I’m sure I could make you look like a miserable failure if I spun your resumé hard enough.
The fundamental issue is unmanaged exposure to devices and content does harm to children, and both platforms and content is complicit in it.
Too calm?
Don’t like it? That’s the future people like the author would endorse, and what every legislator is going to try to spin this story to do.
I don’t like MrBeast, I even mispronounced his channel name in my original comment. The authors implicit proposal to fix it though is a trap.
I believe the emotional language is a design choice to lead readers to be more favorable to such a proposal. It has nothing to do with MrBeast specifically.
Surely not; author explicitly brought up the looming ban on kid-focused advertising during kid-waking hours.
For the record, the new trend to shill MrBeast is to pretend to be neutral while you discredit the side against MrBeast more. Most of the time these people have a lot to say about MrBeast even though they say they don’t care or don’t like MrBeast. So…
Try installing and do some search if you have never tried that before. It doesn’t take long before you find predatory content that leads to more predatory content.
Or watch children’s videos.
Too many childrens youtube videos themselves have many, many, addictive elements in them.
Sounds, colors, too many scene changes.
YouTube kids is not delivering on its promise. Youtube and YouTube kids is meant to keep eyeballs.
Shilling shit with lead contamination to kids warrants jail time IMHO. An emotion filled rant text should be the least of his worries in any civilized society.
ERC does claim it.. but with no lab report, no mention of ppb, etc. ERC itself lists no staff or public owner, and does business out of Georgia but flags people in violation of prop65 which is California law.
Their website is mostly dead links and exclusively stock images.