Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Self-Harm Clips Hidden in Kids' Cartoons (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the growing-concerns dept.

Children's charity the NSPCC has accused YouTube of failing to tackle dangerous content on its youth channel. From a report: YouTube Kids, dubbed as a safer, child-friendly version of the video-sharing site, has been criticised by parents for failing to remove cartoons that contain clips depicting suicide methods on its platform. The clips show a YouTuber demonstrating a suicide method. Google told the BBC it works hard to remove such content. "We have strict policies that prohibit videos which promote self-harm. We rely on both user-flagging and smart-detection technology to flag this content for our reviewers," the firm said in a statement. "We are always working to improve our systems and to remove violat[ing] content more quickly." It is unclear how or why the clips depicting suicide methods were embedded in children's cartoons. The BBC has received no response from the YouTuber. It also asked Google, which owns YouTube, if it had spoken to him directly but did not get a reply.

76 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. No more YT kids for my kids by Danathar · · Score: 2

    My wife and I had just about removed all instances from the rokus. It's all gone now. Trust is violated. Not sure how Google gets us back (if ever)

    1. Re:No more YT kids for my kids by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's all gone now. Trust is violated. Not sure how Google gets us back (if ever)

      The problem is the lack of consequences for their actions.

      A troll creates a channel, grabs a bunch of (infringing) videos, inserts the self-harm clips as described, and laughs as their view count increases. If they are ever discovered, their maximum consequence is having the account terminated, and they can trivially create another one.

      If instead they discover there is a near-100% chance that the face child endangerment charges, child abuse charges, reckless endangerment charges, and more, it would drop. There are still some sick people who would still occasionally do it, but if they faced consequences for their actions the vast majority would stop.

      Unlike the free-for-all version, the child-centric YouTube Kids failed at their promise. They claimed they were going to have carefully curated content that was age appropriate. What they should have done, in addition to actually having humans curate the content, would be to verify the others creating and updating content through background checks and validated identities. Thus anyone who wanted to post would could not do so under the shroud of anonymity, and once their harmful content was discovered it would be followed not only by an online takedown, but by officers at the door with an arrest warrant for felony crimes for each and every violator.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    2. Re:No more YT kids for my kids by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

      TV is still around

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    3. Re:No more YT kids for my kids by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      It's all about profit for Google. They want the ad dollars of being a TV channel and none of the content creation or curation costs. There's almost nothing that comes from Google for free that's worth what you actually pay for it.

      It's either meant to spy on you, will be abruptly ended as a platform, or is of low quality because it relies on "AI" that is neither intelligent nor advanced.

    4. Re:No more YT kids for my kids by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      The clip being debated (if you follow the links back to the original blog post on pedimom.com) is almost certainly this scene from Family Guy, not something mysterious like a razor blade in a candy apple. It definitely didn't belong on YouTube Kids, but you should think twice about that before deciding how to react.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  2. Easy answer by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is unclear...why the clips depicting suicide methods were embedded in children's cartoons.

    People are dicks.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Easy answer by iggymanz · · Score: 1, Troll

      Answer is Millenials are soft and impressionable and triggered by everything.

      The ol' classic cartoons had characters preparing to off themselves. Tom and Jerry, Road Runner & Wile E. Coyote, Bugs Bunny etc.

      No one in my elementary, middle or high school committed suicide, imagine that.

    2. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >No one in my elementary, middle or high school committed suicide, imagine that.

      HUGE citation needed. Cause you're so full of shit it's coming out of your earls

    3. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Answer is Millenials are soft and impressionable and triggered by everything.

      The ol' classic cartoons had characters preparing to off themselves. Tom and Jerry, Road Runner & Wile E. Coyote, Bugs Bunny etc.

      No one in my elementary, middle or high school committed suicide, imagine that.

