Parents sue TikTok after 7 kids die from profitable Blackout Challenge videos
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Use parental controls and make it nothing more than a phone. Don't allow apps to be installed.
Upvote
9
(14
/
-5)
Those assholes you see weaving around traffic at 30 over the speed limit? Often they're recording and posting on TikTok. There are entire groups on TikTok dedicated solely to making and posting videos of driving dangerously & illegally. They get people killed - gruesomely.
Upvote
12
(16
/
-4)
Ars should do a headline story on just this. I thought the story the other day about YouTube's algorithm overriding the content creator's own 18+ rating on a horror video and putting it on YouTube Kids was bad. But this is much worse.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Companies are always going to try to be awful and try to slyly find ways to market themselves to younger people. They will claim ignorance, abuse marketing loopholes, or find... ugh... "influencers"... to fill the marketing void that companies like Winston used to occupy when they directly marketed cigarettes during episodes of The Flintstones. Parents absolutely, 100% need to be on top of things, either one parent, or both. Shit is scary as a parent nowadays. I sat in the first couple days of my son's 1st grade class listening to all the kids talking about who they want to be like when they grow up, and nearly half of them said "YouTube star".
I was completely flabbergasted. These kids' heroes, mentors, and primary influencers in their key development years exist only in online passive experiences, where those "stars" abuse their relationship with their audiences by being nothing more than shallow marketing venues for purchasing loot boxes, treating other people like crap, and forgoing any semblance of privacy for themselves and their family by exploiting whatever they can for that sweet, sweet internet money.
I know I probably sound like an old "those darn kids and their loud music" grumpy sourpuss. I don't doubt that our society had the same sort of shock when cable TV became more of a mainstream thing and giving people (and kids) access to dozens of channels of entertainment that parents couldn't always follow. I don't think companies should be allowed to sit there and push knowingly dangerous materials to children, but the thing is, they aren't the ones who allow kids to watch their crap. They aren't the ones responsible for teaching kids right from wrong. My kid who is still in his single-digits knows how to protect his personal information, can spot loot box and gambling mechanics in video games, and exhibits no "fear of missing out" when it comes to doing stupid things like these nonsense "challenges" his other friends see on the internet. That parenting will never end. Parents need to lead by example, educate their kids, and are ultimately in charge of keeping their kids in check.
Kids will be exposed to these types of challenges or trends that can hurt themselves or others. Someone will have a phone on the bus, or on the playground, or at a friend's house. Not giving them any access at all (even supervised) is burying one's head in the sand. The genie is out of that bottle, so it is our job to make sure our kids are armed with the wisdom to be able to see those things, and swipe left when their friends tell them to try it.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
jm_leviathan
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Ugh, I'm pretty sure my Dad has tried this. Fortunately, he lived to tell the tale.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This is all social media though, I don't think TikTok is unique in having a business model that involves a) giving people dopamine hits b) marketing it all as "fun stuff" c) employs (morally bankrupt) psychologists to design for max addiction/views/ad revenue d) has an algorithm that drives people to unhealthy but rewarding content.
From the article:
Imagine Facebook's budget for this, or Snapchat, or Youtube, or literally any other "free" social media service.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Well until recently enough to not be a factor in this article that was a *choice*.
TikTok sucks but parents who let the internet be their primary babysitter are worse.
Upvote
-6
(5
/
-11)
TikTok doesn't have any features that really enable any kind of "groups". In fact, it is designed specifically to prevent that.
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
My point is that TikTok is more effective than any of the other platforms.
Edit:
Name another platform that can start with no data and in 30-60 minutes be reliably delivering what is most likely to keep a user engaged.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
BigClive has done a couple videos on the danger of doing that when you don't have a clue about HV electricity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBeSKL9zVro
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I disagree but it’s funny how YouTube and TikTok can be 300% successful removing infringing content like piracy (while accepting that quite a bit of news, commentary, remixing, and other fair use will be removed and punished as well. They’ve been forced to care about that! If we want them to stop promoting videos that incite violent revolution and hate crimes and self-harm we could force them to care about those issues too.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
I scroll through TikTok everyday before bed. I just see bad jokes, woodworking and furniture making videos, cosplay, cosplay thirst traps, thirst traps, corporate millennial jokes, work from home jokes, and dog videos.
Where are all these "challenges"?
