I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it
My oldest zygote is 5 years old. Up until now, I've been able to keep a good lid on what he's allowed to watch. We have Roku with a handful of streaming services, and he's comfortable navigating it himself to watch shows. I'm big on teaching agency and responsibility, and he's responded well to that: he watches shows we've okayed, asks about other shows he's interested in, and respects us if we tell him no. He's a smart kid and I'd like to keep him that way.
It's starting to get harder. Originally I could say on on grounds of age appropriateness, or I could point to things about a show that I outright didn't approve of for him. This is important to me because I want to teach him to think about these things and make good choices for himself in the future. So instead of telling him "No, you can't watch that", I want to tell him "No, you can't watch this because _________."
Now that he's getting older, he's asking more and more to watch things. And in some cases, I find myself saying "No. It's hard to explain why, but this isn't good." I hate saying that because I know that's not satisfying at his age, and it doesn't teach him anything about how to make good choices about what to watch.
YouTube is rife with examples. If my son is watching a branded show about Spiderman, I know what to expect. There are brand standards that I don't always agree with, but I know what the damage is, and the problems I have with those shows are problems I can talk through with him.
But when YouTube recommends videos that are low production quality videos of people in their living rooms playing with Spiderman figures, I don't want him watching it. Some of it feels Elsagate-adjacent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate) in that it seems harmless but you are just waiting for it to veer into weird or inappropriate territory. There's no trust between me and the content creator. Sometimes they're just harmlessly dumb. But in any case it's hard to explain why I don't want him to watch something that appears harmless to him.
Does anyone have similar experiences? Advice? Commiseration? Perspectives?
We keep a fairly tight control of what our kids can watch (4 and 2), and we only recently got a TV whereas before they'd only get a limited amount of time watching on my wife's iPad. So far it's mainly educational content, with the occasional age appropriate show for fun throw in (Bob the Builder, PAW Patrol, Bluey, etc.) but we have seen them tap on other videos that are recommended occasionally.
We haven't had too many questions regarding why they can't watch something yet, but I'm sure that is coming, and we'll also be in the camp of explaining why we don't want them to watch something since I definitely agree it is better to give reasoning behind it.
We did have the question specifically up regarding videos of people playing with toys that my kids had opened up, and we framed it as "you don't need to watch videos of other people playing with toys, when you can go play with your own toys". If they probed a deeper why, I'd tell them that "playing with toys practices your imagination, and watching someone do that doesn't. It's import to have your own imagination and to think of ways to play on your own without someone on a screen saying this is how you play with toys." Granted that isn't my concrete final answer and I may think on a better way to phrase it down the road and parenting is a delicate balance, especially nowadays with how accessible tech is.
It's interesting you mention Paw Patrol as being appropriate, because I consider that far lower quality than, for example, the video my kid was watching this morning of a young man playing Goat Simulator 3. In that video the player (Sam Tabor) exhibited patience and persistence while trying to achieve a task, and then achieved it after some attempts. Kid, who loves playing Goat Simulator, learned not just some things they could do in the game, but also about how to approach challenges in gaming in a positive way. I believe there is something to be said for watching other people playing (video games or just with toys), watching is one way kids learn. Seeing other people do things doesn't just give them ideas for their own play, it builds confidence in them that just... doing things is OK.
Meanwhile every episode of Paw Patrol I've ever seen - and Kid did have a flurry of Paw Patrol when they were younger - is a literally nonsense narrative which exists almost entirely to sell toys to kids. The Paw Patrol don't get all new gear every season for fun (the Octonauts very rarely do, by comparison).
I'm with you on Bluey though. I'm gutted Kid has grown out of that, but they still talk about it sometimes. I am 100% watching the movie when it's made, Kid doesn't have to but I'm all in on Bluey. I can see the positive effect it's had on them and continues to do to this day (and me! Bluey made me a better dad, no question). But then I can also see the positive effect watching Youtuber Sam Pilgrim do stupid bike stunts has had too. "This looks scary, let's do it anyway!" has got Kid over the hump of doing so many things they weren't feeling confident about.
