Culture

by Glyn Moody


Filed Under:
algorithms, gaming, kids, youtube

Companies:
google, youtube



Algorithmic Videos Are Making YouTube Unsuitable For Young Children, And Google's 'Revenue Architecture' Is To Blame

from the so-how-do-we-fix-it? dept

There's an interesting article on Medium by James Bridle that's generating plenty of discussion at the moment. It has the title "Something is wrong on the internet", which is certainly true. Specifically, what the article is concerned about is the following:

Someone or something or some combination of people and things is using YouTube to systematically frighten, traumatise, and abuse children, automatically and at scale, and it forces me to question my own beliefs about the internet, at every level.

I recommend reading the article so that you can decide whether it is a perspicacious analysis of what's wrong with the Internet today, or merely another of the hyperbolic "the Internet is corrupting innocent children" screeds that come along from time to time. As an alternative -- or in addition -- you might want to read this somewhat more measured piece from the New York Times, which raises many similar points:

the [YouTube Kids] app contains dark corners, too, as videos that are disturbing for children slip past its filters, either by mistake or because bad actors have found ways to fool the YouTube Kids algorithms.

In recent months, parents like Ms. Burns have complained that their children have been shown videos with well-known characters in violent or lewd situations and other clips with disturbing imagery, sometimes set to nursery rhymes.

The piece on Medium explores a particular class of YouTube Kids videos that share certain characteristics. They have bizarre, keyword-strewn titles like "Bad Baby with Tantrum and Crying for Lollipops Little Babies Learn Colors Finger Family Song 2 " or "Angry Baby vs Spiderman vs Frozen Elsa BABY DROWNING w/ Maleficent Car Pink Spidergirl Superhero IRL". They have massive numbers of views: 110 million for "Bad Baby" and 75 million for "Angry Baby". In total, there seem to be thousands of them with similar, strange titles, and similar, disturbing content, which collectively are racking up billions of views.

As Bridle rightly notes, the sheer scale and downright oddness of the videos suggests that some are being generated, at least in part, by automated algorithms that churn out increasingly-deranged variations on themes that are already popular on the YouTube Kids channel. The aim is to garner as many views as possible, and to get children to watch yet more of the many similar videos. More views means more revenue from advertising: alongside the video, before it, or even in it -- some feature blatant product placement. Young children are the perfect audience for this kind of material: they are inexperienced, and therefore are less likely to dismiss episodes as poor quality; they are curious, and so will probably watch closely to see what happens, no matter how absurd and vacuous the storyline; and they probably don't use ad blockers. As Bridle says in his Medium post:

right now, right here, YouTube and Google are complicit in that system [of psychological abuse]. The architecture they have built to extract the maximum revenue from online video is being hacked by persons unknown to abuse children, perhaps not even deliberately, but at a massive scale.

That may be overstating it, but it is certainly true that YouTube's "revenue architecture", based on how many views videos achieve, tends to produce a race to the bottom in terms of quality, and a shift to automated production of endless variations on a popular themes -- both with the aim of maximizing the audience.

YouTube has just announced that it will try to restrict access by young children to this type of video, a move that it rather improbably claims has nothing to do with the recent articles. But given the potential harm that inappropriate material could produce when viewed by young children, there's a strong argument that Google should apply other criteria in order to de-emphasize such offerings. A possible approach would be to allow adults to rate the material their children see, using a mechanism separate from the current "like" and "dislike". Google could then use adverse parental ratings to scale back payments it makes to channels, while good ratings from adults would cause income to be boosted. Parents would need to sign up before rating material, but that's unlikely to be a significant barrier to participation for those who care about what their children watch.

Although there is always a risk of such systems being gamed, the sheer scale of the audience involved -- millions of views for a video -- makes it much harder than for material that has smaller reach, where bogus votes skew results more easily. Google would anyway need to develop systems that can detect attempts to use large-scale bots to boost ratings. The fact that the company has become quite adept at spotting and blocking spam at scale on Gmail suggests it could create such a system if there were enough pressure from parents to do so.

