No. 21860Anonymous 29th October 2017 Sunday 3:12 am21860YouTube's Lowest Quality Dreck, post what YOU find.
So because I'm a miserable, contrarian, bastard the whole Five Night's at Freddie's craze rather passed me by. But I was watching some blokes short and surly review of it and I decided to look at some of the YouTube content as it was something the reviewer mentioned. Now obnoxious "let's players" screeching into their webcams hasn't passed me by but this shite right here is a brand new world of wank for me: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr8O6yAciPCGKWBEIASK2lg/videos
It's just so mindless and cynical, every episode begins with a thirty second appeal for the presumably pre-teen viewers to like, subscribe, check the notification bell and visit their store, even before the show has started. They have almost half a dozen channels of this dogshit, and while it's not popular enough for me to tar every kid under the age of sixteen as a mush-brain it's not exactly Noggin The Nog, who apart from having a nearly racist name is basically a master work compared to FNaF MineCraft RP. In the the first minute of Noggin the Nog you learn that a windmill makes flour; in the first minute of FNaF MC RP we find out they've got a discount code, for their own store, I suppose? Which makes it not even really a discount code. I wasn't even raised on Noggin, but I think Kerching definitely gave me a healthier view of capitalism than "buy shit, idiot".
I've thrown a lot of shit at the wall in this OP, but with seventy gigawatts of video uploaded to the internet every millisecond I'd be interested to see what crap you lads have seen.
Some of the stuff aimed at kids is pretty dark. I imagine that people making the videos have found an effective way to tap into some of the primal hopes and fears of a child's brain via the youtube analytics. Then they go chasing the revenue down a swirling black hole of a feedback loop to depths unknown.
It isn't just the pre-teens - children from 2 onwards will also be left unsupervised with the kiddy tablet to watch videos and stay quiet. Thinking about it, the internet is a pretty hostile environment for the underdeveloped brain.
The image is from the tinfoil hat section of reddit and therefore probably mostly bollocks.
>every episode begins with a thirty second appeal for the presumably pre-teen viewers to like, subscribe, check the notification bell and visit their store, even before the show has started.
I don't like it much either, but that's basically how you survive on YouTube right now, unless your fanbase is old enough to afford Patreon. The whole model has been fucked by bots deciding what is or isn't 'ad friendly' and revenues are down across the board for creators.
Anyway, my little sister (14) watches minecraft LP's all the time, and although I think it's pretty fucking dire, I can't say that it's any better than the edgy shit I used to find funny at that age, like Happy Tree Friends or /b/. Someone shouting at a creeper for 20 minutes doesn't really seem any worse than that.
And let's not pretend we weren't marketed to as children. There's something far more innocent about a content creator asking for likes or selling a t-shirt than the 90s toy adverts that made all the plastic tat in the world look essential to us.
>>21861 I think it's just stuff kids are interested in without the parental filter to get rid of the stuff that's more disturbing. Some youtube content creators figured out that it gets clicks so generates ad revenue so they just keep making it. H3h3 made a few videos concerning it, I think I saw this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipTJNNvW-Gw
Sorry, but that image is bullshit. Those Elsa videos have shocking thumbnails, but if you actually watch what's in there it's clearly just foreigners making inane drivel. The animations are weirder, but a lot of those come from East Asia, and they're churned out so fast they just throw in any old shite without thinking, which is what makes those so odd in my opinion. I will agree that the live action stuff with kids, from the little I watched, as this was originally blowing up, was definitely stranger. However, the claim that anyone found "actual child porn" is complete horseshit, made up to spread misinfo and hysteria because the worst is the only that makes some people happy. I mean, here's two of the most disturbing thumbnails, but the actual content is just nonsense, and I don't think it would have any creepy overtones if not for the Chan-addled minds analysing it. I know the second one technically features a "pregnant" child, but that's the kind of "playing house" stuff kids do all the time. I used to roam around the fields at the back of mine pretending I was in 'Nam, it didn't make me a child soldier.
I know my explanation is fucking boring, but the idea that YouTube is involved in the mass-programming of tweens so, err, something, nonces, doesn't really make a lick of sense.
>>21861 >probably mostly bollocks
I don't think "there's disturbing stuff on YouTube that kids shouldn't watch that slips through the family filter" is a particularly controversial statement.
>the internet is a pretty hostile environment for the underdeveloped brain.
