Jesus Christ...

[Cassius Clay]

https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/somethi ... 9c471271d2

[Raxivace]

A lot of this article seems just like a needlessly long way of saying "I just learned what YouTube poop is and some of it is weird stuff I wouldn't want my children to see".

The part about it being automated is weird though.

[Cassius Clay]

Someone or something or some combination of people and things is using YouTube to systematically frighten, traumatise, and abuse children, automatically and at scale

[Raxivace]

The article claims that, yes. So did Seduction of the Innocent in regards to comic books. So did Jack Thompson with video games.

[Derived Absurdity]

This dude is a weenie.

[Gendo]

"I had a computer with internet access in my bedroom from the age of 13."

If the internet existed when he was 13, he's too young to be writing articles.

[Anakin McFly]

this is more extremely bizarre than disturbing

[Cassius Clay]

The article claims that, yes. So did Seduction of the Innocent in regards to comic books. So did Jack Thompson with video games.

You can claim the author did not provide sufficient/satisfactory evidence(or arguments) for his hypothesis/conclusions, but your analogy to video game/comic book pearl-clutching and hysteria suggests you don't understand what is even being claimed in the first place.

The article is long-winded, but I forgive that because it really is difficult to articulate what's happening here. If feels like something really sinister and deliberate is going on...and if it's not deliberate that's even scarier because it means this insidious force is built into our systems...automated. Maybe I have a different reaction because I've already been following this for about a year. I've known for a while that there are creepy people on youtube who are creating creepy-ass, fetishistic-looking content meant to grab kid's attention when their parents aren't looking. And they are using bots to generate views to make their content more visible - so they end up in the "recommended" section and often get autoplayed. It's only the past week or two that I've realized just how sinister it really is. The author consistently emphasizes that the examples he's showing are the tamest/mildest ones...it gets a lot worse. Bottom-line is that people who are primarily motivated by profit/views are manipulating really little kids into giving them those views by creating the most bizarre, creepy, low-quality, traumatizing, attention-grabbing shit they can. They are not trying to entertain/educate kids in a meaningful way...it's weird click-bait shit aimed at small children. And ever since this shit started...since creepy people realized the money they could make doing this, the content has been getting creepier and creepier(from what I've seen so far). It's capitalism. The author also makes the broader point about how the profit-motive system has lead the the rise of white nationalism online(the radicalization of young white men through youtube, etc) and the rise of "fake news". And I know that profit is the main goal, but some of these videos almost feel like they are also trying to traumatize kids and/or create psychopaths.

Here's another article with screen caps of the more disturbing stuff(Warning: If bugs creep you out, don't click the link):

https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv ... n-youtube/

And I know that content aimed at kids can often appear creepy to adults(like Teletubbies) because kids are easily manipulated. But there's some child-catcher shit going on here, and someone needs to get to the bottom of it:

[Derived Absurdity]

Ok, that second article really demonstrated it better. You're right, there is definitely some disturbing fucking shit going on. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with people.

Edit: Not sure I like the rest of that website, though.

[Raxivace]

You can claim the author did not provide sufficient/satisfactory evidence(or arguments) for his hypothesis/conclusions, but your analogy to video game/comic book pearl-clutching and hysteria suggests you don't understand what is even being claimed in the first place.

Actually it suggests I understand it just fine- the complaints about about comic books and video games were based around the supposed negative effects they had on children exactly like both of the articles you've shared here. And just like those arguments, there was no real evidence that any truly harmful effect was actually being experienced by children watching these videos.

Weird videos are turning kids into psychopaths? This is literally the same argument that was made by the people complaining about comic books and video games. They were wrong in both of those cases- what makes version 3.0 of these claims about the newest thing popular with kids any different? I'm not gonna say parents shouldn't be able to curate what their kids see or that YouTube shouldn't have stronger parental features or some of this weird shit isn't appropriate for kids, but you don't need outrageous comparisons to white supremacy or baseless claims about systematic child abuse of millions of kids on the internet to make those points.

[Raxivace]

Ok, that second article really demonstrated it better. You're right, there is definitely some disturbing fucking shit going on. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with people.