If Google adopted such a reward system, Darwinian dynamics are likely to lead to better-quality content for children, where "better" is defined by the broad consensus of what adults want their children to see. Other ways that Google could encourage such content to be produced would be to allow parents to boost further what they regard as valuable content with one-off donations or regular subscriptions. Techdirt readers can doubtless come up with other ways of providing incentives to YouTube channels to move away from the automated and often disturbing material many are increasingly filled with.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 4:38pm

    One question, why are children being allowed to watch videos on YouTube without being supervised. They are not able to decide what is suitable for them to watch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 4:55pm

    I thought there was something wrong with the entire world, but if it's only the internet then guess I can relax a bit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 5:11pm

    Count me as another one having trouble figuring out how this is different from Cable TV and the news.

    Other than, of course, that there is occasionally something _NOT_ evil on the internet, and with a bit of work anyone can find it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 5:13pm

    It's absolutely hysterical that you wasted an article on this, Glynn. Did you by any chance recently get married, or have a child?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 5:22pm

    Re:

    And yet to tok the time to (presumably) read the article...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Nov 2017 @ 5:45pm

    Re:

    One question, why are children being allowed to watch videos on YouTube without being supervised. They are not able to decide what is suitable for them to watch.

    Part of the issue is that this is not "YouTube" -- it's "YouTube Kids" which is specifically pitched as being more carefully screened for kid-appropriate content.

    And, you're not much of a modern parent if you don't think kids sometimes will watch YouTube without a parent hovering over them at every second. Even if a parent is in the same room, they're not always going to see the kid clicking on the next video. And, no, you don't actually want a parent watching over every second of what kids do. That doesn't teach them independence -- it teaches them that they need to always wait for an adult to tell them what to do, which is a bad message as well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    ThaumaTechnician (profile), 9 Nov 2017 @ 6:02pm

    Re: Re:

    Not to mention, Mike: and the first video is pushing kids to ask for Kinder Eggs! Aren't those illegal in the 'States?

    /More for me!
    //I find the giant Kinder Surprise are often a little disappointing.
    ///You can try to pry my wooden(yes!) Kinder Egg car out of my cold dead hands.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 6:03pm

    Re:

    An article that will be more widely read than anything you will ever write. Sometimes you have to just sit back and acknowledge that you are wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Daydream, 9 Nov 2017 @ 6:36pm

    *reads only the title*

    Tell me about it. One time I tried to watch a relaxing video, I closed the page after three seconds because I got a woman being stabbed in the neck instead. Some ad for an edgy action movie.

    *goes to read the article proper*

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    ECA (profile), 9 Nov 2017 @ 6:53pm

    So!!

    you let your kids wonder YT kids alone??
    YOU let them choose What they will watch..

    Umm, WHY NOT let your kids have CABLE TV in their OWN PRIVATE bedroom??

    Do ou expect PERFECTION from Anyone or Any thing?? NOPE.

    Fill up your device with Videos that your kid watches 1 time, and you have to reset the device..
    Why not ASK your kid what he wants to watch, AND you go find it, and ADD the parts you want??
    I think it takes to long for you...and letting an Automated Android device DO YOUR WORK...is all you can handle..

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Agammamon, 9 Nov 2017 @ 7:02pm

    "In recent months, parents like Ms. Burns have complained that their children have been shown videos with well-known characters in violent or lewd situations and other clips with disturbing imagery, sometimes set to nursery rhymes."

    So - old Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons?

    " 'Someone or something or some combination of people and things is using YouTube to systematically frighten, traumatise, and abuse children, automatically and at scale, and it forces me to question my own beliefs about the internet, at every level.'

    I recommend reading the article so that you can decide whether it is a perspicacious analysis of what's wrong with the Internet today, or merely another of the hyperbolic "the Internet is corrupting innocent children" screeds that come along from time to time."

    Based on that paragraph alone I'ma gonna go with the latter. 'Cause it sounds more like the parents are scared and traumatized by the idea that their little houseape might have caught sight of a bit of the old ultraviolence on the telly and are whining 'won't somebody think of the children!' - same as they have since the invention of the printing press.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Re:

    I know, right? 15 minutes of my time I will never get back, all thanks to unusually histrionic Glyn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 7:18pm

    Re: Re:

    The former has nothing to do with both latter points, though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 7:20pm

    Re:

    Reading the article will do very little except waste your time; this is exactly what it says on the tin- "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!!!!?".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 7:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yawn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 7:31pm

    Re: Re:

    That's funny, because you didn't read it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 7:40pm

    Just a quick question...

