Why Disabling YouTube Shorts on TV Matters for Families

YouTube Shorts have exploded in popularity, generating over 70 billion daily views globally, according to Google’s own disclosures. While that number excites advertisers and creators, it raises a serious concern for families using YouTube on smart TVs. The most frustrating part of using YouTube on TV today is the complete lack of an option to disable Shorts, especially when children are watching.

On television screens, Shorts autoplay aggressively, pulling kids into endless loops of short-form content that often includes nuisance material, questionable language, or outright offensive visuals. Even with YouTube Kids available, there’s no dedicated kids-only TV app, and children can easily switch back to the main YouTube interface within seconds.

For parents—especially YouTube Premium subscribers—this feels like a glaring oversight. You pay for control, quality, and peace of mind, yet Shorts remain unavoidable. This article explores why disabling YouTube Shorts on TV is no longer optional, how current solutions fall short, and why Google must act now to protect families worldwide.

Why YouTube Shorts on TV Are a Serious Problem

• Kids and Algorithmic Addiction: 

Short-form video is engineered for maximum engagement. Research from the Center for Humane Technology shows that infinite-scroll video formats significantly increase dopamine-driven consumption, especially in children under 13. On TV, Shorts autoplay without friction, removing natural stopping cues.

Kids don’t actively choose Shorts—they’re pulled into them. One swipe becomes ten minutes. Ten minutes becomes an hour. Unlike long-form videos, Shorts offer no narrative closure, making it harder for children to disengage. On a large TV screen, this effect intensifies, turning passive viewing into compulsive behavior.

• Exposure to Inappropriate Content

YouTube’s moderation systems struggle with scale. A 2023 Mozilla Foundation study found that over 40% of recommended short-form videos contained misleading, harmful, or age-inappropriate material. 

Shorts amplify this risk because they rely heavily on trending audio, memes, and shock value.

Parents report seeing violent pranks, sexualized dance clips, and offensive language appear within minutes of Shorts autoplay. On TV, there’s no quick way to block or report content discreetly. The living room becomes an unfiltered feed, undermining parental trust.

• Lack of Effective Parental Controls

YouTube offers parental controls—but they’re fragmented. Restrictions apply inconsistently across devices, and Shorts often bypass traditional filters. Even when Restricted Mode is enabled, Shorts still surface questionable material due to their rapid upload cycle.

Unlike Netflix or Disney+, YouTube doesn’t allow profile-level feature toggles. You can’t say, “No Shorts for this account.” That absence forces parents into constant supervision, which isn’t realistic in busy households.

• TV Interface Makes Shorts Harder to Avoid

On mobile, you can scroll past Shorts. On TV, they dominate the homepage. The remote control interface makes accidental clicks common, especially for kids. Once inside Shorts, exiting isn’t intuitive.

Suggested visual: Screenshot comparison of YouTube TV homepage vs mobile app highlighting Shorts prominence.

This design prioritizes engagement over usability, ignoring how families actually use TVs—as shared, communal spaces.

Why YouTube Kids Isn’t a Complete Solution

• Easy Switching Between Apps

YouTube Kids exists, but it’s not locked down. On most smart TVs, switching from YouTube Kids to regular YouTube takes two clicks. There’s no PIN enforcement by default, and kids quickly learn how to bypass restrictions.

A Common Sense Media survey found that 62% of parents reported their children accessing regular YouTube despite having YouTube Kids installed. That statistic alone proves the system isn’t working as intended.

• Limited Content Depth

YouTube Kids filters aggressively, sometimes excessively. Educational creators often find their content excluded, while repetitive cartoons dominate recommendations. Older kids feel constrained and naturally migrate back to regular YouTube.

This creates a paradox: YouTube Kids is too restrictive, while YouTube is too permissive. Shorts worsen this gap by offering instant gratification without educational value.

• No Dedicated Kids-Only TV App

Unlike Netflix Kids or Amazon Kids+, YouTube lacks a standalone kids-only TV environment. There’s no sandboxed experience where parents can relax knowing boundaries are enforced at the system level.