Edit: Not sure I like the rest of that website, though.

Yeah I don't think the guy that runs this site is all there in the head. From his "About" section:

My efforts to further understand the forces governing the world lead me to study secret societies, mystery religions, esoteric sciences and ancient civilizations. I've spent the last two decades researching Theosophy, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, the Bavarian Illuminati and Western Occultism. These schools of thoughts have many things in common: they are based on Hermetic teachings, they attach EXTREME importance to symbolism and they recruit within their ranks the most prominent people in all fields of society: Politics, business, law, finance, etc. The natural result of this phenomenon is the display of occult symbolism in all aspects of society, especially music, movies, and buildings. My goal is to bring out the meaning of these symbols in a clear, concise and entertaining way.

In a way my comparison to claims about comic books and video games is off- they didn't have any utter nonsense about the Illuminati attached to them.

[Derived Absurdity]

I think the larger point is that vile, disturbing things are being hidden in some kids videos and that it's incentived by Youtube's automating system. Probably a legitimate problem. Also, I'm not gonna lie, I think those SuperSevenGirls videos or whatever that he pointed out are sort of creepy, but they seem to be unrelated.

And holy shit there's an entire subreddit called r/elsagate linking all this to sex trafficking, ritual abuse, MKULTRA, and all this other shit. Lmao. I guess this is where all the pizzagate people migrated to.

[Cassius Clay]

You can claim the author did not provide sufficient/satisfactory evidence(or arguments) for his hypothesis/conclusions, but your analogy to video game/comic book pearl-clutching and hysteria suggests you don't understand what is even being claimed in the first place.

Actually it suggests I understand it just fine- the complaints about about comic books and video games were based around the supposed negative effects they had on children exactly like both of the articles you've shared here. And just like those arguments, there was no real evidence that any truly harmful effect was actually being experienced by children watching these videos.

Weird videos are turning kids into psychopaths? This is literally the same argument that was made by the people complaining about comic books and video games. They were wrong in both of those cases- what makes version 3.0 of these claims about the newest thing popular with kids any different? I'm not gonna say parents shouldn't be able to curate what their kids see or that YouTube shouldn't have stronger parental features or some of this weird shit isn't appropriate for kids, but you don't need outrageous comparisons to white supremacy or baseless claims about systematic child abuse of millions of kids on the internet to make those points.

[Cassius Clay]

Raxivace: Nothing to see here folks! It's the same old conservative, adult paranoia we've seen in the past *goes back to work making fetish porn for kids*

[Raxivace]

Raxivace: Nothing to see here folks! It's the same old conservative, adult paranoia we've seen in the past *goes back to work making fetish porn for kids*

Did you seriously just accuse me of being a pedophile because you couldn't defend either of the bad articles you posted

[Cassius Clay]

Raxivace: Nothing to see here folks! It's the same old conservative, adult paranoia we've seen in the past *goes back to work making fetish porn for kids*

Did you seriously just accuse me of being a pedophile because you couldn't defend either of the bad articles you posted

Try again.

[phe_de]

I don't buy into conspiracy theories.
The claim that there are sinister forces trying to manipulate children would be more powerful if there was a shred of evidence for it.

The videos might be disturbing, but some kids have watched Happy Tree Friends before YouTube even existed. Did the world end? Not even on December 21th 2012.

[Raxivace]

Sorry Clay but I'm not going to play guessing games with you and I don't appreciate the attacks you've made against my character.

I think the larger point is that vile, disturbing things are being hidden in some kids videos and that it's incentived by Youtube's automating system. Probably a legitimate problem.

With some of the videos, sure, but both of these articles are conflating fairly innocuous stuff like Peppa Pig dressed up as Venom from Spider-Man with the worst it can find to make the problem of kids seeing bad content seem worse than it probably is (Alongside the unsupported claims of abuse of millions of kids. I feel like the extremity of this point is worth stressing) IMO.

The stuff about automated clickbait targeting kids itself is bad though, but you don't need all of this other pearl clutching to make this point.

