>You're asking someone to prove a negative, which is pretty much impossible. Fair, but why state it as fact if it's impossible to prove? >But it does seem fai

>You're asking someone to prove a negative, which is pretty much impossible. Fair, but why state it as fact if it's impossible to prove? >But it does seem fair in response to ask if you can prove, with the same 100% accuracy, that any one of children in the videos identified in the article are being exploited and/or abused? Also a fair point, and I can provide at least two articles that addressed YouTube removing content involving the exploitation of children in the past. Granted, these aren't "the videos identified by the article", but they're strong evidence that, contrary to OP's claim, children have been exploited on the platform. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/youtube-has-deleted-hundreds-of-thousands-of-disturbing https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/youtube... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/youtube-is-addressing-its-massive-child-exploitation-problem https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/youtube-i...