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.
My kids aren't allowed to use TikTok and now Google decided to shove it in Youtube - and make it impossible to block.
It is a very hidden feature though. You have to link your kids account to yours, and then in the Youtube mobile app (not on the web), you can click the three dots button and then share > "with kids"
So that way you can build up a whitelist of channels that they can see in the YT kids account.
Just trying to recreate the media conditions of my youth, with modern content as well as long as it’s “pure”.
I’m also putting me-vetted YouTube content like Kurzgesagt on it.
When you read kurzgesagt's reasoned response, and you consider the motivations of the primary accuser, it's a lot less dramatic than you make it sound. Nobody's perfect; and sometimes organisations' messaging align without it being bought. They are not primarily funded by billionaires, they have editorial independence enforced by contract, and have a lot to lose if that's not the case. Of course, make up your own mind (as kurzgesagt would like you to do); but I'll still be watching their work. If in doubt, check with other sources afterwards! (Like you should anyway).
Towards a better Jellyfin solution, I wonder if adding Whisper and an LLM model could transcribe the YT videos and flag any which contains themes that go against parents values.
I built this with Jellyfin and Home Assistant for my kids: https://github.com/philips/homeassistant-nfc-chromecast
What I do understand is that I don't want my kids being tricked into watching ads because something about watching adults open toys is entertaining.
Not everything has to be competitive or official either. Like you can just go to the community pool during the summer without joining a swim team. I think some parents forget this, but this was normal for previous generations.
So my kid has a few extra curricular activities and then I also do plenty of activities with them at the house like play chess or card games or whatever. They're also watching some of my old favorite sci-fi shows with me. Nearly all of YouTube kids is steaming garbage designed to turn your kid into a mindless consumer. Netflix kids is pretty good though. There are a lot of shows that have character progression and multi season plot arcs that cover complex subjects. Avatar the Last Airbender is an example of a show I was comfortable with my 7 year old watching without worrying about brain rot. Mind you, I think all screen time needs a limit.
by teaching them that work is good and necessary. There's a book by Neil Postman Amusing Ourselves to Death, the central idea of which is that "form excludes content". The problem with Youtube, or in his time TV, isn't just the content, it's that all content by the nature of the medium must be entertaining. If it isn't entertaining, it isn't content.
Hobbies feel like work because they are like work, because most things worth doing have a component of work to them. Rather than just trying to see what sticks, the best thing you can teach kids these days is that they should stick to the thing and that expecting "fun" at all times is a bad expectation to have.
There is a metric ton of professionally made non-commercial content for kids.
What holds me back is knowing that -- if this was an iPad app, for example -- I'd be at the mercy of both Google AND Apple. It's a minefield of sensitive topics:
- Kids & privacy
- Content moderation
- Intellectual property
- Third-party UGC
Way too risky.
sorry there are too many whackos out there. I'd feel more comfortable with my kids learning from Catholic Priests than some random youtuber. In fact, my kids are probably going to go to catholic school.
The reason why we have denominations in part is to maintain the education of the clergy and keep dogma, or theology, in check.
(even if we disagree at times, at least most of the organized christian church can agree on the basic creeds - something that youtube seems hell bent on for clicks is getting you into nontrinitarian and whacky stuff!)
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.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
It's fine if you believe this stuff, and maybe these are layered with beautiful metaphors and it's beautiful when you know the subtext, but I don't think it would be appropriate to read a lot of this to a young child. Maybe you don't agree, but I think it can hardly be surprising that people wouldn't want their kids to read it until they are at least a little older.
[1] Judges 19
[2] Ezekiel 23:20
[3] Genesis 19:30–38
[4] 2 Kings 2:23–25.
Also, it seems an outlier amongst outliers that your child manages to read through the whole of a version of the bible that actually includes those sections, and does it without you noticing and/or explaining that not everything in there should be taken literally.
It's reasonable to supervise what parts of the Bible your kids read at a given and. Sunday schools and kids' Bible story books are usually curated and not teaching those particular parts to kids.
(By today's standards, Lot was date raped, not seduced. Not that that makes it a better story for an 8 year old.)
The Bible is absolutely not suitable for children, except for choice parts. Those people who thought it was a good idea to teach the Bible to small children did a great disservice to those people and to religion. It's a hard core book for adolescents and above.
