3 ms·

Adult concerned the kids aren't all right. Tale as old as time.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Yes; however, the language used in the article is unapologetically wildly emotional to the point that the credibility falls apart. Maybe it’s just me, but honest people don’t feel like they are trying to manipulate me.
- j45 2y ago
  It may seem wildly unemotional but is it out of the realm of what surprise might feel like upon learning this?
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    I’m saying the impartiality of the author is out of the window, was thrown on the lawn, and then driven over by a lawnmower. I’m sure I could make you look like a miserable failure if I spun your resumé hard enough.
    - j45 2y ago
      Appreciate the Mr. Beast type hyperbole. The fundamental issue is unmanaged exposure to devices and content does harm to children, and both platforms and content is complicit in it. Too calm?
      - gjsman-1000 2y ago
        Alright then, I’ve got a great idea: age verification for the internet. Don’t like it? That’s the future people like the author would endorse, and what every legislator is going to try to spin this story to do. I don’t like MrBeast, I even mispronounced his channel name in my original comment. The authors implicit proposal to fix it though is a trap. I believe the emotional language is a design choice to lead readers to be more favorable to such a proposal. It has nothing to do with MrBeast specifically.
        drawkward 2y ago
        >That’s the future people like the author would endorse Surely not; author explicitly brought up the looming ban on kid-focused advertising during kid-waking hours.
        magneticcrumbs 2y ago
        I don’t know if you are trolling but you have been using pretty loaded and manipulative language yourself. For the record, the new trend to shill MrBeast is to pretend to be neutral while you discredit the side against MrBeast more. Most of the time these people have a lot to say about MrBeast even though they say they don’t care or don’t like MrBeast. So…
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - magneticcrumbs 2y ago
        To people responding to this comment, maybe you don’t realise that YouTube has an app for kids with parental controls that a lot of parents do use? Try installing and do some search if you have never tried that before. It doesn’t take long before you find predatory content that leads to more predatory content.
        j45 2y ago
        I’m not sure if you have children. Or watch children’s videos. Too many childrens youtube videos themselves have many, many, addictive elements in them. Sounds, colors, too many scene changes. YouTube kids is not delivering on its promise. Youtube and YouTube kids is meant to keep eyeballs.
- magneticcrumbs 2y ago
  Not sure if you noticed the irony in what you said…
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Yes; however, the language used in the article is unapologetically wildly emotional to the point that the credibility falls apart. Shilling shit with lead contamination to kids warrants jail time IMHO. An emotion filled rant text should be the least of his worries in any civilized society.
  - vorpalhex 2y ago
    It's not clear the products are actually lead contaminated. ERC does claim it.. but with no lab report, no mention of ppb, etc. ERC itself lists no staff or public owner, and does business out of Georgia but flags people in violation of prop65 which is California law. Their website is mostly dead links and exclusively stock images.

Yes; however, the language used in the article is unapologetically wildly emotional to the point that the credibility falls apart. Maybe it’s just me, but honest people don’t feel like they are trying to manipulate me.

j45 2y ago
It may seem wildly unemotional but is it out of the realm of what surprise might feel like upon learning this?
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  I’m saying the impartiality of the author is out of the window, was thrown on the lawn, and then driven over by a lawnmower. I’m sure I could make you look like a miserable failure if I spun your resumé hard enough.
  - j45 2y ago
    Appreciate the Mr. Beast type hyperbole. The fundamental issue is unmanaged exposure to devices and content does harm to children, and both platforms and content is complicit in it. Too calm?
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      Alright then, I’ve got a great idea: age verification for the internet. Don’t like it? That’s the future people like the author would endorse, and what every legislator is going to try to spin this story to do. I don’t like MrBeast, I even mispronounced his channel name in my original comment. The authors implicit proposal to fix it though is a trap. I believe the emotional language is a design choice to lead readers to be more favorable to such a proposal. It has nothing to do with MrBeast specifically.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        >That’s the future people like the author would endorse Surely not; author explicitly brought up the looming ban on kid-focused advertising during kid-waking hours.
      - magneticcrumbs 2y ago
        I don’t know if you are trolling but you have been using pretty loaded and manipulative language yourself. For the record, the new trend to shill MrBeast is to pretend to be neutral while you discredit the side against MrBeast more. Most of the time these people have a lot to say about MrBeast even though they say they don’t care or don’t like MrBeast. So…
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - magneticcrumbs 2y ago
      To people responding to this comment, maybe you don’t realise that YouTube has an app for kids with parental controls that a lot of parents do use? Try installing and do some search if you have never tried that before. It doesn’t take long before you find predatory content that leads to more predatory content.
      - j45 2y ago
        I’m not sure if you have children. Or watch children’s videos. Too many childrens youtube videos themselves have many, many, addictive elements in them. Sounds, colors, too many scene changes. YouTube kids is not delivering on its promise. Youtube and YouTube kids is meant to keep eyeballs.
magneticcrumbs 2y ago
Not sure if you noticed the irony in what you said…
mschuster91 2y ago
> Yes; however, the language used in the article is unapologetically wildly emotional to the point that the credibility falls apart. Shilling shit with lead contamination to kids warrants jail time IMHO. An emotion filled rant text should be the least of his worries in any civilized society.
- vorpalhex 2y ago
  It's not clear the products are actually lead contaminated. ERC does claim it.. but with no lab report, no mention of ppb, etc. ERC itself lists no staff or public owner, and does business out of Georgia but flags people in violation of prop65 which is California law. Their website is mostly dead links and exclusively stock images.