      You don't know that for sure.
      There were about 15-20 deaths in the 12 years of the public schools I attended.
      One thing I know for sure is that we kids were not fully informed on the nature of those deaths.
      FYI, high speed single car accidents in the AMs that are running off a bridge, wrong-way on the interstate, etc is probably a suicide not an accident. But the police are never going to put that into a report unless there's a suicide note.
      And the modern way for young people to off themselves is not car crashes nor self-inflicted gunshot, it's an overdose of a drug the gets written up as "accidental overdose".

      cite needed?
      https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/15/591577807/how-many-opioid-overdoses-are-suicides
      https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20180425/many-opioid-overdoses-may-be-suicides#1
      https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/avypkp/how-many-drug-overdoses-are-actually-suicides

    4. Re:Easy answer by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      If he went to a small school, it's highly probable that no one committed suicide at any of his schools, while he was in school. Elementary school children are really unlikely to kill themselves, same for people in middle school. The current rate for teen suicide (in boys at least) is only around 14 per 100,000 according to most sources I could find. Napkin math says you'd need a little over 1,000 boys in your high school before it becomes as likely as not for one of them to commit suicide while you're in high school.

      According to the CDC, teen suicide rate is up, but it's a matter of what time scale you're looking at. If you measure from the mid-2000's, the suicide rate is up, but if you compare it to the late-1980's and early-1990's, the suicide rate is down. It had a harder time finding good data that goes way back, but sources suggest the rates were lower in the 1960's, but I can't find much that goes back further than that, at least not for teenagers.

      I also didn't have anyone commit suicide in my elementary, middle, or high school while growing up. I don't really see how I can prove that to you though since you'd be asking me to prove a negative. I mean I suppose I could try to get a record of everyone who attended at the same time as me and try to show a lack of any death certificates for those people in that span of time, but that would be kind of hard to cite.

    5. Re:Easy answer by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Someone mod AC up - the post is informative.

      FYI, high speed single car accidents in the AMs that are running off a bridge, wrong-way on the interstate, etc is probably a suicide not an accident. But the police are never going to put that into a report unless there's a suicide note.
      And the modern way for young people to off themselves is not car crashes nor self-inflicted gunshot, it's an overdose of a drug the gets written up as "accidental overdose".

      FYI, the police are also never going to put "self-inflicted gunshot" into a report unless there's a note. It's "accidentally shot himself while cleaning his gun". From the statistics, you'd think cleaning a gun is an intensely dangerous activity.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Easy answer by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Answer is Millenials are soft and impressionable

      The youngest Millennials were born in 1996 to 2005, depending on who's definition you want to use.

      You are arguing that late-teen to early-20s at the youngest are using a program designed for 5 to 8 year olds.

      Welcome to being old. The people you derided as children are adults now.

    7. Re: Easy answer by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is if you don't unload and clear the chamber first. A lot of people forget about that one in the chamber. One little slip while taking the slide off and bang.

      You just don't point the gun at your face until it's disassembled. I've never heard of anyone who didn't understand that, even when very drunk. It's the most basic rule of gun safety: all guns are loaded, until you're looking through the empty chamber through the locked-back slide. It's perhaps believable for someone to shoot themselves in the leg, through the table, though even that is an unlikely chain of events.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Easy answer by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No, you are young.

      I was in school 1960s 1970s.

      Not like todays' wusses.

    9. Re:Easy answer by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No big Chicago suburb.

      We had deaths by accident, crime and disease.

      No suicides, not even in high school.

      This was 60s and 70s.

    10. Re: Easy answer by twosat · · Score: 1

      Something like that happened with a 15 year-old boy in my year at school in the late 1970's. He had been shooting rabbits with some other kids and they were back at a farmhouse watching television. One of the other kids was cleaning a rifle and was being careful to point it away from himself and towards the TV. The boy in question went to change the channel on the TV using the channel knob when the rifle fired off a round left in the firing chamber. From what I understand, the bullet went into one of his main blood vessels and got sucked into his heart, killing him.