Where are all these "challenges"?
Upvote
-7
(5
/
-12)
XSportSeeker
Ars Scholae Palatinae
So, here's the only real solution I can think of, which will never happen: Break down all social media companies, period.
I'm not making this statement just because I hate social media, which I do, but it's about the core problem that all social media platforms have - they are not only too big to fail, they are also too big to monitor themselves or take any relevant action to stop stuff like these from happening.
Cases like these are always obvious how dangerous and stupid they are... after the fact. People who don't participate in the specific social network are completely unaware of what is happening, until it hits the news. It's not because they are stupid, it's not because parents don't care what happens to their kids, etc. It'd because that's a function of the platform itself.
They are all built with a relative degree of exclusivity or anonymity, sometimes painting themselves as sort of a refuge for specific class of people, sometimes forcibly taken by storm by a class of consumers and users that are just bored with what is currently out there.
The scale problem is easy to see, but perhaps pretty difficult to understand the full consequences of.
Platforms that host user submitted content which have not only billions of people using it, but also millions of people submitting content inevitably falls into the trap of permissiveness.
Why? Because no matter how many employees you have, and no matter much you slave them, it will never be enough to review the content that is in the platform itself, in an appropriate or satisfactory level. You could have an entire country's army trying to handle it with specific training and proficiency (doesn't exist and will never happen, but let's play hypotheticals here), it still wouldn't be enough.
See, let's look at a few statistics here... I've done this with Facebook and Twitter in the past.
TikTok has somewhere around 1 billion monthly active users. That's active, the app itself has been downloaded some 3 billion times. It's an absurd number, but let's say that only a smaller percentage of that really uses the platform with frequency. It'd still be too much. A hundred millions. Ten millions. Still too much.
167 million TikTok videos get watched in a single minute on average everyday. In a single minute. See the problem with that? How could something like that ever be monitored?
Several of the TikTok challenge videos have over a million views. Some have over 100 million.
The idea is huge because it's engaging, it racks up huge profits not only for creators, but also for the platforms themselves.
Much like several other damaging and damning social media trends, this one also shows up in all these market analysis statistics so that advertisers and brands drool over the numbers, and think of some way of exploiting it for profit.
You know what numbers like those do not allow for? Moderation, monitoring, effective policing, meaninful management and interference - control in general. It's out of control because it's too big. 7 kids dying is always awful to hear, but with sizes like those a fact like that becomes statistics for anyone involved that could act to stop or prevent it somehow.
Can these platforms do more? Yes, sure, but more what? With numbers like those, it's a rat's race. They might not be as blind as the general population on what's happening in their platform, but let me tell you - they are likely not too far ahead. People were just not built to deal with numbers like that in any meaningfull way.
A trend will pop up, more kids will die, and they'll have no way of knowing beforehand. They'll do something to prevent one thing, letting another hundreds or thousands others go by.
Because the only thing these platforms can do at that scale is employ some sort of algorithmic automated monitoring and management, and those are just not advanced enough to accurately pick and choose, judge, and execute fuzzy human policies to it. For that, we need a singularity, and despite news of recent past, we are nowhere close to it.
Worse yet, even if we had some sort of AI to handle it all, I doubt people would accept it's actions like it was final. It becomes a game of blame the AI devs or complain about the AI instead of going after the business behind it.
So, with all that laid down, what we could possibly do to avoid these worst case scenarios? Break them up in parts small enough that regional administration, monitoring, moderation and action is feasible at the hands of people.
Current social networks kinda evolved from that. Older social networks, discussion forums, chat rooms, newsgroups, etc.
Oh, but that's old, no one wants that! Well, it's not about what people want, it's about what has a chance of working. Putting these platforms on the spotlight, vilifying CEOs, calling for depositions, and the regulations, fines, penalties that have already passed against social platforms are clearly ineffective. It's because no matter what people think of doing to stop it, it doesn't get to the point. The point that the entire concept of social networks is like a drug, or gambling, or something that societies in general got addicted to, and can't let go. People have become dependant on it, but it's exactly that dependance that creates all these problems.
The closest thing I've seen to something more reasonable is descentralized networks. But another form could just be limiting the number of entries seen in a day, the time spent on the platform, the ammount of content that can be submited at a time, the number of views an entry can have, the time an entry can be kept up on the platform, how curation works, how advertisement works... plus a myriad of other things that have to go back to the drawing board and restart from scratch with consideration to what the platform is propagating, versus pure for profit motivations.
