My child watching awful things on youtube

[Simba84]

I thought I had a child block on the computer from watching inappropriate things. Have been blissfully ignorant. My 6 year old types in things to youtube like horrid henry, postman pat, paw patrol - just been viewing the things he has watched and am mortified. Yes it's Horrid Henry clips with overdubbing on them - talking about dicks, hard ons, fucking and all sorts. Paw patrol with the pups being horny or being murdered. He hasn't sworn to me yet but bloody hell. I don't want to completely block youtube. Am I a twat in not doing something already to safeguard him from this crap and if so, please tell me what to do so he is watching age appropriate stuff? He is on a total ban for now. He thinks I am mean. Don't really understand who would turn a children's cartoon into this.

[Believeitornot]

How would adults be penalised if they had to click a few more times?

And porn filters might be unworkable now but there's not been serious effort to actually try and do something about it.

[CauliflowerSqueeze]

videos of toys giving birth to each other

Crikey?!!

[SolomanDaisy]

We've never had any of this stuff come up with the YouTube filters on. I supervise YouTube watching anyway, mostly on our TV, because DS is only 5 and stuff that's appropriate for older kids isn't appropriate for him. But I've never seen swearing Peppa Pig or anything. A lot of people opening surprise eggs or playing pacman but no X rated Peppa.

The kids kindle has a selection of age appropriate YouTube videos on too.

[HeCantBeSerious]

We had all the filters on in standard YouTube, but it didn't stop adverts for things like The Walking Dead on kids videos.

[eyebrowsonfleek]

No child filter can stop 100% of the inappropriate material.

You need to download YouTube kids rather than allow him to watch adult YouTube and hoping for the best.

[imnotreally]

I think what the problem is, is the sick people who take a kids tv show and turn it into something perverse. Because unsuspecting children looking for their favourite shows find some awful stuff. I also found that out the hard way.

[SolomanDaisy]

Hmm, I wonder if the filter works differently in different countries? I'm not in the UK and we've never had inappropriate ads either. Though with the content it could just be that the swearing Peppa stuff is in English so isn't one of the earlier things to show after a search.

[MariposaUno]

I have a kids YouTube app on my Amazon fire and it still doesn't filter out the bad stuff like dubbed cartoons or disturbing remakes of my little pony.
She's 6 and I'm vigilant, just question her or look if I can hear something new that she doesn't normally watch.

[kali110]

believeitornot it's not comparable.
Youtube isn't even for kids!
You are supposed to be over 13 to use it.
If parents decide to give kids free rein then that's their own fault.
You can't filter everything on the internet.
There are things that aren't for kids. Sometimes parents have to actually watch what their kids are doing on the internet.

SolomanDaisy have you seen the giant kinderegg with lots of mini kindereggs inside?? Have to admit even i wanted that

[OrangesAreTheOnlyFruit]

I recently banned the ipad and DD (nearly 6) has one episode of TV a day, max. She's a changed child. She's so much nicer and plays with her all her toys now. Youtube has some terrible stuff on it.

[Believeitornot]

14 year olds are kids the last time I checked.

I wasn't comparing porn to YouTube.

[kali110]

14 y/o are teenagers and def not 6 y/o who need babysitting

[Believeitornot]

Actually I think they do to some extent.

And YouTube has child related content on there so a bit wrong to say it's for over 13s. It's more like parental supervision required.

I don't object to parental supervision. What I do object to is the inappropriate content, disguised at child content which can be inadvertently clicked on by a parent or child in the presence of a parent.

Why not have one or two barriers which allow parents to make a decision as whether it is appropriate before having to view the video and advert first?

It is easier for YouTube to just let people chuck stuff on instead of having a bit of a filter for swearing etc.

[Humidseptember]

Op are you coming back????

you mention "I thought I had a child block on the computer from watching inappropriate things. Have been blissfully ignorant"

Maybe you mean - you tube kids????

what sort of block did you have?

I have also had this issue, we put you tube kids on but I think its best to say its not compatible with our comps anymore

[ShouldHaveBeenJess]

Am I being completely stupid (I'm rubbish with technology) but isn't it fairly easy to turn parental controls on and off through your provider? I've done it a few times when, er, necessary.

I'm lucky that DS only ever wants to watch Lego custom build videos, and while I don't want to stereotype, I suspect the guys who make those films don't have much interaction with the opposite sex anyway, and are therefore less likely to subscribe to innuendo, etc. Although the Lego city mall does have a lingerie department. Am always in the room, though.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

Provider based controls are largely next to useless. Either they are so tight they also block a load of things you want to access or they are loose enough to not really provide enough protection.

You also can't control the level of protection and the level you'd want for 4 year old isn't the same as the one you'd want for a 10 year old.

[MissMargie]

It's crazy to say people should police their DCs internet use. Just so much easier to say than do. And other kids might have phones or they might be in others' houses with less strict controls.
The internet providers (rich rich companies ) could throw some money at this.

It will be the rest of society picking up the costs of mental health care, curing weird sex habits in the future.

We don't say some DCs are obese - leave it to the parents its their job to fix. Instead supermarkets, schools, gov are all trying to improve the situation.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

It's not crazy. It's the only way it can possibly work.

ISP's can throw as much money at it as they like. They still won't find a solution because the internet doesn't work like that.

Phones and other people's houses are an issue, but there are solutions to that and the child in the OP is 6. Better education for parents might be a better use of money. At 6 he shouldn't have been using youtube with the level of supervision that he had. It isn't an appropriate site.

[Believeitornot]

I'm sorry but any company says it is impossible is not trying hard enough. The technology could be developed, there's just no financial incentive to do it.

[imwithspud]

There are some inappropriate and seedy videos on YouTube that can be easily stumbled upon by kids.

Now TV do a kids pass for £2.99 a month (and a 14 day free trial). It has Postman Pat, Fireman Sam, Paw Patrol etc on it, and there are no worries about them coming across something they shouldn't. Would this be an option op?

[Andrewofgg]

But Believeitornot why should they? I say again: it's like a bookshop. If you take your children there you must be responsible for what they look at. Even more so if you let them go alone which is like a child having unsupervised access to the internet.

If it's not illegal for adults (such as child porn) it has a place on the net and the ISPs cannot see who is looking at it.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

Where's murderofgoths when you need her.

I think the only way it's likely to be possible is dismantling the whole internet and starting again from scratch.

You could possibly move to North Korea, but that' probably raises other issues and even then is not a guarantee.

[sandbagsatdawn]

I don't think apps or companies should parent for you but where there are age ratings in place like on youtube then it is their responsibility o make sure people put the right rating on their videos or get banned.

On a slight tangent, I wish Spotify would put a filter on so kids could use it without getting parental advisory lyrics. I signed my 8 year old up to it because she is obsessed with new music and loves exploring and finding new tracks she's not heard on the radio. But it is neatly all the sweary versions of things. Some songs she knows well from the radio edit have filthy lyrics when she finds them on Spotify. I don't see why there can't be a filter to keep parental advisory tracks out. I don't think letting a 8 year old listen to music unsupervised is bad parenting personally .

[SatsukiKusakabe]

The trouble is that kids using the internet would lose its convenience for parents if they had to police. It's not that it's hard to do, it's that it's inconvenient and time-consuming.

[Humidseptember]

mol1628

i think I am going to have to go down that route.