Mostly agree, though not completely. There are actions that are kind of deemed "moral" that I don't think are good, e.g. Abraham being super willing to murder his son to make God happy. Or Moses killing all the first-born children of Egypt with the Angel of Death. That's pretty evil, and Abraham and Moses are kind of the "heroes" of those stories.
I agree that there is wisdom to be found in there, and that it requires a level of maturity and literary understanding to parse that sometimes. It's a book written over the course of several hundred (thousands?) of years with hundreds of stories, it's not weird to think that there would be some good stuff in there.
> The Bible is absolutely not suitable for children, except for choice parts.
Yeah, I agree with that. The "do unto others" stuff is perfectly fine to teach to small children, and even stuff with slightly more nebulous but ultimately clever themes like the Prodigal Son are fine. I think I'd save the stuff about murdering and mutilating concubines until you're comfortable with them watching R-rated movies.
That's not a dig in itself, though. My favorite movie of all time is Ghost in the Shell (1995). It's got lots of wisdom and cleverness and to me it's nearly perfect, but if I had kids I don't think I'd let them watch it until they were 13 or 14, even though I don't think that the themes in it are harmful or endorsing bad behavior.
Sacrificing your own children is a human behaviour so common through history and with different cultures, that it's basically a biological instinct. Even today parents send their sons to die in industrialized war to prove their faith for the government, as well as sacrifice their children in ways that are less explicit than that - always to prove their faith and loyalty to the entity they worship religiously, whether that's a man worshipped as a god, or a disembodied concept that they worship, such as "the state".
The story of Abraham is a way to break that spell. The primitive human instinct is to worship by giving gifts, and then naturally giving the greatest gift you can give to prove your faith, which is your child. I interpret the story of Abraham as a clever way to break one of the most evil and persistent traditions of humanity, which is child sacrifice. And the story is much more efficient than simply saying "You shouldn't sacrifice your own children".
Put yourself in his shoes (there have probably been thousands of Abrahams through time). If he says "I'm not going to sacrifice my child", the tribespeople will say that his God is weak because Abraham dares to give less of a sacrifice than the best, or that Abraham puts his own desires in front of what's good for the tribe (pleasing God or any god). If God told him to sacrifice his son and God later changed his mind, that's another thing.
The story puts an effective limit on the level of worship. Sacrifice animals sure, but don't sacrifice your own children.
Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic wars of genocide is the natural condition of humans as a species. That is the simple answer to why humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years without making any progress before something strange happened and we became enlightened.
Seeing as the Bible is a collection of stories that where told for thousands of years before being written down, I would think that there are entire generations and cultures who have live by those stories and commands for longer than the Bible has existed in any form. Pre-civilization tribes that we know nothing about. The Bible is our deepest probe into deep time, and absolutely fascinating.
I don't know that I agree with your take, I don't think it's meant to be interpreted as a limit to sacrifice. If that's what you got out of it, that's good, I don't think you should sacrifice humans, but that wasn't the vibe I got from the story at all; the vibe I got was that "you should always listen to God if you want to be moral, and God will make sure that the right thing happens."
The whole point of the story is that Abraham is even willing to sacrifice the son he loves because god wills it. It's a story about having faith that there is a good reason for what god requests of you, even if you don't always know what it is. Abraham is virtuous because he doesn't question at all.
I'm not sure anymore if the story skips over the heartache this undoubtedly causes him.
Of course more cynical people immediately ask why god needs Abraham to sacrifice his son to no apparent benefit other than to prove his faith in the first place.
> I don't think you should sacrifice humans
And why not? In a different time and a different place that would have been the normal, decent and rational thing to do, and if you didn't then people would look very strangely at you.
I don't know. Maybe a lot of people agree with the message of "always listen to God and things will work out". That doesn't mean it's good morality, or a good way to live your life. While there's certainly selection bias in good stories surviving the test of time, I don't think it's 100% given that an old story is inherently good.
If you found meaning in the story, that's great. I just don't know that meaning was the authors' intent. That might not matter to you, that's fine, but I simply did not get the message of "Abraham + Isaac is actually a limitation on sacrifice".
> And why not? In a different time and a different place that would have been the normal, decent and rational thing to do, and if you didn't then people would look very strangely at you.
I can't know what it's like to have lived thousands of years ago, so I can only answer from someone in the late 20th and early 21st century. The reason I think you shouldn't sacrifice humans now is because I value human life, and that I think it would be wrong to deprive that person of life to appease a God that I do not think exists. There are times where ending a life might be justified, like physician assisted suicide, or self defense, and probably a few other cases, but none of those reasons are to appease a god.
