To answer your question about what made me think you were taking that stance: "it's better than nothing; and if it can protect one kid from an abusive situatio

To answer your question about what made me think you were taking that stance: "it's better than nothing; and if it can protect one kid from an abusive situation, or one set of kids from their abusive situations, then that is wonderful." The thing that made me think it was the lack of any qualification. It appeared to be (your follow-on comment repudiated that, obviously) a case where, if you protect one kid, regardless of the consequences, it is wonderful. Taking this discussion back to the kids, I think it should be possible to do things to help kids, even one kid, that don't have potential downsides, but it requires the people who are performing the actions to be more likely to do it for the kids and less likely to do it for themselves. Politicians seem to fail continually at this; the ad might be a positive (I have no data) but it leaves me uncomfortable that somebody is targeting my kids directly with something I can't see. Something tells me is isn't the last "message hidden from mom and dad" that will be directed at kids. But is it worse than "Remember to drink your Ovaltine"?