The disturbing YouTube videos that are tricking children

When I was pretty young (kindergarten) I would read "Our Universe" over and over (https://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Picture-Atlas-Uni... ). Most of what was there I barely understood, but I understood enough to keep coming back.

A few years later (2nd or 3rd grade) I got into a mild argument with my music teacher when she off-handedly mentioned there was not life on other planets in our solar system. I was insistent that there was and I had seen pictures. To her credit, she asked me to bring her that evidence, and once I did she explained what part of the text said - these were hypotheticals. _If_ alien life could live in Jupiter, what might it look like.

I remember a vague sense of disappointment at the time, but overall I think I'm glad I was fooled in that way at such a formative age. Forming big thoughts from what I read and later learning what part of what I read meant that changed my conclusions is a lesson that I think turned out well for me.

In contrast, I think Santa is a terrible, terrible thing - adults lying to kids about something that is already fun and wonderful to the kids, and then using it as a threat ("better be good or else!"), only to eventually have the kids learn it was all a lie...I fail to see much positive coming from that. (and yet, people are aghast at the very prospect of kids finding out early - it would "ruin" the holidays)

I'm not really sure where the material discussed in the article fall - it read to me like these was material that WASN'T intended to trick children, but rather targeted at adults without making that clear, but I might be misunderstanding.

There's a ton of abuse on YouTube.

The content is generally made for an older public, that's how YouTube started and that's what the content is for

The problem isn't YouTube per se, it's our understanding of it, and as a result, the laws we bring forth to try and manage it.

It's like sending your kids down to buy something from a corner shop or when you send them to school on their own. It's we the adults that make sure they know better than to talk to strangers.

I think thoigh the street metaphor isn't too accurate, since a normal corner stop wont have hookers and dirty magazine pedlers trying to get your kid off for a buck. The Internet does though, and it'll be an interesting problem to solve, without destroying the mechanisms that allow innovation.

I think most people here anyone are aware of this, wbut do we really know how deep the rabbit hole goes?

Consider a young child, maybe 5 or 6, who loves animals very much. Now consider that this child is living in the year 1991 and watching a documentary about Zebras on the National Geographic channel. Now consider that during the course of this show, a Zebra has an unfortunate encounter with a lioness or 5, which the kid never expected and is likely very upset by what they see. Should there now be a nationwide discussion/outrage about how National Geographic portrays nature? Or should parents rethink their parenting habits by actively monitoring what their kids watch on TV, in 1991? Same goes for the Youtube and the Internet in general, why would you let your kid have free reign on either platform knowing the potential for bad content? Maybe if a parent could pre-watch the videos on Youtube before letting their kids watch it to insure its legit, then kids wouldn't be tricked by the fake stuff.

Tricking children?

You let your toddler or child on the internet with no supervision and then they find something you do not like.

What kind of victomhood article is this?

This is the inherent problem in having children's programs produced by adults. If parents would strictly monitor their children's viewing habits and ensure only content produced, directed and written by toddlers entered the home this problem wouldn't happen.

There is a big need for a "safe" internet for minors. Another point is that free pornography asks "Are you sure you're 18?" and takes their word whether they are 11 or 19.

I, for one, would pay an extra fee to ensure that the internet provided by my ISP was filtered for child inappropriate content. And for platforms that had mixed content, could be blocked until those platforms created safe subdomains like "childsafe.youtube.com" or what have you.

I have a simple rule for these videos: No crying videos. If the characters are crying, they are usually getting tortured, attacked, etc, much like the article states. I didn't have to enforce the rule very long since my 5 year old has moved on to Super Mario Run videos. What I don't understand is how these videos and channels haven't been banned due to copyright and trademark infringement? Sure,

My 3 year old son absolutely loves the "scary peppa pig" videos

My daughter just watches "real dragon" videos, she's desperate for proof they really exist. Fortunately she understands they are all likely fake.

We just banned youtube and youtube kids unless a parent is there. Basically those unboxing toy videos are worse than ads.