←back to thread

Kagi for Kids

(help.kagi.com)
196 points ryanjamurphy | 3 comments | 31 Mar 25 18:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.638s | source
Show context
Roritharr ◴[31 Mar 25 19:43 UTC] No.43539002[source]▶
What Kagi or anyone could work on, is an actually working version of YouTube Kids.

I literally Pi-Hole Blocked all of YouTube after my son started reading the Bible after a Minecraft Influencer started preaching throughout most of his videos to the point my son became a bit too much interested in the topic.

Not that I'm a rabid atheist or would deny my child such a thing, but if THAT can enter my 8yr olds brain via his short allowed time where he can browse by himself, i'm worried what else is coming his way through it.

I'd love to give him access to valuable videos between rules I describe by natural language and can test myself, but nothing like this exists.

replies(16): >>43539176 #>>43539210 #>>43539266 #>>43539395 #>>43539480 #>>43539569 #>>43539577 #>>43539616 #>>43539643 #>>43540450 #>>43540631 #>>43540721 #>>43540933 #>>43540983 #>>43541985 #>>43542215 #
1. philips ◴[31 Mar 25 22:02 UTC] No.43540450[source]▶
What is wrong with YouTube Kids? I think it works fairly well and use it in my own home: https://abparenting.substack.com/p/effective-youtube-kids
replies(1): >>43541046 #
2. ninkendo ◴[31 Mar 25 23:18 UTC] No.43541046[source]▶
To add to this, YouTube Kids is an entirely different beast altogether depending on if it’s on a touch screen your kid can control, vs on a TV where you have the remote.

I feel a lot of people talk terribly about YouTube Kids because they’re imagining you just hand them a tablet with the app, let them pick what they want to watch, and walk away. And then the kid finds some super suspect videos and gets brainwashed or something.

But here I am letting my 2 and 4 year olds watch Miss Rachel and Super Simple Songs and Big Block Singsong and the occasional Elmo’s World on the TV, while I’m in the room, and people on this forum would call me a monster for doing this… it’s really wild.

replies(1): >>43541481 #
3. BOOSTERHIDROGEN ◴[01 Apr 25 00:18 UTC] No.43541481[source]▶
This is not a new development; HN has been discussing this issue since it became apparent that the content did not meet the expected standards. The situation changed when Google made an effort to implement a whitelist channel feature.