    They have massive numbers of views

    Are these videos monetized? If so, how many unique IPs have viewed them?

    If I were creating and posting videos mechanically, I'd be pretty sure I had a way to view them mechanically as well. Money comes in, and no eyeballs have to suffer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 7:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Look if it took you 15 minutes to read that, you need to go back to remedial colouring in lesions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    christenson, 9 Nov 2017 @ 8:03pm

    So THAT is what my IOT botnet is up to....

    "Watching" my auto-generated and auto-uploaded (also done by the IOT botnet) algorithmic videos!

    lol

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 8:15pm

    YouTube's "revenue architecture", based on how many views videos achieve

    Just to bring some sanity into this discussion, revenue in media has always been based on how many views it achieves. This isn't some kind of magical Google created strategy, it's pretty much the oldest (and apart from subscription fees, only) "revenue architecture" in existence.

    Honestly, that you even humor someone who uses the term "revenue architecture" in this context is laughable. There is no "architecture" here at all, advertisers just pay for views. Advertisers on TV pay for views. Advertisers in newspapers pay for views. Advertisers on Youtube... pay for views. Google doesn't magically create money based on views, advertisers pay Google when their stuff is viewed. Other than Google going to advertisers and suggesting that they pay Google for imaginary views because those views didn't occur on "wholesome" content, there isn't anything to do about this (from a revenue standpoint at least).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 9 Nov 2017 @ 9:27pm

    I thought the "Finger Family" thing was already a well-known thing / meme / mystery kind of like "Hey Kids".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 10:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How long did it take you to read each of the articles?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2017 @ 10:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Sure did. All I saw was a bunch of hand-wringing. The videos themselves are laughably bad tame shit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. icon
    Toestubber (profile), 9 Nov 2017 @ 11:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My lesions are already quite colorful.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 12:00am

    Why is this only getting coverage now? I remember /pol/ and /x/ uncovering this stuff months ago, especially the Elsa/Spiderman stuff.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    china (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 12:12am

    A-Frames

    This site is very useful.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 2:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You should get that looked at. Preferably by a doctor.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 2:41am

    Re: Re:

    >Part of the issue is that this is not "YouTube" -- it's "YouTube Kids" which is specifically pitched as being more carefully screened for kid-appropriate content.

    But it is not fully curated, and algorithms are known to be poor to say the least, at the sort of decision making that is required to keep it kid friendly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. icon
    Ninja (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 3:30am

    What the fuck have I just seen that I can't unsee?!

    And then they get angry when we use adblockers and content filters...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 4:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    We know that. The parents you're complaining about probably don't. Therein lies the issue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 4:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You waste a lot of time whining that this site doesn't write about what you want it to write, it seems.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 5:00am

    Re:

    It always takes longer for parents or the media to find it, isn't that an Internet rule by now?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. icon
    ShadowNinja (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 5:24am

    and they probably don't use ad blockers.

    ... Yeah... given how young the audience is of the Youtube Kids site, I'd imagine their parents would install ad blockers for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. identicon
    John E Cressman, 10 Nov 2017 @ 5:31am

    Am I right?

    Am I right in assuming people are complaining because they don't want to be REAL parents? Leaving your child unattended with the internet is only slightly less irresponsible than leaving your child alone with a loaded gun.

    But lazy parents don't want to actually PARENT their children and rely on technology - which can be fooled - to "police" what their children can see.

    And we wonder why snowflakes have taken over the world...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 5:38am

    Re:

    No, they'll most likely just use the YouTube Kids app.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 5:39am

    Re: Am I right?

    If you're surprised by any of this, may I welcome you to the latter half of the 20th century? The only thing that's changed since then is that there's an iPad instead of a TV being used as the babysitter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    SirWired, 10 Nov 2017 @ 6:42am

    No, this really is just some sick *bleeps!*

    I'm having trouble figuring out how this is the fault of Google's "Revenue Architecture". There's more than enough non-disgusting content on YouTube Kids to keep things running indefinitely, giving Google all the views it needs.

    Some sick a$$holes slipping this stuff past the filters is because they are sick a$$holes. If they really just wanted to make money with algorithmically-generated videos it would not be difficult to do so with not-unsuitable content.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 7:26am

    I'm happy these videos exist...

