Problem is quality. "YouTube kids" is a big meme, because some of the most popular content creators were certainly not creating kid friendly content. Example being "spiderman and Elsa".

In my opinion kids should not be on the internet. Not that we can reasonably stop them, but I don't at all believe YouTube is an equivalent to directed quality content like PBS.

I don't allow unrestricted access to the internet for my kids and they aren't allowed screens in any room except where others may see them and their screens all the time. Yes, it is friction and not perfection. The internet is a Victorian-era cesspool with raw sewage and dysentery everywhere. They'll have to learn how to not contract cholera as they grow up, but I also don't let them play with firearms or dabble with black-tar heroin.

I agree, and that's one reason I like curated content such as PBS. We had some inappropriate/disturbing "next video" suggestions on YouTube that initially seemed OK at a distance or for the first few minutes that we didn't catch right away. So I wouldn't trust kids using YouTube except if an adult is setting the playlist and watching with them.

Whereas the PBS Kids apps (and Scratch Jr, Kahn Kids, etc) have curated content that I trust. We still limit their screen time and monitor their use by working in the same room, but it's not nearly as risky to let them use it on their own.

Totally agree. Burnt by youtube suggestions for kids as well. People creating content that seems like it is for kids so they can say horrific things to kids 2 minutes in. Absolute dumpster fire.

The Internet is like a free cafeteria (yay!) where the heroin is right next to the broccoli, but also heavily advertised and dressed up.

Coercing people into making good choices in a non-starter. We need a huge broad based social effort to educate each other on how to be safe. The government can't be trusted to do it for us. We can't just say "coerce the bad guys into submission", because the bad guys will do the same and are better at it.

I feel very lucky to have grown up with unrestricted access to the internet in the 90s-2000s. It was still broccoli and heroin, but neither seemed to be able to advertise over the other, and there was limited supplies of both.

Kind of forced me to try every plate.

Current PBS structure has an interesting solution for this issue, but I don't know if it could be mapped onto an online space.

So since individual stations curate what they fill their airwaves with, they have the option of selecting what content coming from other PBS stations they will broadcast (or not). That provides a bit of a back-stop against truly wild stuff appearing in markets where it won't play without criticism. There isn't one curator; it's many curators with regional scope of influence.

(PBS stations do end up taking criticism, and some of it can be funny. Anecdotally, I know my local station would get complaints that the exercise outfits worn by the people in a work-out show the station syndicated were too revealing. It was the '90s, and these were ankle-to-chest leotards, but people's opinion of appropriate attire varies widely. The station did not cancel the show. ;) ).

I think your point is valid for an equivalent understanding of unrestricted (or popular) access. All YouTube kid videos lead to toy review/recommendation videos eventually. However, the internet is a big place, and if I have something in mind that explores an idea I can usually find it somewhere online. In contrast, legacy media like PBS doesn't generally allow for picking relevant content— the unrestricted or passive mode is the only mode available without scheduling your day around TV (something I'm not keen to encourage).

So no, not equivalent, but not necessarily worse.

Yes, correct. Only good solution I know about this is parents providing a manually curated library of media to their kids.

Having more tools to easily achieve this would be great.

i understand the worry about the government gatekeeping disinformation/misinformation, but I think the worry is massively overblown. We're not talking about the government having a monopoly on the information ecosystem, and while there are certainly controversial topics where the government might be tempted to but their thumb on the scale if they had control over the news, the truth in most cases (climate change, the result of the presidential election, etc) is pretty cut-and-dried.

Besides, the vast majority of the existing misinformation in the US is coming from for-profit news agencies. You're already allowing people to decide what is and isn't misinformation- would you rather it be rupert murdoch, or a politician that you can vote out of office?

There's also no government influence on public media editorial decisions. Congress provides funds to the CPB and the CPB can issue grants to local public media. Even PBS and NPR affiliates all have local editorial control over their broadcasts.

A politician you can theoretically "vote out of office" can be more insidious than big business ever could. Regarding a politician, only collective action can remedy the situation. At least, with business, you get immediate remedy by going elsewhere. And maybe eventual long term remedy if enough people do likewise. Of course, even big business can become too big as to stifle competition.

I just am not sure I agree that a politician is more insidious than big business. A big business has no accountability to anyone but their shareholders. PBS is accountable to representatives elected by citizens. And again, we're not talking about the government having a monopoly on the information ecosystem, so with public news you still have the "immediate remedy"of going elsewhere.

I don’t think I’ve ever given Dennis Prager any of my business yet that hasn’t stopped him using the money he does have to buy airtime in front of me. That kind of unaccountable media production seems far more insidious to me than anything government funded.

Don't you still need collective action for a business? It's even got a name "boycott"

Also "strike", "class action", "legislation", and "regulation".

I can't stop Facebook from poisoning my neighbors' minds by boycotting. In fact, boycotting is worse than joining the platform and engaging.

Whether or not anyone is poisoning anyone's mind is an opinion. It also assumes those minds don't have agency and the ability to discuss issues on their own terms.

Murdoch already decides which politicians are electable in right-wing areas.

A lot of good programming on PBS. But ever notice that the good programming generally occurs during the pledge drives? I mean, they might as well just run commercials.

That said, there are definite problems with the ad driven model of YT too. Maybe it's not the model that's the problem but who ultimately runs it.

Pledge drive programming is usually "best of" highlights programming that have been edited down to allow for the interruptions. (I also get the impression that people who would usually be producing content get drafted into the ranks of the pledge takers, though asynchronous internet-based donations have probably alleviated this need somewhat).

I'm suddenly visualizing an online PBS-equivalent doing a "like & subscribe drive", and that mental picture is a real treat.

I think your point is valid, but I would like to point our that PBS has a lot of great stuff on Youtube. I think there is a role for public broadcasting, but it will probably be marginal.

> who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation?

I certainly hope it isn't the authors of this paper, the German Marshall Fund. The GMF funds their own propaganda like the Alliance for Securing Democracy, and they are funded by USAID. USAID overtly does what the CIA used to do covertly. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/13/state-backed-alliance-...

FYI that article reads as very crank-y. Not saying they are wrong, but it's impenetrable reading to an uninformed neutral party. Too much emotional accusations and a huge cast of characters, but no clear explanation of what they are claiming.

But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project.

It is very cranky, no denying that.

The founder of the site, Robert Parry, uncovered US involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking during the 80s. Nobody denied the facts, but by the time the story came out American political culture had become more conservative (Reaganism) and people weren't as interested in hearing about covert crimes the way they were in the 70s (Watergate).

Parry got drummed out of the journalism for not towing the line and became somewhat bitter. It's not my only source of news, but it can be refreshing to read something that quickly attempts to poke holes in mainstream narratives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)

> But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project.

There are laws against domestic propaganda. For instance, the CIA is not allowed to plant stories in US media.

The German Marshall fund is part of USAID and USAID was founded by the members of the CIA. They're sister organizations that service the same political goals. It should raise eyebrows that USAID wants to construct a domestic propaganda operation.

>PBS seems increasingly irrelevant

I would agree. In terms of production quality, youtube videos can be all over the map (although the cost of quality continues to decrease), but I'd say that the large-scale commercial broadcasters may well continue to dwindle. Personally, 1 guy (or 2/3) youtube shows are my favorites, they tend to be more charming and cover niche areas.

For newsie news, I find myself using mostly RT in my news reader. There's a POV of course, but they don't carry much US domestic news, which is fine by me.