We went through a paw patrol phase as well, and also prefer Octonauts and Bluey. (I do roll my eyes about predatory animals eating Octonauts biscuits)
Some play videos are about creativity (speed runs), persistence (gettin' over it), strategy and practice (StarCraft tournaments); I have also used (text/screenshot) game guides as a resource for when we're stuck in our own playthrough
But I think the low quality "play" videos are literally an adult unwrapping a mountain of kinder eggs; rolling $500 worth of Gachas; unboxing a new pile of blind boxes; or just two guys playing a game swearing at each other. I know (edit:) two kids, a kindergartener and a young tween who watches someone play Fall Guy or Five Nights or whatever, and the children never ever plays any of the games themselves : the genre is simulating play and simulating friendship that the children never actually participates in. They're just part of "chat".
It's definitely very subjective, which was kind of why I used the tongue-in-cheek title. I find that Paw Patrol wraps most stories up in standard fare moral lessons that I agree with, and the solutions usually involve cooperation and not violence.
I'm sure that there is a lot of "people playing with toys/games" content that is enriching, but I have never followed it and have no visibility into that world. When I see a video of that type, I don't know if it's going to venture into weird territory. Paw Patrol is a brand, which guarantees me some amount of predictability. I don't expect Paw Patrol to introduce themes of forced imprisonment, or depicting characters being terrified.
A lot of it has to do with the platforms - YouTube being a prime example. If I watched a video and knew it was enriching, I would be okay with my son watching it, but I know that at the end of it YouTube will recommend a plethora of videos that are designed to grab my 5 year old's attention, most of which are not things I want him watching. So I tend to be averse to anything approaching the genre.
I don't like him watching YouTube at all, but I made that mistake early on, so there are a few trusted channels I let him watch. Most of this trouble unfortunately stems from YouTube, now that I'm thinking through it.
We view PAW Patrol as a show that is "just for fun". My wife and I don't always watch things that are for our betterment, and it's nice to have some pure entertainment, and with PAW Patrol we at least know there are some positive messages about working together to resolve things. My kids also like dogs and big trucks, and the show puts those two together.
Does that show exist to sell merchandise? Definitely, as do a lot of other children's franchises. That being said, our kids know that when we go to a toy store to burn a few minutes that they're not going to get a toy from that show. They have enough toys as it is, and they mainly only get new ones during their birthdays/Christmas. Once they get a bit older and grow out of the smaller kids toys, we'll probably do a bit of aging up for the toys, but I also question a lot of getting kids so many toys. We had to tell family and friends to stop getting them toys for events, because they don't play with all the ones they have and will do the typical kid things of wanting to play with the large box that the toy came in instead of the toy itself a good chunk of the time.
I do agree with you that there can be some benefit to YouTube channels outside the bubble our kids are in now, but we'll be revisiting that later as they grow up. Like you said there can be positives to watching that content, but I also want to encourage their own creativity and since my kids are so close in age they can play and learn from each other or through having friends over/going to friends houses and playing there, or at school.
Things like what games they can play, media they have access to, and all that will be choices we'll need to continually circle back to. As much as there are days that I wish we could just set a policy and have that just work, being an engaged parent means I'm needing to keep on my toes as they grow bigger, and then make sure I'm working with them in a way that works with each of them.
Bluey is fantastic! I told my friend who has a baby that it's one of those kids shows that both the parents and the kids enjoy.
That's actually really helpful. Your initial response has been my verbatim response as well:
But your follow up adds some much-needed explanation that I'm going to use. Thanks.
A splendid example that will hopefully, probably carry on to other aspects of their lives: we don't need to watch other people repair items, or dig a hole in the basement, or travel or eat stuff or play the violin, we can go and try to do that ourselves. Let's not watch people go on dates or live as a housewife or pick a wedding dress or reno/buy a house either :p
I'm not a parent, so this isn't in relation to what you should or should not let a kid watch, but I'd note that bar the eating, for all of these I'd see some, potentially even much, value in watching them ahead of wanting to do these myself. I'll definitely look online ahead of trying to repair something in the house. I'm more of a textual than video person, but decent odds that I'd also look for a video if there's something physical that I feel I need to see done in order to repeat.
I'd definitely not try digging a hole in my basement without having looked at somebody else stabilize it or whatever.