    11. Re: Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A lot of people forget about that one in the chamber.

      Citation please. I'm a rather avid firearm enthusiast. Checking the chamber is literally the first thing I do with every firearm I pick up. And that's despite the fact that firearms have an indicator on them to tell you if a round is chambered. I'm not unique in this, it's SOP. Go to a gun show, if not for the seriousness of it, it'd seem comical, people just constantly pulling slides back and looking, even though the guy handing it to them did it 3 seconds ago and locked the slide open, they released it, but do it again. It's just habit.

      Anybody who uses firearms regularly goes by the mantra "a firearm is always loaded", and "never point a firearm at anything you don't wish to destroy". Beyond that, firearms lock their slide open when they're empty if a magazine is in place, so if the slide is closed, it trains you to assume there's a round chambered. I've literally not once been surprised to find a round chambered when I check. But none the less, everybody I know picks up a firearm, pulls the slide back and checks the chamber every time. And again, typically when you're handling firearms without the intent to fire it, you're handling it with the slide locked open.

      The vast majority of accidents tend to be when inexperienced shooters or idiots swing firearms around knowing damn well that it's loaded. They forget the rule "only point it at things you wish to destroy" and swing it around like you would a baseball bat.

    12. Re:Easy answer by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Funny, that's what your grandparents said about you.

      And their grandparents said about them.

      And Plato's generation's grandparents said about Plato's.

    13. Re:Easy answer by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's a passage in the Iliad where one old fart is talking about the real heroes they had back when he was young, not like these modern whippersnappers like Achilles and Diomedes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:Easy answer by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Why? Nobody in my entire 12 years of schooling committed suicide either. We lost a half dozen kids to illness, accidents, and one or two drunk driving fatalities (they were the passenger). But nobody killed themselves.

      I live in a rural area. Maybe the pressures of life are less out here, I don't know.. But I do know that none of my peers ever hit the stress level of deciding that suicide was better than living.

      I feel pity for those who live in an area where suicide is apparently so common that you cannot comprehend the idea that some places have no (or almost no) suicides among children.

      There were adults who offed themselves, but even that was hyper rare.. Maybe 2 instances during my whole childhood... 1 was terminal cancer that was, apparently, very painful. The other I don't remember the reason..

    15. Re: Easy answer by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      It's also worth mentioning that suicides aren't going to be announced to everyone, you'd never know because you didn't know the person or were in the same classes.

      I don't think you've ever been to a small school... My Jr. High was 250 students.. Announcement or not, word spreads.

  3. Can't Promise Curated Content and Not Curate It by Koreantoast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Should be important to note that this is not talking about YouTube in general but specifically a product that the company setup promising carefully curated content for children. If you're going to create a curated set of programs intentionally marketed toward children, they really should be reviewing videos before putting them on the app versus just hoping detection algorithms and self-reporting are going to catch clips spliced in. For this kind of program, once your credibility is shot, you're not going to recover anytime in the near future.

    1. Re:Can't Promise Curated Content and Not Curate It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For this kind of program, once your credibility is shot, you're not going to recover anytime in the near future.

      I know you're referring to youtube's credibility, but a valid point to be raised is the credibility of these "child safety" groups, which is shot just as bad after so many times crying wolf.

      It's getting to ridiculous levels bordering on insanity.

      I don't just mean "back in my day we watched all sorts of things", although that rings true too.
      Warner Brothers legal department a couple years back sent a DMCA take down to youtube reporting Warner Bros own channel for having Looney Toons on it, complaining about animal cruelty!

      That aside, even pokemon gets child abuse and animal cruelty complaints.

      Those stupid "get your parents permission" ads, while certainly annoying and undesired, and now being classified as abuse. Not that I'm really crying over that loss at all, but let's be honest for a second - abuse, really? Abuse would be the video bunny telling kids to do something *without* permission.

      It's honestly long past the point where I want to even spend the half of a minute to see if this complaint is actually valid and as described.
      Is not the biggest disservice to protecting children the numbing of the public due to all the over reaction?

