Most people neither understand nor care to learn copyright law, nor would most bother to reason “x content would only be here unlawfully, therefore I should not watch it here because it’s either a threat to me or to the content creator”.

For example, search for the strictly inaccurate phrase “copyright not intended” on YouTube and observe the type of result.

There is also a lot of good original content made for YouTube as well like nursery rhymes. Some of which are better than the rubbish on "regular" TV.

So it's not really worth getting to hung up about copyright law in the context of this discussion as I could easily just replace "Peppa Pig" with "Kids Nursery Rhymes" and still make the same point.

Maybe the lesson here is that content creators for children should leave YouTube and find a more kid-friendly alternative. I imagine the day where a family-friendly brand sees these abusive videos being recommended in the same playlist as them and decides to pull all of their content.

There may be great content on YouTube, but that content could go anywhere. Is there maybe a market for a YouTube where a human reviews the content that gets posted and guarantees it is family-friendly?

I enjoy a lot of such content. My point is that almost nobody cares enough to know enough that they are even capable of being hung up about copyright law, any more than they care enough to learn enough to be hung up about which medicines are affordable in foreign countries. It just isn’t something normal people do.

Yes I got that the first time. You didn't need to re-explain your point because I was adding a complimentary argument rather than contradictory.

3 year olds don't understand copyright law and frankly I'm not about to try and explain it to them when I'm sat in a restaurant or queuing to get his hair cut. If watching something on YouTube (on my phone with the sound muted) pacifies my kids which make everyone's experience more tolerable then I wouldn't class that as bad parenting. But I guess the problem with appeasing judgemental individuals is you're damned whatever you do. However for what it's worth, almost everything we watch on YouTube with the kids we do also have on DVD.

I talk to my 3 year old while we're waiting for a haircut. Or I'll go for a walk with him, or play. Same as with the 6 year old.

I don't understand why some parents find electronic gizmos so essential for day to day activities.

Clearly I talk and play with my son as well (its a bit difficult talking someone for a walk when you're waiting in line for something or sat at a restaurant but maybe that's an American / UK cultural thing). I also occasionally fall back to electronic gizmos when my kids get so bored and disruptive that all of the aforementioned fails to keep them entertained. Because, if you really had kids you'd understand just how impossibly hard it can be to ask a 3 year old to have the patience of an adult ;)

But thanks for the patronising tone bud. Just because someone admits to playing YouTube to their son once in a while it doesn't mean they don't still spend nearly every waking moment at home interacting with them. Just like how feeding them fries occasionally is completely fine if their usual diet is healthy.

I do really have kids, one 3, one 6, only had to resort to electronic pacifiers on long haul flights, but ymmv, I just don't understand it.

The reason I said go for a walk was that's exactly what I did last time we took the kids to get their haircut - asked them how long it would be, they said 15 minutes, so we went for a walk for 10 minutes

> I do really have kids, one 3, one 6, only had to resort to electronic pacifiers on long haul flights, but ymmv, I just don't understand it.

Its ironic you make that confession after judging me for saying something similar - particularly when I don't tend to give my kids electronic devices on long journeys instead favouring conversation (like you suggested I should be doing anyway). Which just goes to show that you don't have to understand how other families work, you just have to accept that it does work for them and not pass judgement like you had done.

> The reason I said go for a walk was that's exactly what I did last time we took the kids to get their haircut - asked them how long it would be, they said 15 minutes, so we went for a walk for 10 minutes

Honestly, I genuinely find it quite rude when people do that as you lose all sense of how many people are before you and when you'd be up next. I'd rather teach my kids to wait patiently than have them think it is ok to leave and rejoin a queue whenever they get board. But as I said, that might be a cultural difference.

> Honestly, I genuinely find it quite rude when people do that as you lose all sense of how many people are before you and when you'd be up next.

This is ridiculous, you can simply go ask how many people are ahead of you if you want to know your place in the queue, which is the proper way to do it.

Never in all my years of going to the barbers have I ever known anyone do what you've just described in the UK; and if it does happen, then it's certainly not custom in any of the towns I have lived in.

Sometimes people do disappear when it is extremely busy but when they come back (typically an hour or two later) they expect to join the back of the queue. Literally the only time I've seen anyone leave queue and rejoined it where they left was when they were there with their larger family and one of the kids urgently needed the toilet. And even then I've only seen that happen once in the decades (literally!) I've been frequenting barbers.