Platform	Kids Profiles	Feature Toggles
Netflix	Yes	Yes
Disney+	Yes	Yes
Amazon Prime	Yes	Yes
YouTube	Partial	No

• Real-World Parenting Challenges

Parents aren’t asking for perfection. They’re asking for options. In real homes, TVs stay on while meals are cooked or chores are done. Shorts exploit those moments, pulling kids into content parents never approved.

This isn’t about censorship. It’s about contextual control—something YouTube currently ignores.

Why YouTube Premium Users Deserve a Shorts Disable Option

Premium Expectations vs Reality

YouTube Premium promises an ad-free, enhanced experience. Globally, Premium has over 100 million subscribers, many of whom are families. Yet Premium offers no additional parental controls beyond ad removal.

For paying users, the inability to disable Shorts feels like a broken promise. You’re funding the platform, yet you can’t customize it to suit your household’s needs.

Benefits of a Shorts Toggle

A simple toggle—“Disable Shorts”—would solve multiple problems instantly:

• Reduces screen addiction
• Improves content quality
• Restores long-form discovery
• Builds trust with families

This isn’t technically complex. YouTube already segments content types internally. The absence of this feature is a product decision, not a technical limitation.

Competitive Platform Comparisons

TikTok faces similar criticism, yet it offers Family Pairing, screen time limits, and content filters. Instagram allows Reels restrictions for teen accounts. YouTube, ironically the oldest platform, lags behind.

Suggested visual: Timeline infographic showing evolution of parental controls across platforms.

What Google Can Implement Today

Google doesn’t need a redesign. It needs intent. Practical steps include:

1. Profile-level Shorts toggle
2. Premium-only advanced controls
3. PIN-protected app switching
4. Kids-safe TV mode

These changes would immediately reduce backlash and improve brand trust.

My Final Thoughts

Disabling YouTube Shorts on TV isn’t a niche request—it’s a global parenting necessity. As short-form video continues to dominate attention spans, platforms must balance engagement with responsibility. Right now, YouTube leans too far toward growth at the expense of families.

For YouTube Premium users especially, the lack of a Shorts disable option feels unjustifiable. You’re paying for control, yet forced into an experience that undermines it. Google has the data, the resources, and the responsibility to act.

Until meaningful controls exist, parents remain stuck between constant supervision and digital surrender. That’s not sustainable. It’s time for YouTube to recognize that choice is the ultimate premium feature.

If you believe families deserve better control over YouTube on TV, share this article, raise your voice, and push for change. Platforms listen when users speak—especially when they speak together.

TRAI: A Silent Spectator to Telecom Monopoly in India?

India’s telecom industry has undergone massive transformations over the years, with major players like Jio, Airtel, and Vi dominating the market. While competition once drove affordability, the industry now seems to be shifting towards monopolistic practices, burdening consumers with unjustified price hikes. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), which should act as a watchdog, appears to be turning a blind eye to the telecom giants' arrogance.

The lack of policy regulations to curb exploitative pricing tactics raises serious concerns about consumer rights and digital accessibility in India. Instead of protecting consumers, TRAI’s inaction is making way for these telecom giants to refine existing plans under the guise of affordability while, in reality, stripping consumers of budget-friendly options.

Let’s delve into the pressing issues surrounding TRAI’s regulatory stance and the growing telecom monopoly.

1. Telecom Companies' Exploitative Pricing Strategies

Telecom providers in India are continuously revising their pricing models, often at the expense of consumers. The lack of strict regulatory intervention has enabled these companies to increase tariffs arbitrarily.

• Refining Existing Plans as ‘Affordable’ Options Telecom companies have mastered the art of tweaking already existing plans, branding them as ‘affordable’ while actually increasing costs in the long run. A plan that once offered a certain amount of data and talk time now comes with reduced benefits under the pretext of improved services.
• Disguised Tariff Hikes By eliminating entry-level plans, telecom providers are forcing consumers into pricier options. For example, eliminating the Rs. 99 plan and introducing a new ‘basic plan’ priced at Rs. 155 effectively pushes consumers to pay more for the same services.
• Bundling of Unnecessary Services Another tactic is bundling unnecessary value-added services with core plans, making essential mobile services more expensive. Consumers who simply need basic calling and data services are forced to pay extra for OTT subscriptions or digital content they don’t require.
• Absence of Regulatory Price Caps Unlike other essential services, there are no stringent price caps on telecom tariffs. The lack of intervention from TRAI has emboldened telecom companies to introduce arbitrary hikes, leaving consumers with no viable alternatives.

