
ChuChu TV is responsible for widely-viewed toddler content on YouTube - objections
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/raised-by-youtube/570838/
======
saudioger
I strongly recommend that you don't let your kids watch YouTube. There's some
really low-quality garbage out there and there's just too much to properly
curate. After some exploring on my own I absolutely do not trust YouTube at
all to filter appropriately. This is just pure garbage streaming into your
kids' faces.

Do anything else, Netflix at least has _some_ barrier for kids content... but
torrent a bunch kids shows if you have to.

~~~
keyle
My toddler watches shows on there.

It's been good to teach him colours, but it's all very low quality videos with
clearly chinese-english influence.

My biggest concern is not the content of those, it's the automatic skip after
the episode is over, to "whatever" youtube feels right afterwards, and also
the ads being played between episodes, some are about gaming, but violent, and
a toddler takes everything he sees as "real".

~~~
fipple
Teach him colors with blocks the way every toddler before 2010 learned them.
The most valuable skill of the future will be to not compulsively need
screens.

~~~
keyle
I do too of course. He learns colours with food, objects we play with AND TV.

------
leonroy
Someone has to say it. If you’re letting your kid use YouTube or I’d even say
the internet or smart phones unsupervised before their brain is well developed
you are taking a tremendous risk on their mental development.

A few years back when my kids were toddlers I’d rather naively give them my
phone with YouTube on it, and after ignoring them for just 15 mins they’d have
switched from whatever edutainment programme I’d put on to a video of a burly
pair of hands unwrapping toys - for 4 hours...there are no studies on the long
term effects of YouTube on cognitive development in young brains but why wait?
It’s not like it’s rocket science to infer that if you show growing minds poor
quality content you’re going to get poor quality results.

I don’t feel comfortable leaving my kids to watch Netflix either. It’s too
easy for them to binge watch a half season of Paw Patrol or Omizumi or other
similarly lite content. As a kid I remember eagerly waiting for the next
episode of He-Man or Ghostbusters but to have had several seasons of dozens of
episodes on tap would have been too much to resist. With auto play on these
services too it’s not like they have the interests of us or our kids at heart.

We need to be super careful here, this is new territory with early indicators
showing declines in ability to concentrate in adults from these forms of
distraction - god knows what it’s doing to our kids.

~~~
shezi
Maybe the problem isn't Netflix and Youtube, maybe the problem is letting them
watch for 4 hours? And unsupervised, too. It sounds to me like it's a bit like
letting your children run free in a candy store for hours and then wondering
why they ate so much.

I try to teach my kids that these things are tools: we want to know how
something works --> there's definitely a video on that --> we found out and
turn it off again. And as with any tool, you can use them to become better or
to hurt yourself.

~~~
michaelt

      Maybe the problem isn't Netflix and Youtube, maybe
      the problem is letting them watch for 4 hours?
    

Isn't your assertion "Youtube isn't a problem so long as you don't watch for 4
hours" and leonroy's that "If you want something to watch for 4 hours, Youtube
is a problem" just the same statement worded in different ways?

~~~
frabert
I would say no, the point is that there's _nothing_ that's good to be watched
for 4 hours

~~~
roenxi
Something like Sesame Street might be good. My problem with YouTube is it
creates feedback loops where if you like something you seek out more of it,
but with a near infinite range of topics. Throw an underdeveloped mind in
there who is using basic stimulus to work out what is good and bad and who
knows what will happen.

Wouldn't surprise me if that feedback loop was damaging even for many adults,
but at least they are responsible and already have some grasp of how the world
should work.

------
abalone
My kids watch this stuff constantly and it's just too much and too random to
vet it all. I'm putting a lot of trust in YouTube Kids to filter it to quality
content.

That trust was shaken the other day when they said "daddy did you know you
shouldn't sleep under trees because you can't breathe properly?" I'm like who
told you that. "A video."[1]

Turns out it was a "learning" video produced by one of these outfits, not
ChuChu but a competitor called AumSum. It's some weird urban myth that has
traction in south asia.[2] It's a bastardization of tree respiration biology.
They think it puts out enough CO2 at night to impact humans. So don't sleep
near it because then you'll be oxygen deprived.

So yeah, apparently someone green-lit that stinker and turned into a cute
animation. Which is funny until you realize AumSum as a whole has 139M views.
Their _singular mission_ is to make educational science videos.[2] And my kids
are 100% addicted to YouTube Kids.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6_L7JOYz7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6_L7JOYz7U)

[2] Compare the locations of the authors with pro-myth vs anti-myth answers.
[https://www.quora.com/Why-do-trees-produce-carbon-dioxide-
CO...](https://www.quora.com/Why-do-trees-produce-carbon-dioxide-CO2-at-night)

[3] "We try our level best to create highly creative and refreshing videos of
Physics, Chemistry and Biology. This channel can prove to be useful for
students studying in schools, colleges as well as for people of all ages who
have a curious scientific mind."
[https://www.youtube.com/user/Smartlearningforall/about](https://www.youtube.com/user/Smartlearningforall/about)