I am inclined to agree. When I was a young'un, "bad parents" used the TV as a babysitter, but that content (while mostly vacuous junk) was heavily moderated, with the watershed etc. The web, particularly with no filter on it, is a completely unsuitable place for children. I wouldn't trust child filters on tablets (or on other devices/platforms) to do their job either, frankly. I'm old enough to remember Compuserve trying to create what was essentially a whitelist of the web; naturally, it was a failure, but the alternative, a blacklist, is doomed to failure also. Short of China-esque censorship (untold tens of thousands of workers trawling for and blocking "wrong" content) I just don't see how it's practical to filter the web effectively, and the only way to truly moderate it is to monitor your child's use of it as much as possible. Obviously, many parents are too lazy to do this. There's a lot of content out there that is not explicitly "adult" but is still unsuitable for kids. I'm thinking of tumblr, reddit (r/radical_feminists, theredpill, the_donald, and so on), and countless similar sites, blogs etc. that I don't know about that have really fucked up stuff on them. Even if you've got a strict filter in place, there are many sites like this one that probably make it through purely by virtue of obscurity (no offence meant, purps), which children have no business browsing. There's also the more worrying social media/chatroom issue where kids may be groomed or otherwise directly in contact with adults with no moderation or supervision.
But I have absolutely no idea what to do about it. You can't make bad parents become good parents. You can't stop kids from evading content filters when they're on tablets or phones in their room. Even parents who do make the effort can't police everything their child sees online - a friend of mine related to me how his 9-year-old daughter had been looking for Pokemon stories, and had stumbled onto an adult fanfic site that made it through the parental controls he's set up, and if you couldn't guess, there are in fact a lot of people who are really into the idea of Pokemon fucking. She was upset and confused, he duly blocked the site and saw the funny side of it (cracked a joke about "Squirtle"). It gave me pause for thought, though, because this kind of thing must be happening to just about every kid who has regular access to the web.
I'm probably being a bit of a Mary Whitehouse about this, and I'm sure most kids will grow up fine regardless of what they read or see online at an early age, but nevertheless I do find it a bit worrying. For better or for worse, it's certainly different to what we had.
>>21862 >There's something far more innocent about a content creator asking for likes or selling a t-shirt than the 90s toy adverts that made all the plastic tat in the world look essential to us.
Inclined to disagree with this. At least with the advert, it was a (relatively) transparent commercial relationship between you and a corporation.
The YouTube stuff makes it like an ersatz friendship with an individual. The individual themselves is the commercial product. That's a worrying trend in general. It might not be so bad for kids, but when you get into stuff targeted at teens/adults it's very depressing, particularly when you consider how many people used to do the same thing in a hobbyist sense with the possibility of genuine non-commercial human interaction alongside it. (It almost seems to be a trend in itself in the modern world - your "personal brand", literally "selling yourself" in a variety of contexts.)
I do see what you're saying, the YouTuber IS the product a lot of the time. You watch Minecraft Bloke 878 over Minecraft Lad 3332 because you prefer ones personality. Everything Ashens looks at is boring tat, but he makes it entertaining. I don't think its a bad thing to support that.
>>21867 I like Ashens, but Ashens seems to have started off as what I'd consider the "ideal" format. With the original Pop Station video for example, it was just some guy with a webcam trying to have a laugh about a shit product. With a lot of the interchangeable minecraft lads, there's a desire for fame and money that comes with it. Maybe even a question if they'd bother were you to promise they'd never make any money from it. I guess I object to "commercialisation" as hippieish as that sounds. Though I should note that on that I don't begrudge Ashens any of the money he's got from it. Perhaps because his format hasn't shifted much. (Either showing "not being tainted by money", or an insane level of foresight, planning and self control towards getting money once YouTube got big. With Ashens, who knows?) Just the wider impact of introducing money to the ecosystem seems undesirable.
In the case of Ashens, he's done plenty other than the sofa format. He has a feature length film on youtube, another seperate channel with some of his youtube mates, and a book. Whether that's in pursuit of money, or art, who knows. But I don't think playing a game you enjoy* is that much more sinister or corporate. You could choose to see YouTube as a place for expression and personal interest, but the reality is it's just a big fucking massive entertainment format, and that's going to involve some people who want to make money no matter what you do. I really don't see even the clickbatiest channels as any better or worse than E4 playing the Big Bang Theory four times a day.
*I do believe even the most cynical minecraft lads do enjoy playing games for a living, because it'd be immediately obvious if they didn't, and they'd not be popular, and I know from experience it takes far too long to produce and edit this stuff if you can't stand it
Oh lord, I've been a fan of Ashens' couch videos for a couple of years now. I tried watching some of his videos with other people and it always lowers my estimations of the man. God no.
Whether it's his personal choice or they just happen to be the people kicking around Youtube's studio space in London, he always seems to be accompanied by a stream of half-educated "geek" consumer-culture types with no distinguishable personality other than being part of this small network of moderately-subscribed channels. It turns Ashens from faceless, congenial and witty into a man pursing his lips and reduced to one-liners whilst gobbier types blather on about Thunder Cats or whatever.