    Not because of the content (which is gag-inducing at times) but because it challenges Google/Youtube/Alphabet. As long as they try to set up automated moderation this will happen. This puts them in a difficult decision of quality moderation over quantity which no other genre of video has accomplished.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 7:35am

    Re: So!!

    Am I the only one disturbed by the fact that people think parents can only be either neglectful absentees or tyrannical authoritarian police?

    Why the hell do I only ever hear those two terms applied to parents neglectful or police. What happened to being fucking educators?

    Heres an idea, why not sit down and teach your kid context, responsibility and not to mimic everything they see rather than either do nothing or censor and micromanage every nanosecond of their damn life? Cause guess what? You arent gonnbe there to control what they see and experi3nce growing up unless you put them under max security house arrest, constant surveillance and homeschool them.

    Fin3, you prescreen and personally fetch everything your kid wants to watch. What happens when they are at their friends house? When their buddy at school shows them how to bypass school net filters? When they find something you have for personal viewing and you are asleep?

    If you think none of these are gonna happen... you are really underestimating how clever kids can be. If you think you have managed to protect your little in,ate from anything you deem undesirable you are in for a rude awakening.

    Dont 'neglect' y0ur kids, dont 'police' your kids, be a fucking parent and 'raise' and 'educate' your kids. Itll work out a hell of a lot better for both of you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. icon
    NeghVar (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re:

    We made a Google account specifically for my daughter. She is only allowed to watch playlists which my wife and I create.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. identicon
    Thad, 10 Nov 2017 @ 9:19am

    Re: So!!

    Every TIME you add random all-caps WORDS to your POSTS, I picture you GRABBING your CROTCH and YELPING!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. identicon
    Thad, 10 Nov 2017 @ 9:22am

    Re: Am I right?

    First Word, top of page.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You must not have kids. Some of the crap that gets thrown in is not something most people want kids seeing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. icon
    John85851 (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 10:13am

    Some ideas

    First, why in the world did the author link to the videos that he says are disturbing for kids? Providing a clickable link will cause people to click, which gives the videos more views, which pushes the videos further up the popularity index, which gives them more advertising revenue.

    Second, one idea for Google could be to negatively-rank any video with more than 10 words in it. How in the world can a video be called "Bad Baby with Tantrum and Crying for Lollipops Little Babies Learn Colors Finger Family Song 2" and NOT be junk or spam?
    But again, kids may not read the titles or they may not even care- they just want to see the next gross/ exciting/ stimulating video that comes next.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. identicon
    JEDIDIAH, 10 Nov 2017 @ 10:43am

    Lame liberal excuses.

    We parents have an answer for unacceptable behavior. It's called consequences.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46. identicon
    JEDIDIAH, 10 Nov 2017 @ 10:47am

    Really glossing sh*t over.

    Hentai is not likely to show up on PBS or Boomerang. Clearly, much better oversight goes into what gets put on a TV channel. There are also pretty backwards standards for what can get on TV at all. This includes cable.

    This is not kids going out of their way to find stuff. It's not teenagers dumpster diving for porn. It's the kids channel showing stuff that would not survive human editorial review.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. identicon
    JEDIDIAH, 10 Nov 2017 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: So!!

    If you aren't being somewhat of a jackass then you're negligent. Pretty much any position of authority or responsibility requires you to be a jerk sometimes.

    This is really just another example of how you lose all control an accountability when you outsource something.

    You can't leave this kind of editorial review to anyone else. You have to know what's going on and keep an eye on things. You can't trust any electronic babysitter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 11:31am

    The flip side

    The other problem is a handful of cry babies are causing You Tube to demonetize videos and this being forced to host and stream them for free. You Tube is caught in the middle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49. identicon
    Anonymous Cowherd, 10 Nov 2017 @ 11:56am

    Algorithmic filters are not and never will be a match for human creativity. This is not a problem with the internet, but with stupid parents who expect everyone and everything else to raise their kids for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 12:08pm

    Re:

    You sir win the internet for the day. People will game any and all systems. Thinking Google, Facebook, Twitter or anyone else can make fool proof filters is ridiculous. Taking responsibility for yourself and your children is your obligation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. identicon
    Thad, 10 Nov 2017 @ 12:33pm

    Re:

    So what solution do you propose? Parents hovering over their children's shoulders every moment they spend on the Internet? Yeah, that's how you raise a healthy child.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re:

    I suggest thinking any algorithm is going to be bullet proof is crazy. The constant blaming if others in society today has gotten out of hand. Parents do their best, internet companies do their best and knowing perfection doesn't exist is all we can do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2017 @ 4:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do you think they're not going to see much much worse than this, one day? And it'll be the same cry then, too- "Too soon! Too soon! Why aren't you protecting my child?!". Stop fucking coddling them to death.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2017 @ 7:03am

    Re: Re: Re: So!!