[Cassius Clay]

On a more serious note: I initially chose not to post the second article because it was written by a wacky conspiracy theorist(even though it actually makes it's point more succinctly and uses more disturbing examples), but I felt I should after the surprisingly skeptical/dismissive responses I received....mainly for the screen caps it contains. I'm sorry, but there's some really frustratingly lazy thinking going on here. Just because a conspiracy sounds vaguely like some other conspiracy to you, doesn't make it automatically illegitimate. And just because some wacko conspiracy theorists latch on to it doesn't automatically make it illegitimate...you know..broken clocks, etc. These might be good reasons to be dismissive, but that's not the whole story here.

So, yes, what I'm talking about here is a conspiracy, but not all conspiracies are created equal. Conspiracies can be difficult explain, since they often involve complex systems(and unclear intentions) - so, if one wants to get to the truth of the matter, rather that being smug, dismissive and obtuse...its sometimes better to be curious, engaged and charitable. Maybe you'll realize there's a bigger point that seems to keep going over your head. Like maybe not uncharitably jump on obvious hyperbolic statements like "they're trying to create psychopaths" as literal, because it confirms your biases, when the relevant point is that it feels like "twisted minds preying on innocence". It's been stated, and heavily implied, over and over that we're not exactly sure what the intent(other than profit) nor what the effect is(other than obviously frightening and traumatizing kids)...but something very wrong is happening here. And the broader point is that large platforms like youtube/facebook are enabling this bizarre shit...which leads to the very reasonable link it has to the recent rise of white nationalism online. Not some vague "outrageous" comparison to "white supremacy"(whatever the fuck that means). Specific things are being said here...specific things one would pick up on if one were curious/paying attention.

Ultimately, this is about some kind of "capitalistic rot"(a complete lack of values, just profit-seeking) on online platforms...and this weird shit going on with kids youtube is just the latest, freakiest example of it. It reminds me of all those weird racist/sexist prank videos that were really popular a year ago(don't know if they still are)...which I've talked about before on here: "GOLDDIGGER PRANK IN THE HOOD GONE SEXUAL GUN PULLED ALMOST DIED!" Motherfuckers kept making these types of videos, obviously aimed at teens/young adults, because they got the most attention. Profit was the primary motive, but I remember talking about how I was concerned at the racist/sexist messages they were sending to young kids...kids dumb enough to think these staged pranks were an accurate representation of the real world. There's a guy named Joey Salads that kept making these really racist, obviously staged prank videos about violent black people(he also made some staged video about transgender bathroom laws). He's obviously primarily motivated by profit, but he's also clearly trying to normalize bigotry(or is it a coincidence that bigotry is most profitable?). And isn't it funny how bigots have to make shit up to justify their bigotry?...it's almost as if they know their bigotry is a lie(reminds me of that sociopathic fuck gogo that used to lie about being a woman and make up all kinds of stories that happened to support his bigotry). Anyway, that who youtube prankster dynamic has been put on steroids and is now being targeted at toddlers. And its more dangerous/evil because the younger you are the less critical your mind/the more suggestive you are. If you guys can't see whats wrong with that, I don't know what to tell you.

[Cassius Clay]

I don't buy into conspiracy theories.

Any thoughts regarding Islamic influence on Western Europe?

[Cassius Clay]

Sorry Clay but I'm not going to play guessing games with you and I don't appreciate the attacks you've made against my character.

Whats more likely: 1) I'm literally accusing you of pedophilia and have irreversibly damaged your reputation on this small forum? Or 2) Making a meaningless joke that you're being obtusely hyperskeptical because you secretly make the kind of videos we've been talking about?

both of these articles are conflating fairly innocuous stuff like Peppa Pig dressed up as Venom from Spider-Man with the worst it can find

Hmmm...even though one article explictly states over and over that he's showing the mild, harmless(though weird)stuff? Maybe the point is that the weird harmless stuff and the really bad shit have similar machinery and intentions behind it, and that really bad shit is just an inevitability when the makers of the mild shit keep getting rewarded for it?

[phe_de]

I don't buy into conspiracy theories.

