I don't really know what @2:33 is about, but let me take a guess and ask you: would you let actual children see the contents that appear @2:33? And if they did,

I don't really know what @2:33 is about, but let me take a guess and ask you: would you let actual children see the contents that appear @2:33? And if they did, would they be horrified? If you asked them to describe what was happening on @2:33, would they feel unfomfortable? Or would they give some innocent, mundane description? This is a great test to see if something is dirty or if it's only dirty in your mind. If you have to create an imaginary pedophile in your mind that gets aroused by @2:33, and a whole group of them that are searching Youtube comments to find the timestamp for "what they're looking for", you have to wonder if you're not using some huge leap in logic to arrive to conclusions. Ironically, what this video has shown is that Youtube's system works, as this guy, to make his video, had to go for what seems to be hours of research and after it, he shows the most shocking videos of little girls he was able to find. And there wasn't any nudity, or anything actually implicitly sexual shown. Everything was clean and every timestamp led to family-friendly content. The "worst" thing I saw was the usage of the water emoji, and I'm like, really? People use the water emoji and suddenly you can be very detailed about their sexual orientation and why they timestamp videos or share them? All what is happening on these completely innocent videos could be explained in many ways, thinking the most likely explanation is "that's a pedophile" means the imaginary pedophile in your mind needs to be toned down.