    I still think it's wrong to suggest that letting your child do anything outside your watchful, judgemental eye is neglect or loss of accountability or as you put it, outsourcing.

    Don't get me wrong I'm not supporting people who just leave their kids to do whatever they want whenever they want without a single care or concern, but I hardly think the polar opposite extreme is any better. Fact of the matter is you will never be able to keep an eye on absolutely everything without quitting your job, never sleeping and stalking your kid 24/7. Anyone who is genuinely suggesting that was somehow never a kid themselves.

    My mother knew she couldn't be around 24/7, especially as a single parent, so she taught me how to deal with things, how to form my own opinions, and how not to be a rat-bastard juvie delinquent. I grew up on James Bond, early (and I mean way before my time) Merry Melodies and Disney, including WWII propaganda cartoons, video games and cooking for myself (because I wanted to mind you, not because I had to). When I did something really bad (like.. scorchmarks on the carpet from playing with fire bad), my mother was a parent and punished me. However when I did something that could be solved with a discussion (such as contextualizing South Park for me when I swiped her VHS of several episodes at 9 years old) I came out of it better. She didn't freak out with some 'think of the children' censorial overreach she used the experience she honestly probably wished shouldn't have happened to educate and raise me.

    Where most kids would have been grounded for watching 'that cartoon filth' and sought it out further either from rebellion or curiosity, I decided 'Oh. Thats what this is. Eh, isn't really my thing.'. She even told me outright 'If you want to watch more of this, I'd appreciate if you could ask me. There's things in there I think you'd appreciate me being able to explain.'.

    I really don't think my mother was ever a 'jerk' about things. She was firm or harsh when neccessary, reasonable and respectful the rest of the time, and actually built 'TRUST' with me rather than assuming she had to be my grand overlord dictator 24/7.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2017 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Pretty much this. I was watching James Bond, South Park, pre-politically correct Disney and Merry Melodies (Like, blackface and WWII propaganda era), playing violent video games and more at age 9. With the exception of south park, I was enjoying it too. I was a mild mannered, relatively mature, well behaved if perhaps hyperactive and kind child.

    Know why? Cause if I managed to watch something my mother wished I hadn't (South Park and James Bond in particular), she sat down and actually talked to me about it. Explained that South Park was just a way for grownups to make fun of things they thought were wrong or important or done wrong. Explained James Bond is just a movie character and it isn't right to be a pseudo-rapist egotist with a gun. Told me that some of the cartoons I was watching were from a different time. Frig at age 10 I was researching WWII because I was curious from the cartoons, not because school told me I had to.

    The real psycopaths I knew were kids whose parents either neglected them entirely or demanded to micromanage and censor every single experience in their kids life.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56. icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 11 Nov 2017 @ 8:10am

    Re: Lame liberal excuses.

    Ooh. Irrelevance + non sequitur + authority mashup. But what do you call the completely bullshit ad hominem assessment?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57. icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 11 Nov 2017 @ 8:20am

    Re: Re: So!!

    This.

    It's astonishing how hard this is for some people to understand or do, for some reason.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58. icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 11 Nov 2017 @ 8:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That isn't what this is about at all. Sure, some people operate that way, but that isn't what is being discussed, and the post author here makes disclaimers of this very nature.

    What is of concern here isn't merely something violent or overly sexualized. These videos are purposefully weird and disturbing mindfuck. And quite frankly, they have been well-known for a very long time. And I doubt there is a way to usefully contextualize or explain these videos to most very young children. There is a huge mass of these videos, they are not random, and they would have easily been filtered from what goes into YouTube Kids if YouTube had been paying the slightest bit of attention whatsoever. I hardly think it is some kind of overreach to call it to the attention of YouTube. Am i screaming about how horribleawful it is and demanding laws, and blood from YouTube? Uhhh, no.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.