I don't pretend that I have any kind of objective morality on this, I'm not even sure if I believe in objective morality as a concept,
So you can imagine a story teller thousands of years ago telling the other people around the bonfire "And even though he didn't make the sacrifice, he still got more than the full reward".
> The reason I think you shouldn't sacrifice humans now is because I value human life, and that I think it would be wrong to deprive that person of life to appease a God that I do not think exists.
And what proof do you have? We know that the tribe two rivers away sacrifices all men they capture from their neighbouring enemy tribe, and they receive great rewards from their god, who blesses them with better hunting (less competition), better luck in war (lesser enemy forces), and more or healthier children (better nourishment). So it is proven that human sacrifice gives you blessings of the gods. If you want to break with custom, maybe our tribe should banish you and get a new leader?
What I want to illustrate above is that it probably took an immense effort for a leader or for anybody, who thousands of years decided to not do human sacrifice, and managed to convince his tribe against all common sense. This in an environment where it had been custom since the beginning of time, and where tribes naturally expanded in population and territory until game started to become scarce and tensions arose. That's why I think the story of Abraham (or whoever it was originally) is so dramatic and has been remembered throughout the ages. It brought a whole new perspective to sacrifice that probably sounded completely insane to the average person at the time. "Why would a god not want his sacrifice? And why would he reward somebody who didn't give him his sacrifice?".
The materialists who read my comment will probably start connecting the retreat of human sacrifice with the shift from hunting gathering to pastoralism, which is a connection I would also like to make.
Edit: I also think it's super interesting that you bring up the authors intent. In my perspective on these old myths, the original intent is almost meaningless, since the stories have been told thousands of times before they were ever written down, meaning the story must have some core that touches the human soul in a universal way. Or probably that this situation happened so many times with different people that there is no "original" story.
As it stands, it's a decidedly kind of weird story where we're supposed to root for Abraham, despite the fact that he was willing to sacrifice another human being just because someone told him to. Yes, that someone was "God", but that doesn't change my point.
I have to admit that I didn't completely understand where you were going with the second part. I'm not sure what you were asking in regards to "what proof I have"? Proof that I don't think a God exists? Proof that I value human life? Proof that I think it's wrong to kill someone just because you hear a voice that tells you to? Even if that voice actually were God?
I mean, I don't really know how to prove that. That's just my belief, I guess you could say I'm lying about that, but I don't know what to tell you there.
That was me channeling the tribesmen, that any Abraham would have to respond to, especially if he wanted to continue being their leader or have an influence on decision. They would offer plenty of proof that human sacrifice was beneficial, and that this is evidence that gods exist and that they are keeping up their end of the bargain. How would you answer to them and actually manage to make them consider your new idea?
> I think the story would have been more powerful if Abraham himself had decided to not do the sacrifice, and deciding that no matter what God is offering it's not worth it, sort of like the Huck Finn "All right, then, I'll go to hell". That would be an interesting case of doing what you know is right, no matter who is telling you to do something wrong.
I would say it is evident that the story already is plenty powerful, considering how long it has survived through the ages. And what you are saying can also be read through the lines as what happened. An overwhelming force was influencing Abraham to sacrifice his son. The force of custom was and still is incredibly powerful over people and their decisions, a disembodied force, which probably was experienced by prehistoric man as a speaking entity. Then a moment of enlightenment, a break from old conventions and the realization that great rewards can be had without having to make great sacrifices. But by following other conventions, obeying a set of rules in life instead of seeing deities as trading partners giving blessings in exchange for sacrifices.
If we want to go a step further, it is also a slight break from egocentrism. Something most children go through, but that maybe prehistoric man never grew out of. What I mean by egocentrism is that the premise of sacrifice for reward is the dumb idea that "If I loose something (by sacrificing it), then that means somebody gained it". Since there's no physical being around who gained, well it is the spirits who gained it. Instead of realizing that whatever was sacrificed was simply spoilt. But not a total break of course, as that ram in the bushes was still sacrificed.
That's an extremely generous interpretation. You say the story is about breaking the cycle of pernicious child sacrifice. But there's nothing in the story that supports that view, you just said it because it's the most palatable interpretation of a straightforward story: Obey God, and he may give you mercy (not having to kill your kid). And you conveniently ignore Moses killing all the first-borns.
> Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic wars of genocide is the natural condition of humans as a species
There is no "ritual" wars without religion. Religion is what is natural to humanity, as it develops in every culture without fail. Whether you worship Jesus or the Sun, the belief in an afterlife if you follow the rules the last generation handled to you is what leads to terrible deeds, because you can justify anything.
> The story puts an effective limit on the level of worship
No, it doesn't. Many innocent people are sacrificed or ordered to be killed throughout the verses. Jephthah sacrifices his daughter. Saul is asked to kill women and children.
> Seeing as the Bible is a collection of stories that where told for thousands of years before being written down
If by told for a thousand years before being written down, you mean edited, distorted, and mistranslated to the convenience of whoever was in power at the time, yes.
I don't think it's really Moses killing all the first-borns. It's God. While he's complicit to some extent, he doesn't really have a choice in the matter.
While he could theoretically ask for mercy, God isn't exactly known for his compassion at that point in the story. He only really mellows out a bit when he has his own child.
Not to mention that Moses's got pretty good motivation. How many people stuck in a concentration camp would happily murder all first-borns in Germany given the chance?
Additionally, if it's God killing all the firstborns, then it's still a bit odd. He's omniscient, shouldn't he be above petty things like revenge?
Something about creating man in his image? I think I’ve had that discussion before. To make anything he does reasonable, his omnicience and omnipotence need to have limits.
That would be a very convenient conclusion, but ultimately not true. Willfully misinterpreting a story so that it sounds morally palatable for a modern world is not a different level of understanding, it's propaganda, and it's extremely common.
And when I'm not doing my day job, I am reading, discussing, and interpreting stories. Drawing subtext involves evidence from the text itself. You are making up subtext. There's a difference, and it's transparent.
I only engaged because you give lots of grace to Christianity and disrespect to everything else, which is annoying to read, but also not even based in real digestion of the work.
> Willfully misinterpreting
I don't think it works this way. If we've established that we're trying to interpret something, you cannot just claim that your interpretation is the right one, and someone else's is wrong.
Really? Do you feel the same way about Bluebeard? Cinderella? This isn't a rare motif in children's stories.
The original somewhat gory Cinderella stories? I might wait until they're a bit older.
I don't have kids, so this is all hypothetical, of course.
I might be misremembering it somewhat, but I believe that's the gist.
> 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.
How does one live a good life? Every religion tries to answer that question. Has the GP sufficiently replaced religion with something else to help their child answer that question?
One life is too short and too permanent to figure it out from trial and error so we have an instinct for myth to help guide us. That's why religion evolved.
You can help your child navigate that problem and separate doctrine from the helpful parts, or try to shelter them from scary ideas. Good luck with the latter strategy, especially if you want them to have a relationship with you as adults.
> Good luck with the latter strategy, especially if you want them to have a relationship with you as adults.
Again, you seem to live a sheltered life that you think people who don't read the bible are somehow broken people from broken families who are afraid of "scary ideas." I imagine if your child was reading the Quran you would not react this way.
Our families are fine. Focus on your own.
I have kids and I too would be concerned if they suddenly took interest in a topic. Not that long ago two twelve year old girls murdered their friend because "Slenderman".
Religious topics can lead to radicalization and/or cults.
Not that it changes your point at all, which I think I completely agree with.
I take my children to church a couple times a year, so they can experience it. I would take them more often but we live in a area where churches are more culturally influential and function like social/status clubs, which means that there are more people who are there to be seen rather than there to because of agreement or sharing an ideology.
I haven't read all of it, a lot of the Bible is a pretty dry read, but I have read most of it, and it has been at least a little illuminating to see what people will use for justification of stuff.
How do you inform yourself about reading the Bible? Conflicts about interpretation, applicability, cultural context, personal context, translation, true original text, and even canon? I find the biggest problem (with both Biblical literalists and atheists!) is the tendency to read it as one book by one author. It is not even one genre! Or are you just interested in how a literal reading influences American politics?
If you are talking about people using the Bible in a political context, most of the time they are misusing it. Not only are they cherry-picking but Jesus was apolitical ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's"). The book I mentioned argues that this evolved into separation of church and state (a concept that has been far more successful in historically Christian countries).
Yes. A lot of conservatives claim that the Bible is the literal inerrant word of God.
Classical traditionalists, of course, use LEGO Bible.
It's easy to say "Deuteronomy says to murder all non believers!" and then point to an example of a Christian killing a Muslim (or something) and assume that that was their motivation, and maybe it was, but also maybe it was just a homicidal maniac who gravitated to this book specifically because they could use it to justify what they were going to do anyway.