I'm not an instrument player but have some among friends and family and watching others play a piece you want to learn absolutely seems to be standard practice.
I guess the travel one is the only gray one and it depends on what exactly the video is. I don't need a video of a view I intend to see, I could use a video of things I should know/prep for for a given locality etc.
It's something I honestly have to remind myself now and then because it can be satisfying seeing someone do a nicely edited repair job or big clean up. There's a lot of being a parent that is me telling my kids something and also using it as a reminder to do myself, because if I expect them to do something I need to be leading by example as well.
Every example here is something I do watch online. Especially power washing and tidying videos. Because I don't power wash and I don't tidy enough -..-
In my experience Youtube has done a pretty good job of removing most of the really weird stuff. Especially if you have the parental controls turned on.
My kid has a Youtube kids account which I control (not actually YouTube Kids the app, but a kid's account linked to my family group with content filters set to age 9 - although they are still only 7). I spent some time clicking "don't recommend channel" on the more brainrotty stuff and after a while it's become a pretty decent feed. We watch some most mornings while I chug tea and try to wake up before starting the day properly..
Occasionally Kid goes off on an explore and finds a bunch more low-effort content but to be honest, they're pretty good at filtering themselves now. They like a well structured story or an informative video with actual facts and tend to choose that stuff. Sure, they watch some junk too sometimes but so do I. Kid watching other kids playing with toys (or in my kid's case, they like to watch gaming videos) is not all that different to me watching adults playing with lathes or milling machines. It's a kind of trash but brains need zoneout stuff occasionally. I notice the more tired or worried about something Kid is, the trashier the stuff they choose is.
That said, "let's not watch this, it's brainrot" is an acceptable and understood reason for me to give to them to skip a video. Also "this is AI slop", along with some tips on how to spot AI slop.
Me and the kid have long since had the discussion about how some content is like chocolate - it's OK occasionally but if it's all you consume it's no good for you. They understood about how they need to put good food in their body long before they needed to understand the same about their brains, so it was an easy comparison to grasp.
This thread has helped me realize my problem is largely with YouTube. Your comment specifically makes me realize I haven't explored YouTube's filters enough. I didn't realize some of those options existed.
I like the chocolate analogy. I am trying to teach him entertaining vs entertaining + enriching, and twice that to decide how "junky" a show is and how much we should watch it.
My son is 7, now, and YouTube has been banned in our house from an early age.
He knows that there is good stuff on YouTube, but the way I've tried to explain it to him is that YouTube, the platform, only wants to keep him watching. It tries really hard to get him sucked in and it doesn't care how. It's like force-feeding candy but for your brain: at first, it tastes great! But if that's all you ever eat, you'll get REALLY sick. And YouTube only wants you to keep watching more YouTube.
A lot of content on YouTube is only stimulation at a base level. Shows should be entertaining, yes, but they should also teach us things about the world. That doesn't necessarily mean explicitly educational content, either, but there should be a deeper moral message.
One litmus test I use with my son is: are these characters good role models? Are they kind to other people? It's okay if the characters don't always make the best choices as long as they learn and grow from those mistakes. If you start framing these questions for your son early, it can build some really good media consumption habits for the future.
That would be my approach as well. Was then, still applicable.
A small child doesn't need to fully understand nutrition, just needs parental guidance to say, this is nutritious food, those are junk food.
If more details are wanted, metaphor of a supermarket: it sells food, but it also sells junk food and poisonous cleaning supplies, and a lot of toys.
It's okay to watch some YouTube for pure entertainment, but let's not mistake all of it for quality, morally affirming, educational content. And definitely not okay to passively sitting down for "next" just because they want to profit from engagement.
I regret introducing YouTube. I wish they had an option to disable all of the predatory aspects of the app, but obviously that's not their business model.
Those are good ones.
Please try YTBlock browser extension: you can block and filter and whitelist by channel names, tags, description and keywords
You could download pre-selected videos using yt-dlp and organize them into folders
If you want to go the automation route, there's a Docker container for TubeSync, which lets you subscribe to channels/playlists and it will automatically download the videos (via yt-dlp). Then you can combine it with something like Plex to have a personally curated library without the manipulative algorithm.