2. TRAI’s Role: Regulator or Passive Observer?

TRAI was established to regulate the telecom industry, ensuring fair competition and consumer protection. However, recent trends suggest it is acting more as a spectator rather than a proactive regulatory body.

• Failure to Enforce Consumer-Friendly Policies Despite the significant outcry over tariff hikes, TRAI has not introduced robust policies to regulate pricing strategies. This inaction raises concerns over its ability to function independently and hold telecom giants accountable.
• Ignoring Public Complaints Consumer complaints regarding unfair billing, network issues, and hidden charges are met with little to no response from TRAI. Without a strict grievance redressal mechanism, consumers are left to accept whatever pricing changes telecom providers impose.
• Lack of Competition Due to Consolidation The Indian telecom industry has witnessed massive consolidation, reducing the number of key players. With Vodafone Idea (Vi) struggling financially, Jio and Airtel are effectively forming a duopoly, allowing them to dictate prices without fear of competition.
• No Transparency in Pricing Models TRAI has failed to ensure transparency in pricing structures. Tariff plans are modified without clear justifications, and consumers are often left confused about the terms and conditions of their services.

3. Need for Stronger Policy Reforms

To prevent telecom companies from exploiting Indian mobile users, there is an urgent need for stricter regulatory measures. Here’s what TRAI should be focusing on:

• Mandatory Basic Tier Plans A government-mandated basic plan should be introduced to ensure affordability for all users, particularly those from lower-income groups. This will prevent telecom providers from eliminating low-cost options.
• Tariff Hike Approvals & Justifications Telecom companies should be required to justify any proposed tariff hikes with clear cost-benefit analyses. A regulatory body should approve these hikes to prevent arbitrary increases.
• Better Consumer Grievance Redressal Mechanisms TRAI should establish a robust system for handling consumer complaints efficiently. A transparent resolution framework would ensure consumer interests are protected against unfair charges and services.
• Promoting Healthy Market Competition The government and TRAI should encourage new entrants into the telecom sector to prevent monopolistic practices. Policies that enable fair competition will ultimately benefit consumers with better pricing and services.

Conclusion

TRAI’s passive stance on telecom pricing has raised serious concerns about its role in regulating the industry. As telecom giants continue to hike tariffs and eliminate affordable options, Indian consumers are left with no choice but to comply. Without strong policy interventions, the telecom industry’s monopolistic grip will only tighten, leading to higher costs and reduced accessibility.

It’s time for TRAI to stop being a mere spectator and take decisive action. The government must implement stricter regulations to ensure fair pricing, transparency, and competition. If left unchecked, telecom companies will continue to exploit millions of Indian mobile users, making basic connectivity a luxury rather than a necessity.

Airtel's worst support with premium bills, recharge and Broken Trust

Ever felt like you’re shouting into a void when trying to resolve a billing error? You’re not alone. Telecom giants like Airtel have perfected the art of dodging accountability—using bots as human shields. This isn’t just about a ₹489 recharge mistake; it’s about systemic apathy that prioritizes profit over people. When I accidentally overlapped my Airtel plans, I became collateral damage in a system rigged to frustrate, exhaust, and silence customers. Let’s dissect how telecom companies weaponize automation to sideline complaints and what you can do to claw back your rights. Spoiler: Bots won’t win this war.

The Bot Barrier: How Automation Shields Telecom Giants

Automation was meant to streamline support. Instead, Airtel’s chatbots feel like digital bouncers—keeping you out of the VIP lounge where real solutions exist. Here’s how the "bot barrier" works:

• Scripted Dead Ends: The Airtel Thanks App’s chatbot offered options like “Track Usage” or “Recharge Now.” My plea to reverse an accidental recharge? Nowhere in the menu.
• Complaint Black Holes: After 20 minutes of robotic exchanges, I received complaint number #AIR7890. It’s like getting a lottery ticket… for a rigged game.
• Escalation Illusion: Emailing appellate authorities ([email protected]) triggered auto-replies pushing me back to the app. A classic “circle of despair.”
• Emotional Toll: Studies show 68% of customers feel more stressed after bot interactions (Zendesk, 2023). My cortisol levels agree.