~~~
rorykoehler
Why do you let your kids watch Youtube? I never understood this. You as a
parent have sole responsibility for what your kids consume.

~~~
abalone
I know, I'm a shitty parent, and I'm solely responsible for my kids being
exposed to shitty things in the world. I should throw out their iPads and read
books to them constantly (more than the 20m/day I do every single day after 2h
dinner & bedtime process) as well as have a large assortment of crafts and
novel activities for them to engage in every morning while I do stuff like
bathe and eat. Sorry for being shitty.

~~~
akiselev
Don't mind him/her. Distracting a single-digit-aged human long enough to put
dinner on the table or get some work done is hard on the best of days.

I don't have kids so I'm curious, why youtube? I assume most families don't
have the time for a full time parental distraction but is there really no
other alternative? I'd imagine Disney or some other media giant would have
figured something out by now. Is youtube content just so practically endless
and passive enough that no one can compete? Or is it just that they don't like
gaming or TV shows that much (or you dont allow it)?

~~~
wincy
Kids will adjust to whatever their circumstances are though. If you just pull
all media, kids will complain for a few days, but eventually just get used to
it and play with their real toys. Hell, kids don’t even really need toys to
have a good time, take those away and they’ll go dig in the dirt, jump off
couches, and make pillow forts.

It’s not hard to “distract toddlers”, my daughter is three and LOVES to help
cook. She fries eggs pretty well and I figure the worst that’ll happen is
she’ll burn herself (which she hasn’t). Given the right opportunities and
structure children can actually be much more helpful than we give them credit
for, especially in the USA we’re just sort of taught that children are useless
ingrates that are wholly incapable of the most rudimentary tasks (I mean I was
certainly treated that way).

It’s a self fulfilling prophecy, the more constantly stimulated the kid is,
the more difficult it is for them to pay attention when it’s important.

~~~
ux-app
> my daughter is three and LOVES to help cook. She fries eggs pretty well

Maybe I'm over protective, but hot oil around a 3 year old sounds like a bad
idea. I get it that they _can_ do it, but it only takes 1 accident to scar
them for life and 3 year olds are super uncoordinated. I have been called a
helicopter parent before though, so maybe it's me being a bit weird.

~~~
wincy
So you’re right, it is a bit scary. We cook on low, with just a little bit of
butter. I certainly wouldn’t deep fry ANYTHING with her around, and when I
have the kitchen is a no go zone. To me it’s about calculating risk, and a
small amount of ~175° with a closely supervised child is not that risky.

I get some judgy looks on the playground for studiously ignoring my kid and
letting her play for three hours and everyone else stays for maybe 15 minutes
being super engaged with their kids before they get super bored and leave, so
I guess I’m not really normal. I consider one of my goals to get my daughter
to walk to the park alone at five, since that was the age I had agency to go
wherever I wanted. I’m not super optimistic, I may end up moving to a small
town to make that possible, if I can get a good remote position eventually.

~~~
ux-app
>I consider one of my goals to get my daughter to walk to the park alone at
five, since that was the age I had agency to go wherever I wanted.

Are you maybe misremembering your age at the time? I have a 4.5 year old at
home and there is no way that I think he will be ready to go the park a couple
of streets away on his own. By not ready I mean, in no way capable of judging
when to cross a street safely and may get lost on the way, especially if he
gets distracted and absentmindedly wanders in an unfamiliar direction.

There was a recent study [1] that showed that kids have a highly elevated risk
of accident when crossing the road right up to the age of 14 (!! was surprised
to read this). Some points from the research:

\- simulating traffic showed accident rates as high as eight per cent with
six-year-olds

\- Even those aged 12 were hit by vehicles two per cent of the time

\- It was not until early adolescence that children crossed the road safely

Just thought I'd point this out in case you were not aware of the research.