I used to think this wasn't necessary, before people started looking at social media as news sources. They should've never become that, just a form of harmless entertainment not to be taken too seriously, or socialization that you also treat as a strangers' gathering thing.
That time was too long ago, and now we are in this situation where every single method of forcing news sources to be somewhat responsible for what they propagate fell into the waysides and nothing of substance is being done about it.
And this isn't only about kids, this is about everyone, the entire media landscape, the entire consumer base, adults, old people.
I used to also think that people would adapt, cultures would prop up some framework to control the worst impulses that these platforms gives rise to... I was wrong. This is a self sustaining cycle of hatred and horrible sh*t, it has become it's own economy and it's own industry, it is supported by a status quo of giant corporations that will never let go of it because of guaranteed profits that only drives problems like the wage gap and late stage capitalism further, and it'll never end, unless it self destructs taking everyone else with it. There's your "destroyer of worlds", it looks like a cute pet in comparison to a nuke, right? Only it isn't.
Social networks are the ultimate form of the tragedy of the commons in the virtual world. The resource being exploited is attention, dedication, focus, time, effort. The consequences of depletion are far worse than depletion of any other single resource... it's literally killing people, leading to destructive pathways, causing divides in society, elevating hatred, and potentially being behind wars, the rise of populism, the rise of denialism, fake news and a whole ton of other crap. It's no surprise that it also fuels crap like challenges that kills kids.
We were in so much of a better position just a couple of decades ago as communities and societies that it's all self evident. In what period of time we can say clearly and without nostalgic interference or selective bias that we were better before as societies and communities as a whole?
I don't care what others say, and I have done my entire journey of checking if this isn't only nostalgia - the Internet was better before social networks. It should've stopped there. Or at the very least, taken a different route.
I'm not making this statement just because I hate social media, which I do, but it's about the core problem that all social media platforms have - they are not only too big to fail, they are also too big to monitor themselves or take any relevant action to stop stuff like these from happening.
Cases like these are always obvious how dangerous and stupid they are... after the fact. People who don't participate in the specific social network are completely unaware of what is happening, until it hits the news. It's not because they are stupid, it's not because parents don't care what happens to their kids, etc. It'd because that's a function of the platform itself.
They are all built with a relative degree of exclusivity or anonymity, sometimes painting themselves as sort of a refuge for specific class of people, sometimes forcibly taken by storm by a class of consumers and users that are just bored with what is currently out there.
The scale problem is easy to see, but perhaps pretty difficult to understand the full consequences of.
Platforms that host user submitted content which have not only billions of people using it, but also millions of people submitting content inevitably falls into the trap of permissiveness.
Why? Because no matter how many employees you have, and no matter much you slave them, it will never be enough to review the content that is in the platform itself, in an appropriate or satisfactory level. You could have an entire country's army trying to handle it with specific training and proficiency (doesn't exist and will never happen, but let's play hypotheticals here), it still wouldn't be enough.
See, let's look at a few statistics here... I've done this with Facebook and Twitter in the past.
TikTok has somewhere around 1 billion monthly active users. That's active, the app itself has been downloaded some 3 billion times. It's an absurd number, but let's say that only a smaller percentage of that really uses the platform with frequency. It'd still be too much. A hundred millions. Ten millions. Still too much.
167 million TikTok videos get watched in a single minute on average everyday. In a single minute. See the problem with that? How could something like that ever be monitored?
Several of the TikTok challenge videos have over a million views. Some have over 100 million.
The idea is huge because it's engaging, it racks up huge profits not only for creators, but also for the platforms themselves.
Much like several other damaging and damning social media trends, this one also shows up in all these market analysis statistics so that advertisers and brands drool over the numbers, and think of some way of exploiting it for profit.
You know what numbers like those do not allow for? Moderation, monitoring, effective policing, meaninful management and interference - control in general. It's out of control because it's too big. 7 kids dying is always awful to hear, but with sizes like those a fact like that becomes statistics for anyone involved that could act to stop or prevent it somehow.
Can these platforms do more? Yes, sure, but more what? With numbers like those, it's a rat's race. They might not be as blind as the general population on what's happening in their platform, but let me tell you - they are likely not too far ahead. People were just not built to deal with numbers like that in any meaningfull way.