Any thoughts regarding Islamic influence on Western Europe?

Some is really neat. Like this one: 1234567890.
And some ancient buildings in southern Spain are quite beautiful.

Apart from that, I'm sure that there are some conspiracy theories regarding Muslims in Europe which some people choose to believe. So what?

[Cassius Clay]

Don't play coy with me bitch

[Derived Absurdity]

ask him about cultural marxism

[Cassius Clay]

Cultural marxism is the alliance between antifa supersoldiers and Islamic extremists to create Sharia law throughout the western world. David Mohamedberg admitted this to me.

[Gendo]

I'm gonna go with “what kind of parents are letting their little kids access the internet at all; especially without direct supervision??"

I know plenty of parents who use tablets or phones to keep their kids entertained, but those kids are watching specific kids shows on the device, or maybe a Netflix show; NOT browsing YouTube looking at random recommended videos.

[Anakin McFly]

relevant

[Monk]

You can claim the author did not provide sufficient/satisfactory evidence(or arguments) for his hypothesis/conclusions, but your analogy to video game/comic book pearl-clutching and hysteria suggests you don't understand what is even being claimed in the first place.

Actually it suggests I understand it just fine- the complaints about about comic books and video games were based around the supposed negative effects they had on children exactly like both of the articles you've shared here. And just like those arguments, there was no real evidence that any truly harmful effect was actually being experienced by children watching these videos.

Weird videos are turning kids into psychopaths? This is literally the same argument that was made by the people complaining about comic books and video games.

I think the difference here is that it appears that these videos can really be made by one or a couple people, while most comic books and video games had to go through a process and seen/approved by a lot of people before being released. There are some fucked up video games for sure, but usually they need a parent to approve of them playing it in the first place and it requires far more steps to view/play the content. Youtube with autoplay coupled with bots increasing the likelihood of recommendation makes viewing them far easier for children to simply stumble across this type of stuff.

[Gendo]

To make a more helpful reply than my last one...

Yeah so I checked out some of the videos, and there's not much doubt that the article(s) are correct (though the first one does a terrible job of explaining it). These videos are clearly being made with the intent of tricking children into watching them, and then showing content that isn't appropriate for them.

A couple positive things I noticed though... at least one, and I assume more, of the channels that were mentioned have been removed from YouTube for going against their guidelines. Also, some of the videos have been marked as "restricted", which would hide them unless you're logged in as an account that has verified that you are over 18.

I think what's really missing here is parental information... personally, I didn't need to know about these specific videos to know that it's a terrible idea to allow a young child free access to YouTube. Such videos don't need to exist for that to be true. I'm not about to trust the "recommended videos" to only show appropriate things based on the currently-watched video being appropriate. But perhaps a lot of parents don't know, and in this case, the information in these articles needs to be made well-known; explains in ways that will actually seem like real information. News stories, etc, not random blog posts.

[Cassius Clay]

You can claim the author did not provide sufficient/satisfactory evidence(or arguments) for his hypothesis/conclusions, but your analogy to video game/comic book pearl-clutching and hysteria suggests you don't understand what is even being claimed in the first place.

Actually it suggests I understand it just fine- the complaints about about comic books and video games were based around the supposed negative effects they had on children exactly like both of the articles you've shared here. And just like those arguments, there was no real evidence that any truly harmful effect was actually being experienced by children watching these videos.

Weird videos are turning kids into psychopaths? This is literally the same argument that was made by the people complaining about comic books and video games.

I think the difference here is that it appears that these videos can really be made by one or a couple people, while most comic books and video games had to go through a process and seen/approved by a lot of people before being released. There are some fucked up video games for sure, but usually they need a parent to approve of them playing it in the first place and it requires far more steps to view/play the content. Youtube with autoplay coupled with bots increasing the likelihood of recommendation makes viewing them far easier for children to simply stumble across this type of stuff.

