re talking!
I did read the article and my point still stands. If idealizing people that are better than you wanting to be better than what you currently are Is now something that is bad than we have failed. No matter if it’s your physical condition, knowledge, wealth, anything. We as a human race should always push each other to be better than before.
It isn’t about people better than you. It is about idealized and generally unrealistic body standards.
The new guidelines, now introduced in the UK and around the world, apply to content that: idealises some physical features over others, such as beauty routines to make your nose look slimmer; idealises fitness or body weights, such as exercise routines that encourage pursuing a certain look; or encourages social aggression, such as physical intimidation.
These are not videos about getting to a healthy weight and exercise routine. “Certain look” is a crappilly phrased way of saying unrealistic body standards, but that is what it means.
I still don’t see it. Example being Hugh Jackman from the new Deadpool movie. There are interviews with with saying “yes I just eat 5k calories a day of chicken, veggies, and fish.” That is 100% false and not true. If someone watches that interview because they wanted to either know how he managed to look like that or just because they liked the movie. but then in the recommended section it does not show someone who actually knows shit about fitness and steroids etc how would they know. Sometimes that rabbit hole is good. And can bring upon knowledge. A lot of fitness influences speak out on what would be considered “unrealistic body standards” as it is unhealthy to attempt to look that way.
As for trying to make you nose looks a certain way I can’t really speak on that. but I still believe that the restriction of anything on a site such as YouTube is a dangerous precedent to set.
Edit: clarity
but then in the recommended section it does not show someone who actually knows shit about fitness and steroids etc how would they know.
It is kind of funny that you think the recommendations would be informative instead of some shill peddling the same “you can do it with 5000 calories and exercise” bullshit. A rabbit hole is going further down the same hole.
If the headline doesn’t describe the article, it’s clickbait and should be shamed.
The headline does describe the article. The article has more detail about the motivations and nuance of why certain weight and fitness videos are being promoted less to children.
The platform will still allow 13- to 17-year-olds to view the videos, but its algorithms will not push young users down related content “rabbit holes” afterwards.
If they included rabbit hole in the title, it would still be necessary for a lot of people unaware of the term to read the article to find out what that phrase means.
You are too kind spelling this crap out to them.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah. It’s not click bait, or addresses the context. Read the article and you’d fucking understand your perceived click bait issue is imaginary.
So where is the line drawn? What about the teens who want to lookup how to do an exercise correctly without getting injured? The people who make these videos are usually very fit (big surprise!)
I have a feeling this is going to be driven by some AI model that’s gonna do more harm than good
It’s YouTube, there is no line, just a vague squiggle that you can cross without any warning.
It’s usually that they seem to block the main channels and the small ones that don’t know what they are talking about slip through. Going to get some kids hurt doing this.
From what I understand this is just the recommended feed so it wouldn’t affect searching for specific stuff, or binging a channel’s backlog.
And frankly speaking this should be a default feature. All too often the algorithm thinks “oh you watched this one video let me drown you in that shit at the expense of everything else”.
The whole thing meshes well with what we know from child/youth psychology, btw: Agency makes all the difference, whether they’re seeking information, or are (in currentyear), doomscrolling it. One tends to involve critical engagement, the other is an osmosis sponge.
Oh. Speaking of youtube fitness channels, here’s a good one. And another one. Like, especially if you haven’t done anything in a while, just watch this.
So where is the line drawn? What about the teens who want to lookup how to do an exercise correctly without getting injured?
From the article:
The platform will still allow 13- to 17-year-olds to view the videos, but its algorithms will not push young users down related content “rabbit holes” afterwards.
Is there any way they can stop suggesting me right wing channels?
Yes, delete your watch history and use the do not recommend option on video drop downs
Well, no. It was more a joke, but I have a third party channel blocker installed that I use to block them, but every now and then, I get a new one recommended to me. What I find interesting is is that I never engage with those types of channels, so why would the algorithm ever suggest them in the first place if the algorithm? In fact, the only political content of any type I watch is Behind the Bastards, but it never suggests any left wing content. Kinda odd.
I find this happens any time I engage with anything anyone on the right also likes watching, like a gun channel, or a non-political video from a right leaning channel. I think the algorithm is just saying “I saw a republican watch this once so if you watched it there’s still some chance you’ll engage with this right wing content.”
I think it pushes it so heavily because it’s a gold mine (to the algorithm) since content by those channels is so heavily consumed.
One personal benefit of RegularCarReviews coming out as gay has been the purge of right wingers from his channel.
Still, if google can tweak the algo so kids don’t get fitness videos, I should be able to have a toogle to keep right wing videos out.
Because it’s not God making the choices it’s an algo, God would know what you want bur an algo needs data - if there is a popular video that lots of people who watch content you like watch then it makes sense they see if you’re interested.
It does the same with everything, your just notice the stuff you hate more, right wingers claim youtube and Facebook push woke stuff for the exact same reason.
Don’t sign in?
wake me up when they limit teenagers from fascist far right grifters
This is fucking ridiculous. I’m actually speechless.
Gotta make space for more nazis.
…“Food companies smile in glee”
Honestly, I just want to click on a video and not have my feed instantly become every video on that topic in existence to the exclusion of all else…meanwhile, someone I am subscribed to doesn’t show up on my front page when they put something out in a series I have watched 20 videos of…gj
The problem is youribe can only have one page of information and that has to be the front page offering old, new, expected and unexpected content in one easy to view list.
You know what would happen if they had a second list that only showed your subscribed content? Literally no one would click on it and everyone would complain it doesn’t exist, they proved this in a test where they had that exact feature on every single person’s page since they started but here we still are people complaining that their subscriptions don’t always show up on the fyp (algo page)
YouTube can make sure not to target certain people with certain content but also they have no control over it sending me tons of far right wing stochastic terror influencers like Ben Shapiro and matt walsh
What about blending tutorials tho
they’re not your kids. they belong to instatwitsnaptubetokbook
so fucking glad i don’t have kids
That is the reason why you’re glad you don’t have kids? Because if you did you wouldn’t be able to control what information they receive?
one of many reasons. but really, if anyone only needed one reason, then the fact that they’re going to inherit a toxic polluted wasteland is reason enough
There are so many reasons to be glad not to have kids. Live it up, friend.
It’s funny that any time these companies are brought up everyone says they’re dangerous yet the second one listens to the sorts of studies about negative affects that get quoted here all the time everyone suddenly decides actually its censorship or brainwashing or corporate greed and that it’s evidence they’re evil…
Scientific studies said this content can harm developing children so they made efforts to mitigate harm, is it really so hard just to say ‘oh thats good, well done’ and if so then doesn’t that tell you a lot about your own motivations?