A trend will pop up, more kids will die, and they'll have no way of knowing beforehand. They'll do something to prevent one thing, letting another hundreds or thousands others go by.
Because the only thing these platforms can do at that scale is employ some sort of algorithmic automated monitoring and management, and those are just not advanced enough to accurately pick and choose, judge, and execute fuzzy human policies to it. For that, we need a singularity, and despite news of recent past, we are nowhere close to it.
Worse yet, even if we had some sort of AI to handle it all, I doubt people would accept it's actions like it was final. It becomes a game of blame the AI devs or complain about the AI instead of going after the business behind it.
So, with all that laid down, what we could possibly do to avoid these worst case scenarios? Break them up in parts small enough that regional administration, monitoring, moderation and action is feasible at the hands of people.
Current social networks kinda evolved from that. Older social networks, discussion forums, chat rooms, newsgroups, etc.
Oh, but that's old, no one wants that! Well, it's not about what people want, it's about what has a chance of working. Putting these platforms on the spotlight, vilifying CEOs, calling for depositions, and the regulations, fines, penalties that have already passed against social platforms are clearly ineffective. It's because no matter what people think of doing to stop it, it doesn't get to the point. The point that the entire concept of social networks is like a drug, or gambling, or something that societies in general got addicted to, and can't let go. People have become dependant on it, but it's exactly that dependance that creates all these problems.
The closest thing I've seen to something more reasonable is descentralized networks. But another form could just be limiting the number of entries seen in a day, the time spent on the platform, the ammount of content that can be submited at a time, the number of views an entry can have, the time an entry can be kept up on the platform, how curation works, how advertisement works... plus a myriad of other things that have to go back to the drawing board and restart from scratch with consideration to what the platform is propagating, versus pure for profit motivations.
I used to think this wasn't necessary, before people started looking at social media as news sources. They should've never become that, just a form of harmless entertainment not to be taken too seriously, or socialization that you also treat as a strangers' gathering thing.
That time was too long ago, and now we are in this situation where every single method of forcing news sources to be somewhat responsible for what they propagate fell into the waysides and nothing of substance is being done about it.
And this isn't only about kids, this is about everyone, the entire media landscape, the entire consumer base, adults, old people.
I used to also think that people would adapt, cultures would prop up some framework to control the worst impulses that these platforms gives rise to... I was wrong. This is a self sustaining cycle of hatred and horrible sh*t, it has become it's own economy and it's own industry, it is supported by a status quo of giant corporations that will never let go of it because of guaranteed profits that only drives problems like the wage gap and late stage capitalism further, and it'll never end, unless it self destructs taking everyone else with it. There's your "destroyer of worlds", it looks like a cute pet in comparison to a nuke, right? Only it isn't.
Social networks are the ultimate form of the tragedy of the commons in the virtual world. The resource being exploited is attention, dedication, focus, time, effort. The consequences of depletion are far worse than depletion of any other single resource... it's literally killing people, leading to destructive pathways, causing divides in society, elevating hatred, and potentially being behind wars, the rise of populism, the rise of denialism, fake news and a whole ton of other crap. It's no surprise that it also fuels crap like challenges that kills kids.
We were in so much of a better position just a couple of decades ago as communities and societies that it's all self evident. In what period of time we can say clearly and without nostalgic interference or selective bias that we were better before as societies and communities as a whole?
I don't care what others say, and I have done my entire journey of checking if this isn't only nostalgia - the Internet was better before social networks. It should've stopped there. Or at the very least, taken a different route.
Upvote
-7
(5
/
-12)
I don't disagree, but here's the thing:
Who the fuck is letting kids have smartphones at that age?
At least 20 years ago, before smartphones became a thing, I was doing in-home IT support for the lay public. I had one gentleman call and asked if I could teach his daughter how to surf the Internet. I said, sure, since I knew the pitfalls and such and could teach an adult how to handle the Internet in a responsible and generally safe way. I asked how old his daughter was.
He said 10.
I then said the Internet is really no place for kids, but I could teach HIM what I meant by that, and he could then better supervise his child while she was on the Internet.
The key is supervision. If you hand a child an unmodified smartphone, you literally remove all supervision over them while they are out of your sight and set them free in a world of unanticipated and unknown dangers disguised as the next great thing to imitate/do/read/understand/watch if you want to be "cool".