Well said. You would think that the lack of oversight and accountability(due to quality assurance being automated, and internet anonymity) on online platforms clearly(or intuitively) makes this incomparable to comic books/video games, but some people apparently need their hand held. There are so many intersecting ethical problems in this case, and many of them aren't immediately obvious/intuitive and so need to be explained (which is why I think the first guy is so long-winded)...but I resent having to explain ethical implications that should be obvious. And if you're going to make me hold your hand, and guide you through what should be obvious ethical implications, you could at least not be a smug ass about it. Another important difference is that comics/games are aimed at teens and older kids(who at least have some critical thinking ability), while babies and toddlers are being exposed to this shit. If you don't understand why it is abuse to intentionally expose kids - that are scared of their own fucking shadows (look up babies running from their shadows if you don't believe me) - to frightening/creepy shit for profit (or to normalize weird shit), then don't have kids/stay away from kids. Kids that young don't understand anything...I still remember being scared shitless of some mall Santa when I was 3 or 4. And I would even argue that forcing a scared, crying kid to sit in Santa's lap is abusive. A lot of people would probably laugh it off as a harmless tradition(To clarify, I don't think that's even ethically close to being as bad as this youtube situation.)

@Gendo Parents obviously need to be more vigilant but being a helicopter parent is a luxury not a lot of parents have. This problem goes beyond parent responsibility, and even if it was all up to the parents, I'm still concerned for the unlucky kids who will be exposed to this shit. There's a youtube app for kids that is supposed to take care of the weird shit, but since the quality assurance system is automated, it can be hacked by these creep fucks. All they need to do is meet some superficial criteria to sneak creepy shit into kids youtube. And even helicopter parents have talked about how they don't even allow youtube anymore because their kid was exposed to something weird after looking away just for a few minutes.

[Gendo]

To me, it's more like "the internet as a whole is largely for adults". Or, to quote Avenue Q (I think?), "The internet is for porn". The point being that the internet is in no way a safe place for kids. Whether it's YouTube, Facebook, Google, even Wikipedia... kids shouldn't be on the internet. There's plenty of good sources to get good videos to teach kids about colors, counting, animals, etc... actual produced kids shows shown on PBS, available at the library, etc. I never would have thought of going to the internet to find videos to show little kids.

Perhaps we can do a better job at designating some internet content as safe for kids; but I'm not sure I could ever fully trust any such system. At least not an automated one. And non-automated means that the parent watches the video first, and ain't nobody got time for that.

So yeah, not disagreeing that these videos are bad stuff. I just don't know if there is a better solution other than "teach parents that the internet isn't for kids". Of course, along with that means improving resources for parents so that they have better access to stuff that's good for kids, so that they don't have to resort to YouTube because it's easier.

[phe_de]

My problem with the articles, and some of the posts here, is: While I agree with some complaints (videos on the Internet being disturbing, largely inappropriate for children, and made with motivation to make profit), it is also true that:

• These phenomenons aren't new

• There is no evidence of a sinister conspiracy involving white supremacism

About the phenomenons not being new: I mentioned HappyTreeFriends in an earlier post, and could add Joe Cartoon. Both have been around since the 1990s, and are therefore older than YouTube. They are definitely disturbing, and children have seen them.
It is also true that disturbing cartoons and video games have been around long before, and while they may have been primarily targeted towards teens and adults, they could be found in stores, at the reach of children. I don't know if a child reading Reiser would be less traumatized than a child watching some YouTube stuff.

As for white supremacy: This has been around before the Internet existed. And cartoons and comics have pushed it explicitely.
I didn't watch any of the videos mentioned in this thread; but I didn't see anything about explicit descriptions of racism in them. I guess that the videos are bad enough without trying to interpret a racist agenda into them.

Another thing (this is for Cassius Clay): There is no such thing as obvious ethics. Ethics are a societal construct, and societies are composed of individuals. Both individuals and their societies evolve, and are not the same everywhere. Therefore there's no such thing as universally agreed upon ethics.