Kudos for promoting self-reliance and independence though. I am a long way in
the other direction where I do way too much to try and ensure my kid's safety.
I know I need to ease up so that he can start to make his own mistakes.

[1] [https://now.uiowa.edu/2017/04/why-children-struggle-cross-
bu...](https://now.uiowa.edu/2017/04/why-children-struggle-cross-busy-streets-
safely)

~~~
tartoran
In Japan they send their kids shopping at 5-6. It's Super safe in Japan, but
the point is kids are very fast learners and learn to be independent fairly
easily if pushed or directed in that direction..

~~~
ux-app
I wonder if these kids need to cross any streets and what the accident rate
there is. I'm assuming Japanese 6 year olds are developmentally very similar
to western 6 year olds. So according to the research that I linked to above
they have an 8% chance of getting hit by a car when crossing the road.

Would _you_ cross the road if you were hit by a car for every 12 times you
crossed?

> kids are very fast learners and learn to be independent fairly easily if
> pushed or directed in that direction..

An acceptable level of risk awareness can't be taught to kids under a certain
age because their brain development is not yet at the level where they are
capable of learning certain things. For example: do you think there is _any_
level of training that you could give a 5 year old to safely handle a loaded
gun? Do you think there is a level of training you could give a 5 year old to
then leave them unsupervised with a gun? Crossing a street is no different.
It's life and death.

If you've ever spent any time around kids 6 and younger you will know that
they have very intense tunnel vision and very poor situation awareness. It's
not their fault. They literally don't yet have the brain development necessary
for accurately predicting future events and predicting the consequences of
their actions.

~~~
barry-cotter
I suggest you read David F. Lancy’s Anthropology of Childhood. If children
were as stupid as you suggest none of them would make it through childhood. No
parent can watch even one child all the time and it’s possible to kill your
self getting out of bed.

> “Perhaps the most persuasive evidence regarding the attitude of adults
> toward children acquiring culture through play – without the need for adult
> guidance – comes from widespread reports of parents’ indifference and even
> encouragement of toddlers playing with machetes and other sharp and
> dangerous tools (Howard 1970: 35). For example, from the Kwoma of Papua New
> Guinea: “I once saw Suw with the blade of a twelve-inch bush knife in his
> mouth and the adults present paid no attention to him” (Whiting 1941: 25).
> Aka mothers regret it when their infants cut themselves while playing with
> “knives but they don’t want to restrain their exploration and learning
> (Hewlett 2013: 65–66). The Aka provide scaled versions of items in their
> tool inventory to their very young children and enjoy observing (and,
> occasionally correcting) their practice strikes (Hewlett et al. 2011: 1175).
> Four-and-a-half-year-old Okinawan children readily peel the outer skin off a
> length of sugar cane with a sharp sickle. When a mother was asked how the
> child acquired this skill she was at a loss for a reply. “‘I don’t know! He
> must have watched us and learned himself by trying it out!’ she said”
> (Maretzki and Maretzki 1963: 511)”

~~~
ux-app
>If children were as stupid as you suggest none of them would make it through
childhood.

They're not stupid and I didn't say they are. They lack experience and do not
have the skills (brain development) that are necessary to cross a road without
significant risk.

Read: [https://now.uiowa.edu/2017/04/why-children-struggle-cross-
bu...](https://now.uiowa.edu/2017/04/why-children-struggle-cross-busy-streets-
safely)

From the research:

> "The researchers found 6-year-olds were struck by vehicles 8 percent of the
> time; 8-year-olds were struck 6 percent; 10-year-olds were struck 5 percent;
> and 12-year-olds were struck 2 percent. Those age 14 and older had no
> accidents.

Children contend with two main variables when deciding whether it’s safe to
cross a street, according to the research. The first involves their perceptual
ability, or how they judge the gap between a passing car and an oncoming
vehicle, taking into account the oncoming car’s speed and distance from the
crossing. Younger children, the study found, had more difficulty making
consistently accurate perceptual decisions.

The second variable was their motor skills: How quickly do children time their
step from the curb into the street after a car just passed? Younger children
were incapable of timing that first step as precisely as adults, which in
effect gave them less time to cross the street before the next car arrived."

Your quote from David F. Lancy’s Anthropology of Childhood is an anecdote. Was
there a study done to measure child mortality and injury in this community?
Would it be acceptable by modern standards?

