Is It Ethical to Allow Children to Post YouTube Videos?

[white dove]

I had been reading a thread in this forum where someone had posted a YouTube video and it had inadvertantly lead me to a young boy's series of videos. It made me a little uncomfortable and sad, to be quite honest, that someone would allow such young children to post videos that may just harm them in the short-or-long run.

As adults, we know that self-exploration can occur, whether it be physical or more intropsective. Sometimes, as children, we journaled. Other times, we talked things over with our friends or parents. But, now children have access to Myspace, YouTube, Blogger, Facebook and anything else that allows for them to do this self-exploration or self-analysis online -- in front of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people.


Is this okay?

 

[Mystman]

.. But, now children have access to Myspace, YouTube, Blogger, Facebook and anything else that allows for them to do this self-exploration or self-analysis online -- in front of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people.


Is this okay?

Interesting question. I would certainly advice my children not to post any identifiable info on the web, not to post pictures/videos of themselves, etc.

The big problem with posting that kind of stuff is that, 1 week or 20 years later, an individual wanting to do harm can potentially use that info. Most things on the internet are archived and can be accessed by everone on the planet. (while in real life, most conversations/actions aren't archived, and you're mostly aware of who is watching).

As for the specific case of young people sharing personal feelings with the anonymous masses of the internet; the type of reactions that you get online are more varied than in real life. So whether an interaction between the child and a responder will be something "positive" or "negetive" depends a lot on chance.

I think that young children aren't able to handle that wide variety of responses properly. And for that reason I would again caution my children against posting too personal things, even if no name/picture is included.

 

[Ectezus]

The internet is really the new media. Youtube has done a lot of good for many people. Like singers/artists breaking through.
However, having a "god does or does not exist" discussion always has, and always will be futile if you goal is to actually convert the die-hards.

The internet is full of horrible stuff, teach your kid to surf responsibly (and/or add filters that prevent certain material)
If you know how and where to look you can really learn many great things. I personally do consider youtube a great source for information, but sometimes you do need to double check facts.

 

[white dove]

I think that young children aren't able to handle that wide variety of responses properly. And for that reason I would again caution my children against posting too personal things, even if no name/picture is included.

This is what made my heart hurt so much about the young boy I was referring to. Because he had made some pretty assertive (albeit naive) claims, he appeared to receive such a backlash that his response to it almost mirrored what would have looked like on the playground, at school. It was so sad to me... and even though he probably would not have acted so differently face-to-face with those who disagreed with him, it's more like an ambush -- where, on the playground, he may have had 3 kids taunting/teasing him... but online, the bullying crowd is even worse. I can't imagine what that does to a child's developing psyche.





It's too wide an audience and you are so right; children aren't equipped to deal with the kinds of responses they receive online. You can take this anyway you like and still be correct.

I'm glad that you said that you would make sure your children are careful with their online interactions.


Not taking away responsibilities from the parents (because I always condone parental responsibility), should children even be allowed to post, for example, YouTube videos to begin with?

Does it borderline exploitation to allow it?

 

[Mystman]

Not taking away responsibilities from the parents (because I always condone parental responsibility), should children even be allowed to post, for example, YouTube videos to begin with?

Does it borderline exploitation to allow it?

I believe most websites require you to be 13 to register. That's a fair age I think, at least for posting most types of videos.

Preventing 13 year old from posting the more "personal" types of videos might be even better, but impossible in practice I think.

 

[flicka]

The alternative is more unethical IMO. We all have to learn to live life as is, not how we want it to be. Today that life includes YouTube. People will either adapt or suffer the consequences becasue history has proven that we can't save people from themselves.

 

[white dove]

I believe most websites require you to be 13 to register. That's a fair age I think, at least for posting most types of videos.

Preventing 13 year old from posting the more "personal" types of videos might be even better, but impossible in practice I think.

I did not know that. This boy was a pre-teen.. and "restrictions" such as the one you mentioned does not affect those who lie about their age (because we all know little kids like being treated as grown-ups or "big kids").

I was wondering if it might be a good idea to have some sort of moderation, making sure those who appear underage get shut-down or perhaps heightening the age requirement from 13 to 18.

But, then, moderation would have to be done fairly and conducted solely for the purpose of protecting children. Moderation, when in the hands of those who do not do so, can be scary.

The alternative is more unethical IMO. We all have to learn to live life as is, not how we want it to be. Today that life includes YouTube. People will either adapt or suffer the consequences.

So, there is no moral obligation to protect children if we see potential for harm? As adults, we stand in light of years of experience and have a better way of knowing what to expect if a, b and c occur. We have the responsibility to counsel and instruct our children about what may happen if they do this or that, but also to protect them if they are at an age where they don't truly understand the ramifications of their actions. Because we, ourselves, faced obstacles when we were younger, we can advise the younger generation. But, the younger generation of today have much more broad avenues that may be better traversed at a slightly older age.

 

[Mystman]

I was wondering if it might be a good idea to have some sort of moderation, making sure those who appear underage get shut-down or perhaps heightening the age requirement from 13 to 18.

I would think that if you report any videos that are clearly made by an under-13, the videos would be removed. As far as I know, it's actually illegal for websites like YouTube to have under-13 users, so they'll be glad to remove the stuff in order to avoid lawsuits.