[Cassius Clay]

Hey, phe_de. You seem extremely confused about a few things. I sincerely wonder if you really have genuine comprehension issues, or if it's a certain arrogance you have where you just assume everyone else is dumb, and so give their words the laziest, most superficial/uncharitable interpretations. However, in the spirit of the holidays, I've decided to be a little more patient than I usually am. 1) Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe HappyTreeFriends is meant to be a kids show. 2) I don't recall claiming or focusing on a "sinister conspiracy of white supremacy"...though I did mention the recent rise of white nationalism online. 3) Disturbing/inappropriate internet videos aren't new, but what is new is how large online platforms are rewarding/enabling proliferation of misinformation/bigotry/creepy-clickbait-shit targeting specific populations at such a massive scale. 4) The fact that some children might have access to inappropriate content that isn't aimed at them has absolutely nothing to do with creepy people online specifically targeting kids with inappropriate content. 5) Yes, white supremacy existed before the internet, but the point is that its been giving new life by the internet and capitalism(rise of white nationalism), in ways many did not predict. 6) No one claimed the creepy kids videos had a "racist agenda". Unless you're talking about the racist prank videos I mentioned...which definitely have a racist agenda 7) You seem to be using "obvious ethics" to mean something like "absolute" or "objective" ethics...which has nothing to do with anything. When I said certain ethical implications should be "obvious", that is assuming we share the relevant ethics and the facts are readily known, it's frustrating for me to have to hold your hand to guide you to some of conclusions(based on those shared ethics and facts) that should be obvious. Happy Thanksgiving.

[Anakin McFly]

man, HappyTreeFriends. I remember watching that in school. It was all the rage among the kids, and the adults seemed way more disturbed by it than we were.

[Cassius Clay]

To me, it's more like "the internet as a whole is largely for adults". Or, to quote Avenue Q (I think?), "The internet is for porn". The point being that the internet is in no way a safe place for kids. Whether it's YouTube, Facebook, Google, even Wikipedia... kids shouldn't be on the internet. There's plenty of good sources to get good videos to teach kids about colors, counting, animals, etc... actual produced kids shows shown on PBS, available at the library, etc. I never would have thought of going to the internet to find videos to show little kids.

Perhaps we can do a better job at designating some internet content as safe for kids; but I'm not sure I could ever fully trust any such system. At least not an automated one. And non-automated means that the parent watches the video first, and ain't nobody got time for that.

So yeah, not disagreeing that these videos are bad stuff. I just don't know if there is a better solution other than "teach parents that the internet isn't for kids". Of course, along with that means improving resources for parents so that they have better access to stuff that's good for kids, so that they don't have to resort to YouTube because it's easier.

You seem to be saying something like "it's impossible to police the internet", and so you might as well keep your kids off it(or not treat it as a safe space). While I agree that parents should obviously do their best to shield their kids from the internet, it would be a mistake to treat it as a one-sided issue. The youtubes, twitters and facebooks of the world need to be held accountable for the things they foster...beyond the creepy kids content(the white nationalism...the fake news..etc). Twitter has a growing Nazi problem they refused to do anything about for the longest time. When pressed, one of the excuses they would make is that it's hard to tell which accounts are the Nazis...plus freeze peach and all that). However, in countries where being a nazi/denying holocaust is criminalized, they don't seem to have any issue discriminating against Nazi accounts. The real reason they didn't want to address the nazi problem is because they are primarily concerned with maximizing profits(wanting to take advantage of all the potential in the "market place"). After continued pressure, they seem to finally be taking some real steps to address the issue.

[phe_de]

Hey Cassius Clay,

Happy thanksgiving to you too.
Now to your post.
About comprehension issues: I admit that English is only my third language, and that I may not be very good at reading between the lines.
But: It usually takes at least two sides in a misunderstanding. The side trying to deliver the message, and the side trying to understand it. I am not sure if the failure to communicate is due to my comprehension abilities, or to your communication abilities.
You admitted yourself that you had trouble getting your message across with other posters, with sentences like "but I felt I should after the surprisingly skeptical/dismissive responses I received....mainly for the screen caps it contains. I'm sorry, but there's some really frustratingly lazy thinking going on here." or "I resent having to explain ethical implications that should be obvious. And if you're going to make me hold your hand, and guide you through what should be obvious ethical implications...".
So maybe you should not attack other people's comprehension abilities, and instead ask yourself if the problem lies partly with you.