I use it for keeping quality stuff like PixlRiff's Minecraft Survival Guide series available for my son without opening him up to all of the garbage Minecraft videos with clickbait titles/thumbnails YouTube will inevitably suggest.
I don't have kids but I'd download the many amazing science education videos for them if I did.
You could get Youtube Vanced, disable the home page and shorts. By disabling the home page, you are mainly using the subscribe feed and Vanced blocks all ads as well. I do that for myself to limit my watchtime as well.
I had a lot longer response, but I think the crux of it was: He's 5. He doesn't need unbounded access to an enormous library of content. If it were me (and i have a 4.5yo), I'd just say "nope, we pick what we watch before we bring out the phone" and skip the recommendations. In fact, I just confirmed you can use ublock origin to erase the recommendation list on the side of videos (or on your homescreen if you really want) to prevent going down rabbit holes.
But really, if possible and there is a good selection, the benefit of having a DVD player and getting your media from the library is that the choices are deliberated in advance, you know the media is going to fall into certain standards, and it has to be returned within a couple of weeks and they aren't just watching the same thing over and over. And just a note, that if like me you live near the border of multiple library systems, you can check if you can have accounts in each and have them linked together (in the Twin Cities there are I believe 7 library systems that do this).
We don't give him access to a phone or tablet, but we do have Roku and a remote, which is where he gets freedom to explore things we didn't pick for him. I regret it a little but my goal is to teach him to have these options and make responsible choices with them.
I definitely hate recommendations on ALL services. They're for the platform, not for me, and I don't want them.
I have just straight up banned YouTube in my house. It's far too addicting and just gets into weird stuff all the time; I banned it many years ago and then we steadily reintroduced it relatively recently, strictly under our supervision, but even then when stuff isn't necessarily outright objectionable, a lot of the stuff aimed at kids has this addictive property to it.
We were letting our oldest watch about 20-30 minutes or so each night before bed, but every time we turned it off and told them it was time for bed, they would exhibit what I would call withdrawal symptoms. Begging and pleading not to shut it off and then refusing to go to bed and generally just having a meltdown. This happened consistently for a week and then I remembered it was the exact same behavior they exhibited years ago before I initially banned YouTube. So I told my wife it's going back on the ban list, at least partially. No longer will they have control over it, but instead we, the parents, get to choose what is watched, so now we're able to watch a little bit, but we watch strictly Educational or Edutainment content.
It seems to be working better so far, but if that becomes a problem I will again ban it completely.
My kids are 5 1/2 and 8 for reference.
I think you're describing media literacy. PBS has a pretty good article on this, and I'm sure there's lots of books about it nowadays
It sounds like you don't trust homemade videos aimed at children, in general? Because they're made by strangers?
I mean, yes, it seems like a perfectly reasonable precaution.
Those videos are also incredibly... empty? I'm not even sure what is the right word for it. There is nothing of substance, they're just devoid of anything remotely interesting.
It’s like mindlessly eating Doritos, but you’re feeding your eyes. I think it’s good not to get a human hooked on that while they’re young.
Not quite, and that's at the heart of my title. The line between what I am and am not okay with is blurry and hard to clearly draw. Videos made by strangers aimed at children describes almost all of what he consumes, so it's down to the "homemade" nature of it. I'm not opposed to homemade but I am a lot less sure what to expect from them.
With highly produced content, I can usually tell right from the title card if it's likely to be a hit or miss. With homemade stuff, it's harder to tell, and if I don't see things I dislike about it until halfway through then it's hard to pull my son away (unless I can clearly explain what changed that made me not like it any more). Sometimes I pre-watch things he's interested in but generally try to avoid that precedent.
There's a few shows / content creators that I'd call "homemade" that I've been happy with him watching.
I think it's reasonable to scrutinize all channels; ones with publicly available information and clear history/affiliation are easier to scrutinize than anon homemades. Example, if it's Hasbro I would know they want to sell toys, but have some reputation to upkeep. If it's a new channel I have no way to know who funds them and how disposable the channel, and what their next move is once they've gathered enough viewers.