That's entirely on the parents.
I can see the need for a kid have a phone. But not an Internet-enabled one. A non-Internet enabled phone puts the parents in charge of what their kids see, and allows the parents to monitor their child's communications (the numbers from text messages are logged on the phone's bill, so you always know who they're talking to if by no other means than calling the number and asking who they are). Children should NEVER be allowed to be on the Internet without supervision, and that means not only at home.
So I see responsibility for these deaths on TikTok for promoting what is a patently deadly "fad", AND also on the parents for not adequately supervising their children's Internet-enabled phone use.
The problem with growing up with a new technology is that lessons from the past are often left behind in the wake of a new fad. This was pure negligence, both on TikTok and on the parents of the kids. You can't let a phone be a kid's parent.
Upvote
20
(22
/
-2)
Counterpoint: None of that is true.
In general, the (offline) world has never been safer for children than it is now. Even a five-year-old can safely navigate to school or friends if they've been trained properly, i.e., with small steps that allow them to incrementally build their independence and responsibility.
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
"I thought you kids were all about the online Tide Pods and cinnamon?"
"Grandpa, those were like, 2 years ago and so super lame now."
"HRRRRK--"
"Grandpa, those were like, 2 years ago and so super lame now."
"HRRRRK--"
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Welders are fine, beyond the basic "don't lick the live wire" safety steps. You cut off the high-voltage secondary and put in a two-turn low-voltage secondary instead. You can burn yourself badly with it, and you'll have a _very_ bad day if you stab yourself with both contacts but you'd have to work pretty hard to kill yourself with it.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
You can control your kids' phones, but you can't control kids friends' phone, and kids can share contents by passing a phone to different kids, which completely bypass any parental control software.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Low voltage with high (and galvanically isolated) current is safER, but not completely safe and should still be treated with respect.
The main reason low voltage is safer is that dry skin resistance is quite high ~100kOhm. But there are two key points, skin is the main resistance point, internal resistance across the chest is in the neighborhood of 500-1000Ohm. And it's greatly reduced when it's not dry, sweat, in particular, is not just water, but electrolytes, and it can bring skin resistance down by 2 orders of magnitude.
In that case even low voltages can be dangerous if the current is not limited. So if making one of those types of tack welders, take the time to put insulation on anything that sweaty skin might contact. And properly enclose the transformer - the video I saw had it mounted open on a board.
Of course, many orders of magnitude safer than the 2-4kV used in the wood burning, those videos are horrifying.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Or if you're someone who gave up your landline, if the kid doesn't have a phone, and is ever home alone, they then have no phone. I was home alone sometimes starting at 8 years old.
If the parents are separated and have joint custody, a phone is how you reach a child who doesn't have a permanent residence.
If the parents work and sometimes have to change plans because they won't be home at the expected time, for example, you use the phone to tell them to go to the afterschool program or grandma's.
If the child does sports or another activity, and especially if you have two or more kids, sometimes you have to leave or send them with trusted adults while you attend to another child's needs. Again, no pay phones. Your kid not having a phone can even in some circumstances end up a burden to other people. Your kids' friends homes don't have landlines either.
When I was a kid, I didn't have a cell phone, this is true. What I had was a couple of dimes. Plus you could also make a collect call from a pay phone in a real emergency. This is no longer a viable plan.
There's the option for a flip phone but a simple smart phone is not just a portal to evil - it's also a repository for a massive library, it's a camera, it can play fun and worthwhile games.
It can photograph the chalkboard with the day's homework on it. It's a dictionary. It's just a tool.
So, when you have kids, you have to choose wisely, what works for that kid, what works for that family. But just because you didn't get your first smartphone until age 30 doesn't mean that other parents who give one to an elementary school child are indulgent or stupid or wrong.
Upvote
17
(21
/
-4)
The only time I used a pay phone as a kid was when I was old enough to travel to the mall by bus alone.
5-10 year olds that need a phone can have one, locked down.
I remember growing up which kids got themselves into the kind of trouble outlined here, all of them had parents that were neglectful. The ones that worked their ass off, and had little time for their kids because of it did better and handling their kids than the ones with infinite time and still didn't bother to have a clue what their kids were up to.