About your other points:

1) Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe HappyTreeFriends is meant to be a kids show.

Possible, but not really relevant. The point is that kids had and have access to it. Whether it was the makers' intention is less important than the result. At least to me who tends to be consequentialist in ethics.

2) I don't recall claiming or focusing on a "sinister conspiracy of white supremacy"...though I did mention the recent rise of white nationalism online.

One of your paragraphs was the following one; with emphasis added by me.
"It's been stated, and heavily implied, over and over that we're not exactly sure what the intent(other than profit) nor what the effect is(other than obviously frightening and traumatizing kids)...but something very wrong is happening here. And the broader point is that large platforms like youtube/facebook are enabling this bizarre shit...which leads to the very reasonable link it has to the recent rise of white nationalism online. Not some vague "outrageous" comparison to "white supremacy"(whatever the fuck that means). Specific things are being said here...specific things one would pick up on if one were curious/paying attention."
In my opinion, interpreting this as a claim that some sinister white supremacy is going on is not too much of a stretch.

3) Disturbing/inappropriate internet videos aren't new, but what is new is how large online platforms are rewarding/enabling proliferation of misinformation/bigotry/creepy-clickbait-shit targeting specific populations at such a massive scale.
4) The fact that some children might have access to inappropriate content that isn't aimed at them has absolutely nothing to do with creepy people online specifically targeting kids with inappropriate content.

I agree.

5) Yes, white supremacy existed before the internet, but the point is that its been giving new life by the internet and capitalism(rise of white nationalism), in ways many did not predict.

This may be true, but the Internet is only a tool. How it is used depends on the people. And if people have an agenda, they will use whatever tools there are available. Before the Internet there were pirate radio stations.

6) No one claimed the creepy kids videos had a "racist agenda". Unless you're talking about the racist prank videos I mentioned...which definitely have a racist agenda

Ok, fair enough.

7) You seem to be using "obvious ethics" to mean something like "absolute" or "objective" ethics...which has nothing to do with anything. When I said certain ethical implications should be "obvious", that is assuming we share the relevant ethics and the facts are readily known, it's frustrating for me to have to hold your hand to guide you to some of conclusions(based on those shared ethics and facts) that should be obvious.

I might have misunderstood the part about implications. But I consider it possible that your assumption was wrong. You said in another post "a complete lack of values, just profit-seeking" about "capitalistic rot". Profit maximizing is a value. Maybe not the most desirable one, but a value. So I don't believe that you should assume that ethical values you believe in are commonly shared.

[Monk]

To me, it's more like "the internet as a whole is largely for adults". Or, to quote Avenue Q (I think?), "The internet is for porn". The point being that the internet is in no way a safe place for kids. Whether it's YouTube, Facebook, Google, even Wikipedia... kids shouldn't be on the internet. There's plenty of good sources to get good videos to teach kids about colors, counting, animals, etc... actual produced kids shows shown on PBS, available at the library, etc. I never would have thought of going to the internet to find videos to show little kids.

Perhaps we can do a better job at designating some internet content as safe for kids; but I'm not sure I could ever fully trust any such system. At least not an automated one. And non-automated means that the parent watches the video first, and ain't nobody got time for that.

So yeah, not disagreeing that these videos are bad stuff. I just don't know if there is a better solution other than "teach parents that the internet isn't for kids". Of course, along with that means improving resources for parents so that they have better access to stuff that's good for kids, so that they don't have to resort to YouTube because it's easier.

You can give them devices that are locked to very specific content. I know Amazon has some tablets with a controlled environment, but it has an annual subscription fee. Otherwise parents need to have a kid-friendly mode or some shit. It won't lock everything out, but it'll help minimize it.

I remember being like 11 or 12 when we first got internet at my house, AOL (hah!). It had parental controls that prevented me from seeing adult content. I managed to bypass it because I knew my mom's password, but I imagine most parents are more tech savvy these days.

[Gendo]

Just came across a Ted Talk about this:

[Cassius Clay]

I've never been wrong.