It's not to say I don't click new unknown channels: it means I watch a bunch first before I show them to my kid. (I have become lazier as my kid gets older; I will click a Hank/John Green video and watch it together without pre-vetting, eg)
This explains it well. We started on YouTube because he would watch a show called Handyman Hal. At first it was a lot of behind the scenes at jobs where he'd do the work. It was interesting even to me. I don't think he expected to get big, but now that he is, his channel has clearly shifted to content creator mode. I'm guessing he's funded now, and I don't think it's by anyone who cares about kids. Now his content is a lot of unboxing drop shipped tack and surface play. He asks kids for subscribes and likes.
I know big brands can slip this way, too, but they tend to be more predictable.
We had the same issue with my youngest when she was a little older than that (6 or so). We also had a hard time explaining it, but we had to ban Youtube and even Youtube Kids (is that still around) for a few years. Both would let those videos through that were themed with known "OK" characters, but would end up wholly inappropriate. I've never heard of "Elsagate", but at the time, it was mostly Peppa Pig videos (whose show my daughter was a fan of) and they would get hyper violent and even racist.
It is to be expected for a smart kid to balk at shallow explanations when you have raised them to be aware and question hypocrisy and injustice, but I found that the best explanation I could give sometimes was something along the line of "Sites that allow anyone to make videos aren't able to have a real person watch every video and actually know what it contains. Some videos are bad in sneaky ways and get through and we (the parents) don't want you to let they get to you (the kid) if we can stop it". Your kid will likely not like the rule still, but they will probably mostly get it.
In a comment you seemed to notice the issue is largely on YouTube. Have you gotten in on that PBS Kids app? It's pretty wicked. All free, no ad garbage, just brief "this episode was brought to you by X". You know it's gonna be kid appropriate no matter where they go in the app. And they may even learn something.
Yes! Good shout. PBS kids is the only "kids" branded service I actually trust so far, and the only one I tell him he can watch whatever he likes. He loves Wild Kratz, and I'm a fan too.
"There's no trust between me and the content creator." I think you explained it to us here on a level a 5 year old would understand. Disney or marvel have earned your trust over the years with how they handle spiderman and skipidi6767 has not.
Huh, I didn't think about it that way, even though I have been thinking about it that way.
I'm not a parent, so I don't really have any advice for you, but when my younger brother was about that age (~6 years old) he loved those unboxing videos. Everyone in the family hated them, but the parents still let him watch them. Eventually he just got tired of them and moved on to something else. As someone who could almost always see him watching YouTube, it's very clear that his interests kept growing together with him. He's now 11 and mostly watches science or chess or history videos, which nobody forced on him, he just got into that rabbit hole on his own.
I'm not saying you should allow your child to watch anything freely - in fact, there were still some more Elsagate-ish stuff that we didn't let my brother watch. I just mainly wanted to say that even if your child does end up accidentally watching some low quality YouTube content, while not the best influence, they're probably old enough to know not to take all behavior in so it won't have a very serious negative impact on them. It's a phase just like any other interest they may have.
I do need this reminder from time to time. I get anxious, like if he sees one wrong thing then he's hooked like crack, but that's not giving him enough credit. I did let him watch one once to demonstrate how the thumbnails lie, and it was a goofy nonsense video full of known characters and no real narrative. He seemed mostly confused by it and hasn't asked to see it again.
Take me with a grain of salt. I'm just a guy who knows some parents. Occasionally I've talked with them and their kids about stuff like this, because the parents get interested when they hear their "tech guy" say they're right to think the machinery is malign and the content is dogshit.
The kid is taking in entertainment. Fundamentally, outside the particulars, they're doing something we all do. They find it entertaining to see other kids playing, I get that. I've certainly watched plenty of folks wreck some games I like. If kid can explain a bit why they like it, that might give you an opening to alter/divert the interest by ripping them out of the "intended" experience, and putting them on to things you know are more constructive.