My dad was raised in an eastern European village in the 1950s. From his
stories child supervision was non existent. He has many stories of children
who died due to accidents, e.g. children who misjudged the thickness of a
frozen lake, fell through and drowned. Of course most survived into adulthood,
but by modern standards child mortality rates were completely unacceptable.

~~~
barry-cotter
Your associations with the word stupid are your own. If children were as poor
at dealing with the environment as you believe they are I would not be unable
to name a classmate who died during primary or secondary school.

I haven’t read the article you quote and I won’t because the conclusions
you’re drawing from it are insane. Maybe the internal validity is good and if
the experiment was replicated the same results would be obtained. The external
validity is obviously not there. They are attempting to measure how traffic
mortality from independent road crossing and they get numbers so high that
it’s obvious their experiment doesn’t generalise to the question they’re
actually interested in.

If we pretend that children do not cross the road until age 12 and assume 0.99
chance of surviving one crossing a day, after 100 days 63% will be dead.

Or I could just examine my own experience. My father and I both grew up within
100m of a main road with heavy traffic and we survived unscathed. The paper
does not support your conclusion.

There may be a sensible conversation to be had on child supervision but my
father grew up in the 50s too and it was not the hellscape you depict. If you
look at deaths per 100,000 young children 5-14 they’re at worst three times
current levels. By the 80s they’ve dropped to less than double current levels
and people weren’t going insane wrapping their children in cotton wool and
depriving them of all contact with the real world then. Deaths in childhood
are so low that accidents are a minority of childhood deaths.

You’re advocating depriving children of freedom under a model of the world
where childhood is so dangerous no one would survive when the trends in death
rates are pretty much the same across industrialised countries while the
insane helicopter parenting isn’t.

www.freerangeparenting.com

~~~
ux-app
> I haven’t read the article you quote and I won’t because the conclusions
> you’re drawing from it are insane

They're not my conclusions, I quoted a summary the researchers provided.

>Or I could just examine my own experience

Since when do personal anecdotes trump research?

~~~
bracobama
Barry has a point, one piece of research does /= the absolute truth. Research
is the scientific process of moving closer to the actual truth through
experimental investigation. While you may believe this study, do not be
certain that it can't be falsified.

~~~
ux-app
sure, but you counter research with more research not a personal anecdote.

------
truebosko
Everytime I think of YouTube and kids I think of those bizarre videos
featuring Elsa and Spiderman that are oddly disturbing and borderline erotic.

This TED talk sums up why I'll never allow my child to go on YouTube. What a
mess they've allowed.

[https://youtu.be/v9EKV2nSU8w](https://youtu.be/v9EKV2nSU8w)

~~~
r00fus
The irony of the rebuttal against YouTube posted with a YouTu.be URL as cite.

~~~
truebosko
YouTube + kids. Not YouTube in general ;)

------
Alterlife
Chuchu tv is low effort content. I mean: it's really quite terrible and a
waste of your kids time.

There's a lot of great content on youtube, but gets buried in this pile of
garbage. Chuchu TV is part of the garbage. If you go to their channel and
search for 'jonny jonny' (a popular nursery rhyme in india) you'll find a half
dozen videos and enough garbage content to fill a whole days watching. This is
a 3 minute rhyme.

The _only_ reason chuchu has views is because they know how to game the
system. Parents search for a popular nursery rhyme and leave kids with auto-
play or suggestions... and guys like chuchu know how to game the recomendation
algorithms to keep the kids within their content.

~~~
padiyar83
>> .. and guys like chuchu know how to game the recomendation algorithms to
keep the kids within their content.

Just curious, what stops other competitors like Disney, Sesame Street and
Nickelodeon from doing the same thing?

~~~
dabockster
Western media has sort of an honor code not to engage in such actions. We
traditionally prefer people to find our creative works because it's good and
high quality, not because we gamed some algorithm.

That being said, it's entirely possible for someone outside of these
organizations to start something like Chu Chu TV in the United States.
However, it would probably face harsher criticism.

~~~
piyushpr134
Thats just a dense comment. Disney and others have no worthwhile content for
that particular age kids on youtube.

------
marktangotango
Our oldest recently started kindergarten and the teacher related that she’s
seen a marked decrease in social skills the past few years. She blamed
increased screen time which is generally videos on YouTube.

Our kids get about 20 min a day, 45 on weekends. I’d like to be rid of the
devices entirely. Honestly withholding devices is the best discipline tool I
have. What’s sad to me are the kids who are on them all day.