The Bigger Picture: Telecoms save ₹1,200 crore/year by replacing humans with bots (TRAI, 2023). Your sanity? Just collateral damage.

The Cost of Complaining: Paying for Poor Service

Imagine paying a toll to cross a bridge that leads nowhere. That’s Airtel’s ₹0.50/min “support fee.” Here’s why this model is corporate malpractice:

• Profit From Pain: Airtel earns ₹450 crore annually from call charges alone (TRAI). Charging for complaints is like a restaurant billing you to spit out spoiled food.
• The 10-Day Mirage: The agent promised resolution in 10 days. Ten days later? Silence. TRAI mandates a 7-day resolution window—Airtel ignores this.
• No Refund, No Remorse: My ₹489 error? “Non-refundable.” Yet, TRAI’s Consumer Complaint Rules (2017) state reversals are mandatory for genuine errors.
• Stress Tax: Research links poor customer service to increased anxiety (Harvard Business Review). Airtel’s apathy isn’t just annoying—it’s a health hazard.

Case Study: Jio and Vi resolve 73% of complaints in 72 hours (2023 Telecom Report). Airtel? 34%.

Fighting Back: Strategies to Break the Bot Cycle

Don’t let bots gaslight you into surrender. Here’s your battle plan:

Step 1: Document Like a Detective

• Screenshot everything: recharge confirmations, chatbot logs, emails.
• Save complaint numbers and timestamps. TRAI requires companies to log grievances.

Step 2: Escalate Like a Pro

• Level 1: Use the app/website. Get a complaint number.
• Level 2: Email [email protected] and pgportal.gov.in (Government’s grievance portal).
• Level 3: File a complaint on TRAI’s CCR Portal (https://ccrmaint.railnet.gov.in/). Airtel must respond within 48 hours here.

Step 3: Name and Shame

• Tweet @Airtel_Presence with #AirtelFails. Tag @TRAI. Public shaming works—72% of brands respond within an hour on social media (Sprout Social).
• Post on consumer forums like ConsumerVOICE or Akosha.

Step 4: Vote With Your Wallet

• Port your number to Jio/Vi using MNP. Telecoms fear churn—India’s porting requests hit 8.2 million in 2022 (TRAI).

My final thoughts: Rewriting the Rules of Engagement

Airtel’s bots didn’t just steal ₹489 from me—they stole time, peace, and trust. But here’s the kicker: We hold the power. By escalating to TRAI, weaponizing social media, and switching providers, we can force telecoms to choose: adapt or collapse.

Next time a bot tells you “We can’t reverse your recharge,” laugh and hit send on your TRAI complaint. Let’s turn their automated apathy into actionable accountability.

Tables & Data: Your Arsenal Against Telecom Apathy

Tool	How to Use It	Success Rate
TRAI CCR Portal	File complaints with legal backing; Airtel must respond.	89% (TRAI, 2023)
PG Portal (Govt)	Escalate unresolved issues to central authorities.	76%
Social Media Shaming	Public tweets/posts tagged to Airtel & TRAI.	68%
Number Porting (MNP)	Switch providers—hits Airtel’s retention metrics.	92% effectiveness

Apple Should Compete with Adobe Illustrator for Graphic design

When it comes to graphic design, Adobe Illustrator reigns supreme. For decades, it’s been the go-to software for creating stunning illustrations, logos, and posters. But as the creative landscape evolves, many professionals and hobbyists wonder: where’s Apple in this space?

With its design-first ethos and recent acquisition of Pixelmator, Apple is perfectly poised to challenge Adobe. Imagine an Apple-designed tool that matches or even surpasses Illustrator in innovation, simplicity, and performance. Not only would it empower designers, but it could also shake up the creative software market in ways we’ve never seen before.

Let’s explore why this move could be a game-changer.

The Gap in Apple’s Creative Suite

Apple is known for crafting products that inspire creativity, from iPads to Final Cut Pro. Yet, it’s notably absent from the graphic design software arena—a space dominated by Adobe.