Let's assume for example they like watching kids playing with action figures. No malign influence, it really is just other kids playing with their toys doing silly kid stuff. Maybe your kid likes that because, when they think about it, they feel like they're getting to play too. Maybe they'd like to do more playing, but can't. That's a relatable feeling. But the video isn't that. Fundamentally, it isn't. Those other kids can't see you. They don't know you. They can't share their toys, and letting you watch isn't really sharing, because they didn't make that video for you. I know they say they did, but that's just what everybody says so folks will keep watching their videos. What you're seeing is not "a kid playing", you're seeing "a kid who once played". They're not playing with you, you're not playing with them. Intentionally kill the magic, and be ready with a followup compromise that still furthers your ends.
Sticking with the example: Ok kid, if you wanna see a toy you might like, sure, here's a channel that really shows you the toy and if you like it, tell me about it, maybe some time I can find that for you. Carrot. Through those interactions you can develop dialogue, get em comfortable talking about what they're seeing with you, and that gives you a baseline for knowing when they're seeing wild shit (changes in dialogue can belie changes in content consumption). When things shift and it appears they've wound up somewhere malign, out comes the stick: Ban the channel, the app, time em out from all of it, whatever you think is an appropriate way of limiting access. Because there's a history of talking about it, you've given yourself an opportunity to explain why the things are bad without immediately triggering a defiant response (at least, hopefully). You can recall how the change occurred, the real things you noticed and why the channel relates to that. That gives the kid something to chew on, awareness of the broader picture, little bit at a time.
Most of the folks I know struggle because they just don't have a dialogue going around their content consumption. Their kids are in different worlds from them. Some of that is a function of time and business, some of it is reluctance to see the full picture, some of it if I'm honest is them just being irresponsible/not giving enough of a shit, it varies person to person. But, in my very, very limited sampling, folks who have (or built) a regular, consistent sort of dialogue around what they are seeing are better able to handle it when the machinery does its malignant bullshit. The trust between the two of you, your bond, is what defeats the machine in the long run.
One of our rules when it comes to watching: we try to minimise the availability of algorithmically generated content streams for the kids. No video / show recommendations, as much as possible. That only leads to weird, non pre-approved places in the best case and auto-generated sugar-like addiction in the worse (but I'm sure not the worst) case.
Yeah, I see no value at all in forced recommendations. A lot can and does go wrong there, but if nothing else, it trains children (and adults) to always look for the next thing when this one ends. Never let anything land, never feel satisfied, never lose watching momentum until something else steals your attention.
I wonder if someday we'll see regulation around infinite scrolling and recommendation algorithms. Or at least global standards of positive design patterns for making these things less harmful. These things are implementation details that maximize profits and reshape societies.
We have always avoided YouTube as a general rule for the kids (8 and 5 years old). It's a black hole that can quickly get out of hand without close supervision. The only content our kids watch comes from what I've downloaded for them to our Plex server (and thus personally vetted) + a couple shows from Netflix Kids/Peacock that I can't find anywhere else. Thankfully, we became hip to the YouTube problem when our oldest was still a baby, so they have no idea what they're missing and have never even asked about YouTube as an alternative.
Here are some shows we approve of: Bluey, Blaze & the Monster Machines, The Stinky and Dirty Show, Where's Waldo, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood/Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, My Little Pony (although there is some rude behavior between characters that we use as an example of what not to do), All Engines Go, The Berenstain Bears, Doc McStuffins, Arthur, the Fairly OddParents (only for our oldest - one of my favorite shows from childhood), Bob the Builder, Gabby's Dollhouse, Octonauts, Wild Kratts, Paw Patrol, and The Smurfs.
As an alternative to screen time, I highly recommend audiobooks. They allow our children to be engaged in a primary activity (e.g. playing with legos, ponies, dolls, coloring books, building a pillow/blanket fort, etc.) with the audiobook as secondary entertainment rather than being sucked into a screen as the primary activity and totally disengaged from everything else, having to be asked a question three separate times before they respond. Our youngest still remarkably takes naps during nap time (which was renamed quiet time some years ago), but our eldest listens to audiobooks while playing with toys in his room during that time.
Here are some audiobooks we approve of (primarily for the eldest but some of these are appropriate for both of them and come out on long road trips): The Magic Tree House, The Boxcar Children, Anne of Green Gables, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Beverly Cleary books, Wayside School series, NERDS series, Little House on the Prairie series, Donald Davis stories, Charlotte's Web, Harry Potter series, and Nate the Great series. I also recommend these podcasts: Thomas & Friends Storytime, The Cinnamon Bear, Keyshawn Solves It, and Arthur.