You can use all of the patronising terms you like to promote your preferred etiquette but if it's not shared with the rest of community then your method simply isn't the "proper way to do it".

How is it any different from calling in to make an appointment for a specific time and then walking in when it’s your time and getting seated immediately?

The only difference here is you make the appointment in person.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this, but the difference is you're going to a barbers that don't take appointments and expecting them to honour one. If you want that kind of service then you go to a barbers that offer appointments.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp but after reading your other comment about how you love to talk confidently about subjects you no nothing about, I'm starting to question if this is one of those subjects. Perhaps you don't even have kids at all and this is just another one of your attempts at trolling which you also described enjoying.

In any case, the real crux of the matter isn't what you consider logical but rather what the generally agreed social etiquette is. So you can argue until you're blue in the face but if it's not how barbers currently work then that simply isn't how barbers currently work. Period.

I never said I had children, don’t know how that’s relevant to this particular line of thread. I’ve also never known a barber that didn’t take an appointment.

We’ll just have to end it here.

> I never said I had children, don’t know how that’s relevant to this particular line of thread.

It's relevent because this topic is about parenting and kids waiting in line for stuff like barbers.

> I've also never known a barber that didn’t take an appointment.

As I've repeatedly said, this might be a cultural thing. Most UK barbers in UK towns don't take appointments. Trendy ones in the big cities might well do, but in terms of your typical UK barbers shop you would just turn up and wait in line. So to that effect, I've also never known a barber that does take an appointment.

> We’ll just have to end it here.

For what it's worth, I did try to end this tangent several times already when I compromised with "it might be a cultural thing". Which, weirdly, is when you decided to rejoin the discussion. Go figure.

I think he means the parent should recognize that it's pirated. But regardless, there's a simple feedback loop that surely works to solve this problem. If you personally find your kids watching something you don't want them to, then you're going to stop letting them watch it. If you don't mind, then you might carry on. In either case, they watch what you approve and there's no problem.

You're just reiterating the original point that started this fork. While i agree with you that any responsible parent would do as you described, some of these shock videos aren't obviously shock videos until after the shock event has already happened. This in fact happened to a good friend of mine who is a very responsible parent however right at the end of a cartoon there was a loud scream with a guy wearing a zombie mask. I'm sure it was done as a laugh but it took my friends kid a couple of years to get over it. Before that event happened neither he nor I had ever heard of these kinds of pranks on YouTube before. Just as most other parents wouldn't have.

Sure you could blame the parents complacency or whatever but where do you draw the line? What happens if someone causes a scene that scares my kid when we are at a restaurant? Or walking him to school? You can't predicte the actions of every arsehole in communal spaces so blaming this stuff on the parents is more than a little unfair then society owes a little responsibility for its own actions as well.

But as I also said before, if these shock videos were just bad knock offs etc that a quick watch when the kids aren't around highlights their content, then I suspect YouTube would have found it easier to train their AI. The problem is some of those videos even get past parent moderation as well (such as the one I described above) and thus don't become apparent as a shock video until the damage has already been done.

The original post was saying parents should work out what's OK in advance. I realize that's very hard but that if you get it wrong, you'll adapt your behavior so it won't be an ongoing problem. Just like if your kid gets treated badly at a restaurant, you might not go there again. I'm not blaming the parent, just pointing out that it's a self-correcting problem so really nobody needs to be blamed.

Where it doesn't work is cases like your friend where a single unexpected event can cause a lot of harm. But most of these videos aren't that, they're just mildly "disturbing". If anything, they're a good warning that worse things might be coming.

What is mildly disturbing to you and I can be traumatic to little kids. Plus the videos described in that article sound a lot more disturbing than the one my friend fell victim to.

And I don't believe no one should be blamed. I believe the blame lies heavily with the uploaders of those videos because they're deliberately releasing content that they know isn't suitable for children in a way that is intended to lure children into watching it. Sure there will be instances where the parents are also at fault for not overseeing what their kids watch. I'm not in anyway trying to shift responsibility away from the parents. However while I'm one of the biggest advocates for free speech and all that jazz, ultimately if you're creating content that you know is inappropriate for children then you should not be targeting children with said content. Period.

Oh, well yes OK. I wasn't thinking of the creators of the content as human beings available to be blamed because they're so anonymous and unreachable. While morally, they might be the right target of blame, blaming them seems to be about as ineffective as blaming a cat for upsetting your kids by dying in the street where they walk. Other commenters seem to be aiming their criticism at either YouTube or parents, probably because those are more available and softer targets.