• Missed Market Opportunities: The design community is vast and growing, encompassing everyone from freelance illustrators to branding agencies. Apple is missing out on a lucrative segment by not offering a robust graphic design tool.
• Demand for Integrated Ecosystems: Designers often juggle multiple devices—MacBooks, iPads, and iPhones. An Apple-created design app would integrate seamlessly across these platforms, offering unmatched convenience.
• Growing Frustration with Subscriptions: Adobe’s subscription model is expensive and sometimes limiting for users who prefer one-time purchases. Apple could cater to this audience with a more flexible pricing strategy.
• Untapped Potential Post-Pixelmator Acquisition: Apple’s acquisition of Pixelmator, a lightweight yet powerful design tool, signals its interest in the creative software space. Expanding on this foundation could rival Illustrator’s dominance.

Why Apple Could Outshine Adobe

Competing with Adobe Illustrator isn’t just about copying its features. Apple has the potential to innovate and redefine what’s possible in graphic design.

• Simplified User Experience: Apple excels in creating intuitive, user-friendly interfaces. A design tool developed by Apple would eliminate Illustrator’s learning curve, making it accessible for beginners while still powerful for professionals.
• Optimized Performance on Apple Devices: By building a design tool specifically for macOS and iOS, Apple could deliver lightning-fast performance, leveraging its M-series chips for tasks like rendering and vector editing.
• Exclusive Ecosystem Features: Imagine using your Apple Pencil on an iPad to design vector illustrations that sync instantly with your MacBook. Or starting a project on your iPhone and finishing it on your iMac. This ecosystem synergy could be a game-changer.
• Competitive Pricing: Adobe’s subscription model alienates many users. Apple could disrupt the market by offering a one-time purchase option or a more affordable subscription tied to Apple One services.

Features Apple Should Prioritize

To dethrone Adobe Illustrator, Apple would need to deliver a feature set that appeals to both casual users and seasoned professionals.

• Vector Precision and Scalability: Designers rely on Illustrator for its impeccable vector graphics capabilities. Apple’s tool must ensure similar precision while offering real-time previews and faster rendering speeds.
• AI-Powered Design Tools: Integrating AI could make tasks like creating color palettes, resizing assets, or even generating design suggestions quicker and easier, saving designers countless hours.
• Cloud Syncing and Collaboration: Apple’s iCloud could allow teams to work on projects collaboratively, with changes updating in real-time across devices—a feature Adobe struggles to perfect.
• Native Support for Industry Standards: Compatibility with formats like .AI, .SVG, and .PDF is essential to ensure seamless file sharing and collaboration with Adobe users.

Comparison Table: Adobe Illustrator vs. Potential Apple Tool

Feature	Adobe Illustrator	Potential Apple Tool
Ease of Use	Steep Learning Curve	Intuitive, Apple-Style Design
Platform Optimization	Multi-platform	Optimized for macOS/iOS
Pricing	Subscription-Only Model	Flexible Pricing Options
Ecosystem Integration	Limited	Seamless with Apple Devices

Why Now Is the Right Time for Apple

The creative software market is ripe for disruption. Here’s why Apple should act now:

1. Increased Demand for Creative Tools: From social media managers to freelance artists, more people than ever are exploring graphic design. An accessible Apple product could meet this demand.
2. Competitive Landscape: While Adobe leads, emerging competitors like Canva and Figma have shown that innovation and simplicity can carve out significant market share.
3. Apple’s Hardware Advantage: With M-series chips, Apple devices are already preferred by many creatives. A design tool tailored to these devices would enhance their appeal.
4. Strategic Expansion: Entering the graphic design space aligns with Apple’s broader strategy of offering an all-encompassing creative suite.

My final thoughts: The Future of Creative Design

An Apple graphic design tool isn’t just a possibility—it’s a necessity. By leveraging its expertise in hardware, software, and ecosystem integration, Apple could redefine how we approach graphic design.

For designers frustrated with Adobe’s pricing or intimidated by its complexity, an Apple alternative could be a breath of fresh air. With the right blend of features, pricing, and usability, it could become the new standard for creating stunning illustrations and designs.