    2. Re:Can't Promise Curated Content and Not Curate It by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Their problem is the usual failure of the blacklist approach. They let anyone upload anything and then try to detect and blacklist after the fact. That approach is always going to fail as the uploaders have plenty of ways to evade the detection, and the moderators have limited resources. The only effective approach would be whitelisting, as in every video is reviewed *before* it is posted. But that would kill the platform's popularity and profitability.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    3. Re:Can't Promise Curated Content and Not Curate It by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Self-Harm Clips Hidden in Kids' Cartoons

      carefully curated content for children. ... once your credibility is shot,

      ** I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE **

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    4. Re:Can't Promise Curated Content and Not Curate It by Altus · · Score: 1

      I don't know man... Pokemon is basically dog fighting with more exotic animals.... and that might not even be the creepiest thing about that show

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    5. Re:Can't Promise Curated Content and Not Curate It by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Eff that. Pokemon in the cartoons are sentient beings. It's a blood sport fought with slave species.

  4. Rippy the Razor says by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It's down the block, not across the street.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Rippy the Razor says by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      But if it's a cry for help across the street is the right choice.

      Am I a bad person if I lol'd at that?

  5. Or you could just get over it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There's lots of bad things out there in the world. Shielding your kids from it is largely pointless. You're better off just explaining it to them to the limits of their understanding. That way they don't develop morbid fascinations with anything.

    My kid very, very briefly tried to "rebel" with music. I showed her the kinds of music me and my brother grew up with (Slayer, Gore Guts, Testament, etc) and that made it all kind of pointless right there. These days the only "rebelling" she does is trying not to turn out to be as much a loser nerd as I am.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Or you could just get over it by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Q. What kind of music will the next generation of teens listen to?
      A. Whatever seems to be most shocking to the adults.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Or you could just get over it by nwaack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's lots of bad things out there in the world. Shielding your kids from it is largely pointless. You're better off just explaining it to them to the limits of their understanding. That way they don't develop morbid fascinations with anything.

      Except that YouTube Kids was supposed to be a safe place with procured content, and it clearly isn't. Maybe you don't mind exposing small children to this type of crap, but I sure as hell am going to keep it to a minimum if I can help it.

    3. Re:Or you could just get over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I don't have YouTube Kids on any of my devices because I believe in spending time with and coaching my young children while we're on the internet. BUT -

      Shielding your kids from it is largely pointless.

      We're talking about a platform geared towards toddlers and kindergartners, you fucking retard. Talking is great and all, but try explaining the concept of wanting to end your own life to someone who can't yet functionally grasp the concept of death. Jesus Christ you're stupid.

    4. Re:Or you could just get over it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Shielding your kids from it is largely pointless. You're better off just explaining it to them to the limits of their understanding.

      That depends on the age of the kid. There is not much a 13 year-old needs to be sheltered from. But there is plenty a 5 year-old should not see.

      YouTube kids to targeted at 3 to 8 year olds. The "shielding" is its raison d'etre.

    5. Re:Or you could just get over it by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Q. What kind of music will the next generation of teens listen to? A. Whatever seems to be most shocking to the adults.

      If they really want to fry our taters, they'll listen to old school Bluegrass.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Or you could just get over it by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      The schools in my area were briefly allowed to use YouTube kids for videos in class. They even had different channels for different types of videos - all were supposed to be screened for offensive content. It lasted 3 days before a video that had very inappropriate scenes was discovered by a 2nd grade class. The school dropped it.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    7. Re:Or you could just get over it by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And, in my experience, kids hate naps. Naps are wasted on them. The people who'd really appreciate them are parents with jobs.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Google loves Pedophilia no doubt by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    Lots of that crap in Hollyweird. It should not be tolerated.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  7. Have you ever watched Looney Tunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's basically just one long self harm series. Same thing with The Three Stooges