~~~
weliketocode
Teachers have been making the same argument for decades.

I remember a big anti-video game and anti-tv push when I was in elementary
school.

~~~
sgc
Maybe they've always been right. My wife is from a a developing country, and
the incredible depth of the older generations who grew up without a drop of
modern media is striking. Of course it is a complex situation since they had
many other factors in their upbringing, but it is telling -- especially
because their ability to patiently listen to and truly see the other person
seems at least intuitively related to the lack of modern media consumption,
which simply gave them so much more practice socializing, and placed so much
more value on it. It was where life was at.

~~~
ianai
TV isn’t the rot of the western civilization/culture. It’s baked in much
closer to the roots. We got two world wars well before any of this. And nukes.

~~~
sgc
War is the worst case scenario. It is not a good metric by which to measure a
civilization or human growth, since we can be more refined, and virtually all
wars are fought in self defense by one side - so say nothing at all about the
quality of their way of life prior to the event.

~~~
ianai
I refuse to discard the death of millions as a statistical outlier.
Particularly when the next example would likely result in the end of human
life - possibly all life - as we know it.

~~~
sgc
Well then I expect you to note that the war was not "Western" only, and also
take into account the extremely long and well documented history of war across
this planet throughout human history. The danger of modern war is in
technology, not culture.

------
bitxbit
Boggles my mind why youtube will NOT let users(parents) whitelist channels.
You almost always end up with the same set of “black hole” videos.

~~~
ehsankia
They added it a month ago: [https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/youtube-kids-
adds-a-whitel...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/youtube-kids-adds-a-
whitelisting-parent-control-feature-plus-a-new-experience-for-tweens/)

------
jeffrallen
This is just terrifying: "As YouTube became the world’s babysitter — an
electronic pacifier during trips, or when adults are having dinner"

Having kids is hard work. Do the work. Take some damn responsibility for your
kids. Mine are limited to an average of 30 mins a day, including some days
with 0. And never in the car, and we always eat dinner together.

I can't even understand how that sentence exists. It certainly does not in my
world.

------
guy98238710
Why would anyone let little children watch YouTube when there are dedicated TV
programs or even whole TV stations with quality content for children?

YouTube is best for deeply specialized content. Generic content has better
sources.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _when there are dedicated TV programs or even whole TV stations with quality
> content for children?_

Name three.

All children-targeted TV I've seen these days are pure garbage. YouTube is
full of garbage too, but at least you can find _something_ of quality (even if
it's some children cartoon from previous century) if you dig deep enough. But
then there's issue with autoplay (discussed at length by other commenters),
making YouTube dangerous to leave with kids unattended.

------
awill
And that's why only let my kids watch my kid friendly curated collection:
Gummi Bears, DuckTales, Conan the Adventurer, Darkwing Duck, The Legend of
Prince Valiant, Talespin, Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, Defenders of the Earth,
He-Man, Tintin, Dungeons and Dragons, Captain Planet, Batman The Animated
Series, Avatar and Korra.

~~~
dabockster
> Batman The Animated Series

That one does get somewhat violent, though.

And be sure to show them Batman Beyond when they get older. It's my personal
favorite of the DC Animated Universe.

~~~
Asooka
Think of it as a modern version of Grimm's fairy tales.

------
z3t4
My kids are crazy about "Youtube Police" eg ChuChu Police. Last night my
youngest complained that the cops where not wearing motorcycle helmets. =) The
night before I cut out little stars on a thick paper, then put it ontop of a
LED which filled the ceiling with stars, and put on a Youtube video about the
universe with moody music. The next day one of them drew the solar-system with
different colors. We also sing songs from Youtube videos even though I'm a
terrible singer. And they refuse to go to sleep until I have read at least one
book, where the Brothers Grimm's are far more scary then anything you can find
on Youtube.

------
8fingerlouie
My youngest son has been watching ChuChu TV, and a year ago he could count to
10 in English, and knew the name of every color in English as well.

Most 2 year olds can do that, but not in a foreign language, so for us it has
been educational.