As for heightening the age requirement to 18.. nah.

YouTube provides a very nice creative outlet, with many young people taking advantage of it. Forbidding that to under-18s would be pretty bad.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Whats good for one family's children may not be good for another's. It is incumbent on a child's parents to monitor their online activity and control where their children go and don't go, not strangers, adult or no.

As mentioned, those under 13 are not allowed to post on places like You Tube. Clear violations of this policy will be removed when reported.

 

[mpok1519]

some kids can handle it, but some can't, and those that can't are usually a reflection of how well of a job their parents did. If anything, its unethical to have kids if you're a bad person/going to be a bad parent.

 

[Everlasting33]

If I ever have children, I would strictly limit any TV and/or computer time and exposure. I know of a woman who frequently spends time on the computer with her 2 year old. Children need more books and outside time than looking at computer and TV screens.

 

[wanderingone]

If I ever have children, I would strictly limit any TV and/or computer time and exposure. I know of a woman who frequently spends time on the computer with her 2 year old. Children need more books and outside time than looking at computer and TV screens.

My grandson (almost 3) and I are online everytime he is here. There are some excellent sites for children - his favorite place is a site that teaches sign language, with a couple of grade schoolers doing the signs. He has learned a lot of ASL from it. He also likes to "help" me edit pictures in photoshop. Children certainly need to be taught how to use the tools that exist in their world, and its far better for them to learn at their parents knee than to be tackling the newest technology while mom and dad throw up their hands and say "I don't know anything about that stuff.. little Joey he's the computer genius"

-----------
As for you tube if the videos viewed appear to be those of a child under 13 who is maintaining their own account then report it, of course who knows his parents might be sitting there with him helping him make and upload the videos.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Good for you GrandMa!

 

[Matthewj1985]

If I ever have children, I would strictly limit any TV and/or computer time and exposure. I know of a woman who frequently spends time on the computer with her 2 year old. Children need more books and outside time than looking at computer and TV screens.

and you base this on........

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I had been reading a thread in this forum where someone had posted a YouTube video and it had inadvertantly lead me to a young boy's series of videos. It made me a little uncomfortable and sad, to be quite honest, that someone would allow such young children to post videos that may just harm them in the short-or-long run.

As adults, we know that self-exploration can occur, whether it be physical or more intropsective. Sometimes, as children, we journaled. Other times, we talked things over with our friends or parents. But, now children have access to Myspace, YouTube, Blogger, Facebook and anything else that allows for them to do this self-exploration or self-analysis online -- in front of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people.


Is this okay?

*cough*

Oh my. This is uncomfortable. I'll wait in the car.

 

[Mumei]

*cough*

Oh my. This is uncomfortable. I'll wait in the car.

As for the topic itself - I saw this a few weeks ago, before 4chan decided to make his life horrible. Ironic, considering 4chan's views on homosexuals, but I digress.

It really is a bit sad - he was obviously completely unprepared to handle what he's getting into, and he doesn't seem completely balanced.

 

[ReverendDG]

As for the topic itself - I saw this a few weeks ago, before 4chan decided to make his life horrible. Ironic, considering 4chan's views on homosexuals, but I digress.

It really is a bit sad - he was obviously completely unprepared to handle what he's getting into, and he doesn't seem completely balanced.

lol well as 4chan likes to say "we do it for the LULZ" they troll people. he honestly wouldn't have been attacked so much if he hadn't fed the fire by complaining about being called a "homo"

i guess he had to learn the hard way one of the most important internet rules "don't feed the trolls"
on 4chan and ED they call him "the angry homo kid"

i should be ashamed i guess, i let my inner troll out and posted to him about not letting people call him a homo.. then called him a homo

ironic or not? you decide!

 

[white dove]

*cough*

Oh my. This is uncomfortable. I'll wait in the car.

Aww... are you not feeling well, either?

 

[white dove]

I did not get to post in the other thread, regarding a specific instance of an underage poster who'd gone on to be ridiculed and threatened.


Needless to say, I was quite po'd that there was never a father, mother, nor guardian of any kind knocking on the door when said child was throwing things around in his room. Also, why does that child have a computer in own room anyway?

It scares me that children of varying ages are coming across things that are not age-appropriate, that they are allowed to enter in adult conversations when they are not equipped to do so, that their entire pre-pubescent development can be witnessed by those the child does not even know, but also... that parents are dumb enough to buy these things for their children... allowing their children to be taken advantage of, mocked, harassed, threatened, propositioned, etc..

Why does a child need a webcam, for example? Why have a computer behind closed doors -- why not have the computer in the family room?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I had been reading a thread in this forum where someone had posted a YouTube video and it had inadvertantly lead me to a young boy's series of videos. It made me a little uncomfortable and sad, to be quite honest, that someone would allow such young children to post videos that may just harm them in the short-or-long run.

As adults, we know that self-exploration can occur, whether it be physical or more intropsective. Sometimes, as children, we journaled. Other times, we talked things over with our friends or parents. But, now children have access to Myspace, YouTube, Blogger, Facebook and anything else that allows for them to do this self-exploration or self-analysis online -- in front of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people.


Is this okay?

No, its not ok. Children do not need to be posting anything identifiable. In fact imo children shouldnt even be online unless their parent is sitting right beside them and are 100 percent aware of whats happening while the child is online.