By: David Kleeman

As many of my colleagues have written, the streaming wars are over and YouTube has won. In February, YouTube was the most-watched streaming service, with 11.6% of all TV viewing—a new high. That represents more than half of the total views of all US broadcast services combined.

A substantial portion of those viewers are kids and teens, for whom YouTube is MeTV. Whatever their passion, hobby or fandom, young people find content and community on YouTube. And it’s also their research platform—we sometimes refer to YouTube as “Kid Google,” since kids often prefer finding their answers on video instead of in print.

And so, with kids and teens in mind, YouTube recently announced a Youth Digital Wellbeing Initiative. The goal is to foster learning and wellness, teach media and digital literacy, and de-emphasize those videos the platform rates as “low quality.”

YouTube’s quality guidelines for children were developed by an advisory board of academics, child development specialists and safety/privacy experts.

The “high-quality” assessment is based both on what’s included and what’s missing in a particular video. Current values include demonstrating respectful and healthy behaviors, promoting critical thinking, encouraging creativity and reflecting diversity and inclusion. On the other side of the coin, the elements that are considered ‘low quality’—and should therefore be absent—involve heavy commercialism, dangerous or disrespectful behavior, sensationalism and “deceptive” educational claims.

Particularly for a user-generated content platform like YouTube—where videos originate from a full spectrum of producers, ranging from global studios to backyard creators—both the constructive and detrimental features are incredibly valuable for makers to keep in mind. 

The best results will come from using the positive elements as touchstones throughout production and conducting an iterative review to stay on target. This is true whether the development and production process lasts a few hours (as with many creators today), or extends over months or years.

The success of the Youth Digital Wellbeing Initiative rests on the shoulders of four stakeholders—YouTube, creators, parents and children. YouTube has to be transparent and consistent in applying and conveying its content promotion and demotion decisions. Creators must adopt best practices, and this requires feedback from YouTube. Parents need (and deserve) support materials, not only on the quality rubric itself but also on how to engage their children in discussions around media and digital literacy.

But with the fourth group—kids themselves—it gets more complicated. A checklist of what’s present or absent isn’t always enough to determine “quality.” Much depends on the particular child’s unique needs and interests. It’s altogether possible for YouTube content to tap into a child’s unique interest or curiosity without explicitly aligning with any of YouTube’s high-quality guidelines. 

However, it becomes more problematic and challenging for parents when the videos in question are rife with low-quality or age-inappropriate elements.

Most parents have experienced their kid latching onto a video (or a song, book or game, for that matter) that seems problematic but clearly fulfills some special purpose for the child. It’s impossible to ask an algorithm to anticipate every child’s unique personality or maturity level—or keep up with kids’ quickly-changing enthusiasms (although algorithms can learn). 

Nevertheless, it is possible for creators to produce content that reflects a deep understanding of the kids they hope to reach; for YouTube to add human touch that sees beyond the rubric; and for parents to be thoughtful and open to talking with their child about why some content may not be suitable.

In other words, leave room for the kid.

David Kleeman is SVP of global trends for Dubit, a research and strategy consultancy and games studio. He has worked in children’s media for more than 35 years.

Photo by Ivan Samkov/Pexels