------
TYPE_FASTER
The shows I watched growing up have been replaced by Breath of the Wild play
through videos and DIY craft project videos.

~~~
dabockster
Because networks like Nick and Cartoon Network became absolutely stagnant for
6+ years. For example, It's only recently that Cartoon Network is beginning to
invest in their shows again. Take their recent crossover.

[https://youtu.be/JFW-2q6_dlc?t=125](https://youtu.be/JFW-2q6_dlc?t=125)

Then compare it with what they had in 2013. Notice a difference?

And Nick is basically flatlining since they haven't ended Spongebob yet. Even
the guy that made The Fairly Oddparents finally quit when he realized that
Nick would just continue beating what they had into the ground. They're still
having that DanWarp guy rehash the same sitcom formula he's used for the past
20+ years. It's all so stale now.

It's like every major network went into shock when Netflix started pushing
their originals and are only now beginning to recover from it.

------
FabHK
Two genres of youtube content that I was not aware of before I did some
babysitting for a friend, and that I've come to appreciate now:

* compilations of ambulances, police cars, and fire trucks just driving along with their blue beacons rotating and sirens blaring. It's amazing how fascinating that is to kids.

* compilations of "good kids" happily eating their broccoli, spinach, etc.

That said, I've showed these to the kids for a few minutes on occasion; I
don't think I'd leave them alone with a tablet to watch what they want (=what
youtube recommends them for maximum "engagement"...) for extended times.

------
okket
See also previous discussion from 13 days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18137217](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18137217)
(31 comments)

------
abootstrapper
YouTube is trash for kids. PBS has tons of quality programming for kids and
it’s all free with no ads! If you’re a parent get the PBS Kids video and games
app for your device.

------
anonnel
The people in those offices look absolutely miserable.

------
tmaly
I have let my child watch some of the ChuChu TV videos, but I limit it to a
fix time of 10 or 20 minutes tops.

I monitor which videos they are as the sidebar in youtube can suggest videos
that are not appropriate for kids.

I think limiting screen time at a young at is what needs to be done. There are
other activities the kids can do where they are engaging with their
environment and using their senses.

------
wst_
What strikes me thought is the story about a dad who catches the son on eating
sugar and lying to him and the outcome is happiness and whole family dancing.
What is simply cheating others is promoted as wit and smartness.

------
duxup
I've mostly just manually white listed content that my kids get to watch, that
is to say I make playlists for them (they can make requests) and their viewing
is supervised.

There's a lot of "don't let your kids watch youtube" but you can... if you're
present. It's not easy, but there is also stuff I like on there that I'm cool
with the kids watching.

------
paulpauper
How is it possible to watch 8 hours of TV a day? I guess this includes
watching TV while also doing other things?

~~~
dabockster
> I guess this includes watching TV while also doing other things

Exactly this. Some of my family members leave the TV on while doing other
things "for the noise". Before the internet, you usually had what was either
on TV or on the radio in terms of instantly finding background noise. TV was
generally considered higher quality by most.

------
paulpauper
Yeah, chu-chu's success is evidence of the importance of being early and
finding a good niche. I think all of my YouTube videos combined have like 100
views total.

------
adzm
For those looking for good things on YouTube, check out storybots and Great
Big Story.

~~~
humanrebar
SuperSimpleSongs are good too.

------
ezhil
I think the film industry mentioned in article might be kollywood instead of
tollywood. Kollywood industry is based out of Chennai.

------
vtweet
my kid loves ChuChu tv.

------
culot
I'm not sure if this is a puff piece or an ad disguised as an article, but it
is quite fluffy.

A more apt title would have been 'Chuchu TV is pretty great, but could it be
greater?'

~~~
dang
That's a bit unfair, but you're right that "Raised by YouTube" is not a good
title for this profile. We've changed the title to use more representative
language from the article.

~~~
pvg
Weren't your criteria 'not misleading or clickbait'? This doesn't seem to be
either. 'Good' opens an even bigger can of worms of title bickering.

~~~
dang
The title was misleading. The article is a company profile.

~~~
pvg
It's a 7k-word piece in the print edition of the Atlantic. You've made the
case yourself that titles don't have to be trivially revealing - presumably
because 'intellectual curiosity' necessarily involves some actual curiosity.

'Raised on Youtube' might be imperfect on some parameter or another but it's
not 'misleading' any more than, I dunno, 'The Power Broker' is a misleading
title of a biography. The title it's been replaced with is literalist
butchery.

------
aluminussoma
(deleted)

~~~
bluekite2000
What group in Vietnam? I can't find their channel

