Let me guess, they won't be reducing exposure to "body positivity" videos that encourage teenagers to be as fat as they want?

I thought this article was going to be like "YouTube restricted one teenager's access to fitness videos"... but yeah, this is a pretty sane move on YouTube's part.

"Sane" or "Insane"?

Human society has always been glorifying certain body types and physical violence all the way back to ancient Greek and very likely way earlier. There is nothing wrong with admiring and chasing after a fitness ideal.

To make a steelman out of this case, I guess we can argue overexposure and extreme promotions of unrealistic ideals can warp impressionable young minds. But even then I disagree that Youtube alone has the moral standard and authority to regulate and censor this. They are a corporation, one of the least moral entities currently around in modern time. They have no right to pick and choose what kids can and cannot watch.

They're not picking and choosing. YouTube didn't wake up one morning and say we should stop recommending fitness videos to teens. They are responding to massive social pressure from parents who for the most part are very sick of fighting their kids on one hand and rapacious enterprises determined to exploit those kids on the other hand.

Please note that Youtube is not preventing teenagers from watching fitness content. Rather, they are simply not recommending it as much in the Youtube recommendation algorithm. No new categories of videos will be age restricted.

Does this change your view of Youtube's new stance?

The article said "stop recommending" and to me that is functionally "stop providing access".

Personally, I believe for most people, the algorithm is all of Youtube. It controls what show up on the side bar and on the search page. How many people would go beyond those to find a video? By changing the algorithm, YT can effectively restricting access to certain contents.

Regardless, my point doesn't change. A corporation does not have the standing and should not be allowed to regulate moral matters. They operate on completely different principles and letting them control what a person can and cannot see or hear would not end well.

Lol perhaps this post title will promote a lot of "I read the title not the article" comments.

I don't understand your concern. The conversation surrounding the negative impact of social media has been going on for some time now. But also, they already pick and choose what most of us watch through their recommendation system.

The headline is wrong, presumably the editor did not read the article. YouTube is changing its recommendation system, not limiting access to anything.

It's also not a huge change:

> YouTube said it will now limit repeated recommendations of videos that: Idealise particular fitness levels or weight groups; Compare and idealise certain physical features, or; Are socially aggressive, meaning they show intimidation or fighting.

> YouTube already restricts teenagers’ access to some content involving eating disorders and physical fights.

So they've expanded the ana/mia content recommendation filter to encompass fitspo and maybe are expanding the fighting filter in some way. I can't tell if that middle line item is thirst traps or incel face shape analysis.

Nothing seems especially egregious here. I don't think this will impact relatively normal health and athleticism focused channels.