  8. Classic Warner Brothers cartoons - by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    Ever notice just how much suicide was in the classic Warner Brothers stuff? I got a lot of it on DVD over the past few years because, hey who doesn't like that stuff, and I started to realize just how many of those clips were trimmed on TV network broadcasts in the modern day. It was just about a cartoon characters first resort in the 40's and 50's. I don't recall seeing much of that in Disney stuff from the same era, or the others, but those were more kid focused while Warner was buffer material for adults.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Classic Warner Brothers cartoons - by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies > Silly Symphonies

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    2. Re:Classic Warner Brothers cartoons - by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Oh, I love Looney Tunes along with Tom and Jerry - the well known one, the other Tom and Jerry sucked a little.

      I've got my kids watching them, but that suicide stuff in Warner Brothers actually upsets my wife a little. I sort of ruined her world when I pointed out just how much of what was in those cartoons was WWII propaganda too.

      What I find interesting, and I blame the day care - I had Looney Tunes on at home because I liked them. My son is a Mickey Fan, to stupid degrees. When he was just old enough to talk good we were leaving Costco and he saw the "Get a Disney Vacation through Costco" flyer stand on the way out and shouted Mickey! I didn't even know he knew who Mickey was. When I was home on Saturdays it was Looney Tunes or Tom and Jerry on most mornings, occasionally some Popeye or the old Fleischer stuff, but I didn't have a lot of Fleischer and what I did have was poor quality transfers.

      He's a Mickey fiend, but mostly the modern stuff. I've put some Silly Symphonies on for him, but he just wants Mickey Mouse Clubhouse or a few other more modern incarnations. I find that promising, that's a kids show and he should outgrow it.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    3. Re:Classic Warner Brothers cartoons - by acroyear · · Score: 1

      The most annoying of this was in their version of Horton Hatches the Egg, circa '42 I think. In it, as the boat passes through the ocean, a fish pops out, looks at the elephant, goes "Now I've Seen Everything", and suddenly blows his head off with a revolver out of nowhere. I can't *stand* that gag, but the termite terrace era used it quite a few times.

      It is so ridiculously un-Seuss-like, that no wonder it took him 20 years to agree to have another of his stories adapted, and (aside from Friz's Cat in the Hat, which REALLY drifts from the book), actively worked with Friz or Chuck or Bob (McKimson) to make sure it was right.

      I forgot it was there when I showed the film to my then 3 year old, because in broadcasts in the 80s, they trimmed it out...but the DVD version still had it uncut.

      Now, this is different from what the OP is talking about, which I'm guessing is somebody splicing in this crap into the middle of the 'toon just to be an arse, but yeah, it is a problem with many old 'toons. I wish I was better at editing tools so I could make a copy with that bit cropped out.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    4. Re:Classic Warner Brothers cartoons - by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      But back then people mostly grew up on farms where for the animals, brutality and rape is a daily way of life among the livestock.

      What the fuck are you babbling about?

    5. Re:Classic Warner Brothers cartoons - by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Rape is a strictly human concept. Animals lack capacity to form intent and therefore cannot realistically commit any "crime" in the sense that we define it in society. A wild animal may be euthanized if it is a danger to life and/or property (or relocated, or otherwise made not a threat), but it's not because it committed a crime. Similarly there's no "due process" for animals because they have no capacity to participate in their own defense.

      Bottom line, stop anthropomorphizing livestock. Their behaviors can not and should not be viewed through the lens of how we would expect humans to behave in similar situations.

  9. Re:How about this : by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    How could you leave out Facebook which is tearing apart the very fabric of society?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  10. YouTube is banned in my house by DalM · · Score: 1

    YouTube has a lot of really great content. About 4% is really great, which is still A LOT of great content. Unfortunately 95% is garbage. And 1% is harmful.

    YouTube can't be trusted and is banned from my house for my kids. Sorry, but kids shouldn't be allowed to watch YouTube. Especially not the Kids YouTube, which is where the real freaks congregate.