It's really tough to say, and I'm not going to pretend I know the answer.
Suicide bombers (e.g. the 9/11 terrorists) might be an example in your favor though. You're probably not driving airplanes into buildings if you don't really believe in what you're doing.
I don't know. As I said, I've gone back and forth.
More to the point though; when the violence is occurring the author's work is used as a justification. If not their work, someone else's would do.
This statement falls on its face with any examination. You're implying the Bible is on the same level as, say, Catcher in the Rye. As in, a book that was used as an excuse to kill by an already deranged outlier.
The Bible was explicit law in the history of many countries. Non-practitioners were considered second class citizens. Entire economies were thrown into crusades to rape and pillage people specifically in the name of Christ. Generations of children were indoctrinated into believing this was okay. It's not remotely accurate to say "well if it wasn't this, it would be something else." This is a system, not an accident.
I have conversations to this day with relatives that the crusades were completely okay because it was in the name of God. This is not ancient history, this is what religion does. It's just uncomfortable to say out loud because then we'd be admitting that Christians are, mostly, okay with dehumanizing everyone else.
This is true for not just Christianity but also Islam(see Suni/Shia split, treatment of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule) and Buddhists(Key quote from wiki: "However, Buddhists have historically used scriptures to justify violence or form exceptions to commit violence for various reasons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence).
I would say that if you take "Catcher in the Rye" expand upon it you could get a following that reaches the same level as the Bible and have fanatics that will use it's message for justification for violence.
Look at the Hutu/Tutsi conflict, this is not based on religion but still has the same dehumanizing going on.
In the US, there have been several 'feuds' that have members of one family killing another over slights, the Hatfield-McCoy being the most famous.
All it takes is a slight difference to separate groups of people, for example going to a different school.
"The Carolina fans that week were carrying around a poster with the image of a tiger with a gamecock standing on top of it, holding the tiger's tail as if he was steering the tiger by the tail," Jay McCormick said. "Naturally, the Clemson guys didn't take too kindly to that, and on Wednesday and again on Thursday, there were sporadic fistfights involving brass knuckles and other objects and so forth, some of which resulted, according to the newspapers, in blood being spilled and persons having to seek medical assistance. After the game on Thursday, the Clemson guys frankly told the Carolina students that if you bring this poster, which is insulting to us, to the big parade on Friday, you're going to be in trouble. And naturally, of course, the Carolina students brought the poster to the parade. If you give someone an ultimatum and they are your rival, they're going to do exactly what you told them not to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemson%E2%80%93South_Carolina...
Sources?
Considering it’s god is a raging and abusive narcissist[0], and how often the religion is used as a tool to justify hatred, physical and psychological abuse, I would be just as concerned at someone actively trying to proselytize. Religion is entirely unnecessary for a moral upbringing.
I would likewise be just as concerned if 4chan’s /pol/ started to target my kids with their propaganda. There’s a strong difference between intellectual good faith exploration of politics and world events, and harmful radical indoctrination intent on controlling their actions and reactions.
As another poster said, at best it’s a good opportunity to sit down with your kids, and show them the tricks and traps being used against them, but they are too inexperienced to be let alone to be preyed upon with impunity.
[0] A wonderful resource outlining the parallels, which helped me escape from the abuse I grew up with: https://www.youtube.com/@TheraminTrees/videos
At times. It's actually not coherent enough to have a single 'god'. The guy gets different characterisation in different parts.
Strong claim. I like the idea, but wish they were more realistic about what they can provide. If you ever get a Reddit result you're likely one click away from harmful content.
That said, I like the lenses applied in this case. It may be the best we can get today in terms of search filtering.
I think aiming for better rather than perfect is the best option, as you said. As long as it's framed in this way, and not as an ideal option to let your impressionable child loose on the internet.
I have been really happy with NextDNS though. My kids, not so much. But hey ... that's parenting.
Granted, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to build filters. I'm just rather pessimistic about a hands-off experience with such software.
I don't want my kids to be able to "discover" content. Why is that always the feature? Rhetorical question....I know the answer, engagement and stickiness. I just don't like the answer.
I have two young kids of my own (4, almost 2) and have so far been able to avoid the issues of letting them free roam on the net, but it's obviously something that's coming. This was not something I ever paid attention to in my youth but now as a parent the open internet completely terrifies me. And I say that as a core millennial that basically grew up with the internet.