About the audio books in the background while playing: Have you see any increase in their need for stimulation, in particular multiple concurrent sources of stimulation? There's been a few articles on Tildes discussing things like changes to shows and movies knowing that more people are "watching" while also scrolling on their phones; this is a phenomenon I see constantly in people around me (incomprehensible to me with subtitled shows). On the other hand, it's near universal to at least occasionally listen to music while doing another task, though that feels different than a narrated story for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.
Hm. I think the narrative thread in audiobooks engages your brain's language processing function in a way that music, even with lyrics, does not; I imagine that function being active also limits the complexity of original thoughts we can synthesize in parallel. I'd probably be classified as an auditory thinker or something and I find it waaaaaaay harder to concentrate in a room full of loud conversations than comparatively loud general noise.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is some variation for people who think in images as opposed to words, those with internal monologs vs. without, etc. though.
Not that I've noticed. We have very good boundaries about when they get TV or audiobook time, they know when those times are, and they still have a lot of time to play/read independently (i.e. figuring out how to stimulate themselves and stave off boredom). We get the occasional "I'm bored", but they always find creative ways to entertain themselves.
I know exactly what you're talking about with how content has changed to accommodate people scrolling. My wife and I make a point to put our phones down when we watch something together. We're subtitle people anyway lol.
I know exactly what you mean. I quickly learned that the default filters of the YouTube Kids app suck pretty bad, as soon as I saw videos pop up of people just playing with toys I dug in and switched it over to 'whitelist only' and spent a good 30/40 minutes scrolling through and approving a broad enough selection of content. The app is pretty terrible though, for some reason the search never works in parent mode, no matter what device I'm using.
Netflix is pretty good for filter controls, I monitor my son's (7) viewing and behaviour for shows that set him off, either those that wind him up too much or else lock him in to where he's unwilling to turn off the TV at pre-agreed time - in the past, I found Korean animated shows such as Miniforce and Tobots to be particular bad for this.
By comparison, Prime is terrible for adult controls; no blacklist and you can only block shows from showing up in recommendations but not search (which is pointless now that himself has got a handle on his ABCs). No issues with default Disney+ filters, though I (haven't tried blocking anything specific yet). I would even say it goes too far in that a lot of age-appropriate stuff doesn't make it through, most particularly there's a dearth of feature length movies, which I actually prefer from an attention-span perspective.
One big thing I still need to keep an eye on is fast-forwarding. It may be a result of learning advertisement-induced patience as a young TV viewer but I'm kind of strict on picking a show and sticking with it. I am concerned about the prevalence of short form content these days and want to instill good viewing habits at an early age so he's equipped to deal with that kind of stuff without getting hooked later on, or conversely, being unable to engage with long form content.
I hear you! My kiddo is 8 now, and the conversations got more and more difficult a few years ago. I think we've gotten to a fairly decent place on it now. There was a point where I started shutting down some of the conversations past this: "because I can't be sure it's safe for you to watch that show". This phrase was part of several larger conversations with the kiddo on what it means to be safe, and how it is our job as a parent to keep them safe. There are some things that I can't safely talk to an 8 year old about. I can't tell her what Trump meant when he said "grab them by thr pussy". I can't safely tell her what pedophelia is, but I can explain coorsion from a non-sexual standpoint. We still have to teach the skills to be as safe from these things as possible. I do feel like I had a bit of a break through with this phrasing, because it got to the core of all the questions that were being asked.
Roblox was the big one in our household. Her cousins play it, some friends at school play it, but we won't let her. It was hard to maintain that, and I eventually had to tell her to that people are using offers of Robucks to convince children to do harmful things. Similar to how school teaches that you don't take candy for strangers. Details past that she just isn't ready for. Hell, I'm not ready for them.
My I've used this one, too, but it felt like I was just a step away from "because I said so". I need to do what you did and have the bigger conversation with him about what safety means, what I mean by "dangerous" content (I previously called it "bad" but trying to stop that).