    1. Re:YouTube is banned in my house by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      You're just setting them up to get addicted to it once they're free from your control. I've always been allowed to play video games, and when I went to college, it was business as usual. Other people weren't allowed to play at all at home. Guess what they did once they were out of their parents control?

    2. Re:YouTube is banned in my house by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      You're just setting them up to get addicted to it once they're free from your control. I've always been allowed to play video games, and when I went to college, it was business as usual. Other people weren't allowed to play at all at home. Guess what they did once they were out of their parents control?

      Bull... In my house we weren't allowed to have sugary cereals (Honey Smacks, Fruit Loops, etc). Once we were adults, beyond a few boxes (to see what all the fuss was about), it was a habit we kept.

      You gonna make the same argument against bans on drinking alcohol or smoking weed? There are some things that children shouldn't do while they, and their brains, are still developing.. Good parenting tends to produce good children and many of the good habits we develop as children/teens last well into adulthood.

      To be brutally honest, you sound like one of those weak-willed defeatists who'll cave to their children's demands because you don't have the spine to draw the line and walk it.

    3. Re:YouTube is banned in my house by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I draw the line at not getting addicted. Trying it in moderation is fine. Kids will be curious and your banning it just makes them even more curious.

      To be brutally honest, you sound like one of those weak-willed defeatists who'll cave to their children's demands because you don't have the spine to draw the line and walk it.

      With all due respect, you make the same argument as those people who promote abstinence. You know, the kind that pretends to be all about chastity, but then turn around and rapes the kids.

    4. Re:YouTube is banned in my house by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Where do you draw the line? Can they try cocaine? Heroin? Why not? What about alcohol? Alcohol seems to be one of the most addictive substances around.. How much alcohol damages, or simply mildly stunts, a developing brain?

      I've read study after study that appears to show that social media is addictive.. Dopamine hits.. etc.. Maybe it's not unreasonable to suggest that it be limited to adults.. This is the first generation growing up with it.

      And yeah, I would promote abstinence, while making condoms available. Kids having sex happens, I acknowledge that. But it has the potential to severely damage them.. Unwanted pregnancy, STDs (including HIV), etc.. Suggesting that kids shouldn't be fucking, and encouraging them to not fuck, is hardly unreasonable. What would you do? Toss him/her a box of rubbers and then say "have at it slugger"?

      If you really think that telling kids they can't do something is going to make all of them crave it.. well.. I can't deal with that kind of idiocy.

      Nice on on pulling pedophilia out of your ass though.... Fuck head..

    5. Re:YouTube is banned in my house by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Where do you draw the line? Can they try cocaine? Heroin? Why not? What about alcohol? Alcohol seems to be one of the most addictive substances around.. How much alcohol damages, or simply mildly stunts, a developing brain?

      Alcohol is an acquired taste and kids hate it. Let them try it. Or better yet, force them to drink PBR as a punishment. They won't be going near that again until well into adulthood.

      I've read study after study that appears to show that social media is addictive.. Dopamine hits.. etc.. Maybe it's not unreasonable to suggest that it be limited to adults.. This is the first generation growing up with it.

      Crime is down, reading proficiency is improving, and the world is more peaceful than ever, all despite stagnant wages and a growing trend of single-parenthood. Guess being stuck to the screen all day keeps them out of trouble. The only people who have a problem with this are the older generations who think they're the best and everyone who lives differently aren't living correctly.

      Nice on on pulling pedophilia out of your ass though.... Fuck head..

      Haha, what did you expect after calling me spineless? I can trade insults all day. Would you like round 2?

    6. Re:YouTube is banned in my house by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      You think the world is more peaceful than ever? Okay...... alrighty then...

    7. Re:YouTube is banned in my house by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Oh really? Maybe you should've spent 5 seconds to Google it before shooting off your mouth.

    8. Re:YouTube is banned in my house by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Oh really? Maybe you should've spent 5 seconds to Google it before shooting off your mouth.