Tide pods, cinnamon challenge, and the like are done by stupid kids with neglectful parents. Social media didn't invent dumb. Trust me, I grew up with kids that did way stupider things than those.
Fingers blown off - check
Cracked skull - check
Attempted to explode bullets by dropping rocks on them - check
The one thing these all had in common were parents that didn't care what little Jonny was up to.
5-10 year olds that need a phone can have one, locked down.
I remember growing up which kids got themselves into the kind of trouble outlined here, all of them had parents that were neglectful. The ones that worked their ass off, and had little time for their kids because of it did better and handling their kids than the ones with infinite time and still didn't bother to have a clue what their kids were up to.
Tide pods, cinnamon challenge, and the like are done by stupid kids with neglectful parents. Social media didn't invent dumb. Trust me, I grew up with kids that did way stupider things than those.
Fingers blown off - check
Cracked skull - check
Attempted to explode bullets by dropping rocks on them - check
The one thing these all had in common were parents that didn't care what little Jonny was up to.
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)
I'm an EE too - I understand exactly how this works. Here's the trick: 1kohm skin resistance (your two orders of magnitude reduction) means we get 1mA per volt. Those MOT welders typically have a volt or two on the output. A nine volt battery can exceed that output current! So can AA cells, and certainly 18650 cells can put a LOT more current out (and are ~4V to boot).
So that's about how dangerous a MOT spot welder is re: voltage. It's not that it can't kill you, but you're going to have to work for it. Something like stabbing your hands to get past the skin resistance entirely and getting the current through your heart. Or, far more likely, accidentally zapping yourself on the primary winding when you're not paying attention and getting unlucky with an arrhythmia.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Sorry but why the hell would you as a parent let your kid use social medias posting pics and videos of themselves in the first place.
Why should tiktok be held responsible for your lack of parenting or you using a phone as a nanny??
Why should tiktok be held responsible for your lack of parenting or you using a phone as a nanny??
Upvote
-11
(3
/
-14)
Upvote
-15
(7
/
-22)
When I was 8 me and my friends would get dropped at the mall on a Saturday, watch a movie get a burger and call someone's parent to come and get us afterwards. By the time we were 12, we were riding our bikes to the theatre and calling for a ride if it started raining Somehow we survived.
You sound like the kind that keeps their kid on a leash and loses their shit if it dares to be in a different room from you.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Sure you can, when dumb people kill themselves doing something stupid the news reports on it. Just show them the news and have a discussion. Damn, parenting sure is hard.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Well thanks so much for posting your TikTok psychological profile here on ARS. Did you miss the part where TikTok serves up content tailored to your viewing interests?
Edit: I sincerely hope you were kidding and I just misread the intent of your post. If so, that’s actually pretty hilarious…
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
"For those of you who haven't tried coke, you would probably do well to do so and learn just how incredibly powerful and potentially addictive it is"
Hard pass.
I've read about it and I believe it is addictive, not going to even look at that rabbit hole.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
I get what you are saying. When your kid dies because you couldn't be bothered to restrict what you kids have access to on their devices and then it's on someone else....I'm not all in on that. Additionally, where is the line drawn? Someone posts a TT video of a kid "driving fast" and others do it and die. Professional parkour people posting their videos then kids try it and die. Then what? How about parents...you know...being fucking parents of YOUNG kids. They have tik tok on their fucking phones? What else did they see...hrm...I wonder. TT should moderate this, of course, but ffs where are the parents??
Upvote
-4
(2
/
-6)
Your comment reminds me of the "Send Me To Heaven" app, which I did not realize until just now is apparently still available on the Google Play Store.
For those who don't know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_Me_To_Heaven
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
What the original poster wrote is correct. More like you don't know how to be a good parent.
Upvote
-1
(3
/
-4)
If Budweiser has been advertising during cartoons, theres some room for debate, no?
Algorithmic promotion is still promotion. These videos were not “sought out”, they were recommended.
Even in the case where one wants to argue for a world of responsibility, one must also consider the children of parents who simply aren’t up to the task. Unless you believe that those children should be fair game to kill off for 30 cents worth of ad revenue I suppose.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Social media challenges are Intelligence tests. If you take the challenge, you've failed.
Upvote
-3
(2
/
-5)
Challenge accepted, my tiktok video will be posted shortly after my death.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)