This article seems to cherry-pick statistics in favor of its thesis. For example, here's a counter-statisic: > "In 2020, there were 618,399 victims of child a

This article seems to cherry-pick statistics in favor of its thesis. For example, here's a counter-statisic: > "In 2020, there were 618,399 victims of child abuse in the United States. This is a decrease from the previous year, when there were 656,251 victims of child abuse, and is the lowest number of victims since 2012." (Statista) Now there are an estimated 70,000,000 children (age 0-17) in the USA, but it's likely that child abuse is significantly underreported. So, do you tell kids that child abuse is insignificant, that there aren't dangerous people (actual child abusers) and that they don't need to even think about it? What should they do then, if they learn that one of their friends is a victim of child abuse? The whole article seems a bit Pollyanish. Kids can handle learning about things like wars, resource exhaustion, economic instability, etc. They can also learn that cars are dangerous and that they shouldn't run into the street without looking, all without going into a state of debilitating fearfulness. It's just a matter of balance - for example, it's a good idea to tell kids that media outlets tend to cover the worst stories, not the best, so blind faith in media - i.e. the belief that reading the newspaper or watching a news show means you have a broad picture of the world - is unwise.