      Maybe you should have done your research before shooting off your mouth. You do realize the chart you posted was a sliding scale right? It's adjusted for population. That red line look it's lower than other places it's been? Looks to me like 1890 was when the world had the fewest conflict deaths. That's not because 1890 had less people either.. it's a sliding scale.

      There are 10 official wars and 8 active military conflicts recognized by the United States. There are also other violent conflicts involving 64 countries and 576 militias and separatist groups.

      The four ongoing conflicts with the highest number of casualties (at least 10,000 deaths per year) are the Syrian Civil War, the civil war in South Sudan, the war in Afghanistan, and the Mexican Drug War. Those with more than 1,000 deaths include the Yemeni Civil War, the Somali Civil War, the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, conflicts in Nigeria, the war in Darfur, the Boko Haram insurgency, the Libyan crisis, the Sinai insurgency, the South Kordofan conflict. and the South Sudanese Civil War. Beyond this is the ever complex war with terrorists throughout the world like ISIL and Al-Qaeda.

      Do those actual stats sound like a peaceful world, dipshit? We might not be having one giant global conflict, but we have a fuckton of small wars spread out all over the goddamn place. And just for reference, the Mexican Drug War is in reference to the cartels fighting the government of Mexico, it has nothing to do with the USA's War on Drugs.

  11. Light on content and a product placement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is little indication of how prevalent such content is. Who made the original video? What were their motives?

    The originating blogpost is a thinly veiled product placement for an "internet safety" product.

  12. This is a test. It is only a test by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Do not be afraid. Do not get mad. Breathe deep... Relax... Mellow... Ommm... Ommm

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  13. Re:Oh no! Think of the children! by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    I think of my children. It's called parenting.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  14. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cartoon self-harm is now banned?

    This isn't about Wile E. Coyote blowing himself up. Read the article.

    This is about a cartoon that has a LIVE-ACTION CLIP OF A MAN DEMONSTRATING A SUICIDE METHOD spliced into it.

    I know everyone's down on moral outrage these days, but it's pretty damn well justified here.

  15. Re:Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Millennials" are no longer "children", you're thinking of "Generation Z" - Since you wanted to be a troll, troll correctly dipshit.

    Millennials are people born 1985-2005. Generations are 20 years.

    1945-1965 Baby Boomer
    1965-1985 GenX
    1985-2005 Millenial
    2005-2025 Digital Native

    People make up finer-grained marketing demographics, of course.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  16. Re:Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

    Millennials are people born 1985-2005. Generations are 20 years.

    Actually, it's not quite so cut-and-dried as this. There really isn't a whole lot of agreement on the exact start and end years of a generation.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  17. What if the suicide aspect is unintentional? by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

    Like in 90% of the Youtube videos.

  18. Give by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    A "kids" site should be completely curated.

    Sounds like YouTube is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  19. Re:Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by lgw · · Score: 1

    Anything but 20 year boundaries is Gerrymandering, And clearly the baby boom starts in 1945, so that's the "epoch". Of course, going backwards you have the Silent Generation and the Greatest Generation and the Centennials,

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  20. I don't think it matters by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I saw Heavy Metal when I was 6 (we had cable) and the only thing I remember was the girl riding the bird and the way the bird sounded until I saw it years later as an adult.

    It's like those bad "adult" jokes in kids movies where they go over their head.

    You're right it does kind of defeat the purpose of YouTube Kids though.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't think it matters by lilrobbie · · Score: 2

      The risk I feel you're overlooking here is that kids at these young ages will mimic stuff they see, because they don't yet have the depth of understanding required to determine which actions are dangerous.

      It's not the possibly-immoral-or-disagreeable things that people are concerned about. It would be the video that shows someone stabbing or harming themselves, or eating poisonous things (hello tide-pods!) that cause the outrage. On their own, the kid might not think to try this, but once they see someone else doing it, you can bet it'll move to the top of their todo list.