The current status quo of "kids friendly" content (eg YouTube Kids) is mostly awful. I would still never let my young kids browse something like that without supervision.
I am appreciative that Kagi knows this is an issue and is investing into the area.
I'm so glad the worst I feel like I ran into were freaky gore/porn.
I stumbled with some f up stuff that i still remember to this day. But somehow I'm grateful that it wasn't the current brainrot
I think the first and best way to ensure this is to not do it yourself.
On this topic I have been drafting and collecting thoughts on internet and digital media curation the last few nights. Here is what I have so far:
Thesis: The role of children's teachers and caretakers in curating an environment for children to learn and grow is more important than ever with the overwhelming variety of books, videos, shows, etc all of varying quality and alignment with caretaker and child interests. However, curation in the digital age is also more difficult than ever. The web is a collection of walled gardens which give parents limited and inconsistent controls over what the child will see once inside the walled garden. And, adding controls on-top of a walled garden is impossible or only possible by very computer savvy users (e.g. YouTube frontends).
What are ways care takers can practically and easily curate today?
Examples
- YouTube Kids: https://abparenting.substack.com/p/effective-youtube-kids
- Jellyfin or Calibre for ebooks
- Open WebUI with a custom system prompt for kids
Counter Examples
- Netflix, Disney, Amazon, etc: difficult to non-existent curation controls - all or nothing
- Kindle Kids: there are controls but for Library books the process is 12+ clicks between the Libby and Kindle app: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/can-you-share-kindl...
"Our young students are just beginning to develop their powers of discernment. By curating a good library collection, we can help them learn to weigh the merits of a few authoritative works on a subject rather than plowing through hundreds of internet sources of uneven quality. And while a computer search is undeniably efficient, we firmly believe that browsing a shelf of books is more rewarding and more educational. It deepens students' understanding of organizational principles, brings them unexpected discoveries, and rewards patient exploration rather than offering instant gratification"
I read it a few times and saw only one plan. What’s the second one? If it’s the Team plan, that seems like poor copy.
(Kagi Ultimate subscriber here)
I'm not exactly certain but under the family tab there are two options: Duo and Family
In 2025, id definately prefer kicking dirt as a kid.
However, they're all subscribed to SkibidiDirtKickerz on Tiktok, YouTube and Snapchat. Don't forget to smash that like button!
I love it
The internet is wildly useful but it's just filled with so much trash and thanks to google going horribly terribly south, search doesn't work anymore.
Which means kids are no longer able to actually have the joy of surfing the web and finding very interesting things to read.
So the main question that I have is, is there a guarantee that bad sites will not show up here?
Given that everyone has different definitions of "bad" and that someone malicious can put bad stuff on "good" sites, no.
Kagi allowing you to assign what is good and bad makes your argument void.
> So the main question that I have is, is there a guarantee that bad sites will not show up here?
You shouldn't rely on the company alone. While it may be what Kagi is aiming for but they can only do so much.
If you're concerned for your kids you too should always double check if the content is good/bad regularly.
Not sure why my argument is void, but you restating my exact point with different words is valid?
If so, you then got to expect what Kagi decides what is bad and what is good and accept that's it.
It could be bias it could be not. I like to think they know but I personally would never put all my eggs in one basket.
What?
Parent commenter asked if it was guaranteed to block the bad stuff. I answered no. That's the entire conversation summarized.
Then you came in, said I was wrong, and then answered the question with "no", just like I did.
I didn't say anything about my expectations, or what I would do, or how I do it.
OP comment comes off as "I want Kagi to do it for me and to be how I want it" when Kagi doesn't know what you want blocked. How can it? If Kagi is to support blocking why wouldn't they?
I am saying what Kagi wants to block may not be the bad stuff you want blocked and so you should then verify the content of what is blocked.
I think you are...
The only thing I've said in this comment chain is that Kagi cannot guarantee that bad stuff won't show up. Which you seem to agree with (despite saying my argument is void, for some reason, before agreeing with it).
The rest has been you having a conversation with... I'm not sure who. Because you're asking a bunch of questions as if I am using this feature. I am not using this feature. Literally the only point I am making is that Kagi cannot guarantee that bad things wont show up.
Your argument is moot in that sense. Just because it's good today doesn't mean it won't be bad tomorrow. If Kagi is putting best efforts to guarantee that today it's safe that's better than nothing, no? And which to me is kore worthy than not.