      There are some really good reasons to shelter children of certain ages from certain things...

  21. Re: Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well according to your numbers I am both Gen X and Millennial.
    You fucked your numbers and made them all have 1 year overlapping.
    If you don't define things accurately it doesn't matter how much I want to trust you, I just can't.

  22. Re: Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by lgw · · Score: 1

    Well according to your numbers I am both Gen X and Millennial.

    Squishy distinctions tend to overlap. If you take one of those "are you a Millennial" pop culture tests, I'd bet it comes up half-Gen X, half-Millennial.

    And people still commonly believe the new millennium started in 2000. Fencepost errors, not worth fighting over.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  23. Re: Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

    Esp when we ar deaing eith a xalender based on events hapoening irc several hundred years before the where writtin down ( bith snd death of a random betson in judea, oh well) (all calendars hae this problem sndastroomusnd physics are not the helpull either, how old is the universe? 13. Somrhing bilion years give or take several bilion oh well that is pinpoint accuracy, not vad mothing cientist here just saying that no cslender or dating sustem yet invented gives an absolute timing on things so bondry errors on 30 year oeriods oh well good luck with thst locely for me 1980 is rather girmly in on generation). Butenugh semi trolling for on day 2AM time to go go sleap

  24. Re:Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by Ashthon · · Score: 2

    Wikipedia gives these years for millennials:

    United States PIRG - 1983-2000
    United States Census Bureau - 1982-2000
    Demographers William Straus and Neil Howe - 1982-2004
    Ernst and Young - 1981-1996
    Pew Research Center - 1981-1996
    SYZYGY - 1981-1998
    Asia Business Unit of Corporate Directions - 1981-2000
    Goldman Sachs - 1980-2000
    Resolution Foundation - 1980-2000
    Australia's McCrindle Research - 1980-1994
    PricewaterhouseCoopers - 1980-1995
    MSW Research - 1980-1996
    United States Chamber of Commerce - 1980-1999
    Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary - 1980-1999
    MetLife - 1977-1994
    Nielsen Media Research - 1977-1994

    I think we can all agree that those using 1980 are wrong! Certainty, somebody born in January 1980 is most definitely not a millennial!!!

    That reminds me of this video where Mahk finds out he's a millennial:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15iLHlJPp_0

  25. A different thought by davesays · · Score: 1

    I generally agree, but, to be pedantic, you can probably explain anything *reasonably age appropriate +/- 10% to kids under seven and 15% 7-15, or something like that (intended only as example). But there are things that can break fully formed adults. You can't expect children with no emotional toolbox to deal with some things. That is the literal but abstract meaning of torture - taking someone to a place they have no rational/emotional means of dealing with. That breaks people.

  26. Dumb question by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    I saw the offending clip. I agree completely that it has no place being where it was, would kiddies who watch that program be old enough or aware enough to understand what the guy was talking about?

    What was the original context of that clip?

  27. Re:Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    > 2005-2025 Digital Native
    2005-2025 Mad Max residents

    FTFA

  28. Re:Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

    Honestly given the rapid changes of technology in the last 20 years, I'd contend that 20 years is far too long and inaccurate characterization of generations. I've seen Millenials defined in the early 80s so I fall into that group.

    But it's weird talking to some of my colleagues who can't remember 9/11 or didn't even grow up with dial up. I feel like there is somewhat of a cultural divide between mid 80s kids and mid-late 90s kids. Who was hit by the 08 recession vs who wasn't. I suppose time will tell.

  29. Re:Sigh... by Altus · · Score: 1

    More that that this is on youtube Kids which is supposed to be curated by Google to be appropriate... not just a bunch of videos on the regular cesspool of a website

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  30. Re:Retard iggymanz is easily confused. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    "Millennials" are no longer "children", you're thinking of "Generation Z" - Since you wanted to be a troll, troll correctly dipshit.

    Millennials are

    A catch all term used by angry, constipated people to demonise anyone they don't like that happen to be younger.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.