>>21870 > Whether it's his personal choice or they just happen to be the people kicking around Youtube's studio space in London, he always seems to be accompanied by a stream of half-educated "geek" consumer-culture types with no distinguishable personality other than being part of this small network of moderately-subscribed channels. It turns Ashens from faceless, congenial and witty into a man pursing his lips and reduced to one-liners whilst gobbier types blather on about Thunder Cats or whatever.
I recommend checking out Barshens, though not for the dullard, laddish stylings of Barry Lewis but Ashens' Cheapshow podcast mates' caustic rapport. Eli Silverman's a laugh and plays off Ashens well. The poorly contrived party games are the source of more than a few giggles too.
Funnily I was talking about people like Eli on Barshens. I've given it a try, but it always makes me feel like a guest at a shit party where the beer ran out several hours ago.
Now, don't get me wrong- I spend a lot of time watching Youtube content and it's pretty much surpassed TV as my main source of media to stare at for an hour or so after work. Nevertheless I find it pretty rich how a lot of Youtube "content creators" view themselves, what they think they are entitled to and why.
I mean the term "creator" is pretty extravagant in a lot of cases, take for instance those videogame channels where 90% of the "content" IS somebody else's. It's footage of a game, which somebody else made, and expect to gain revenue on. You can bleat on about fair use all you want, but the fact of the matter is you make almost nothing. You have a title card and you do a voice-over, you are not a "creator". Don't even get me started on reaction videos and the common/garden variety vlogs.
But then, I'm just an anally aggreived musician who's bitter that genuine artistic merit and creativity is consistently less profitable than just milking some bullshit trend. Fuck 'em all, the internet was way better when it was just a bunch of enthusiastic nerds with a pirated copy of Adobe Flash.
I sympathise with the point he's making, and I've seen first hand the mind-bending weirdness of Pregnant Elsa Gets Abortion and fucking Peppa Pig Colonoscopy or whatever the fuck they churn out on those channels. It's truly bizarre. But I mean, it's not that wierd all considered. I grew up on a diet of shit like Power Rangers and Ren and Stimpy. Violent, surreal, altogether unwholesome for a child when I think about it now. But it didn't do me much harm. Let's not even try to fathom how it affected my parents to grow up solely watching bad-acid nightmares like the Clangers and Magic Roundabout for fuck's sake.
Hell go back far enough, you find the original Grimm fairy tales where Hansel and Gretel get stuffed in an oven, or Red Riding Hood's grandma gets eaten and they subsequently fill the wolf with rocks and sew it shut, all that stuff is just as deeply weird, just antiquated. Automation is simply replacing the old archetypes with pop-culture characters and making the process of streamlining tropes and curiosities into (arguably) straight up fetishes far more efficient apparent.
The truly weird part isn't the content, but how it's being produced.
YouTube have a recommendation algorithm that determines which videos are promoted to which viewers. Content is being produced specifically to hack that algorithm, often by other algorithms. This content is computer-generated, often using synthesised speech and other generative techniques. It's clear that a lot of this content is being produced in the developing world in digital sweatshops. These videos didn't spring from the twisted imagination of a human author - they're the product of a runaway Darwinian process.
This is the stuff of Cyberpunk fiction. The existence of these videos cannot be explained in human terms that would make sense to pre-digital generations, because they're not being produced by human processes. The people involved are just cogs in an algorithmic machine. It's happening on too great a scale for any sort of human control.
I'm reminded of Amber Rudd's comments on end-to-end cryptography:
>She insisted she does not want "back doors" installed in encryption codes, something the industry has warned will weaken security for all users, nor did she want to ban encryption, just to allow easier access by police and the security services.
>Asked by an audience member if she understood how end-to-end encryption actually worked, she said: "It's so easy to be patronised in this business. We will do our best to understand it.
>"We will take advice from other people but I do feel that there is a sea of criticism for any of us who try and legislate in new areas, who will automatically be sneered at and laughed at for not getting it right."
>She added: "I don't need to understand how encryption works to understand how it's helping - end-to-end encryption - the criminals.
>"I will engage with the security services to find the best way to combat that."
She doesn't (and perhaps can't) understand that she's asking for the impossible. She thinks that she's negotiating with humans who are being wilfully obstinate, but she's actually arguing with a mathematical equation. She's angry at the tech companies because they can't make 2+2=5. There's a profound, almost insurmountable gap in understanding. Rudd is applying a mode of thinking that is as obsolete as a ZX Spectrum.
I think that this gap in understanding will greatly widen in the coming years. Certain technologies are transforming society, but they're also impossible to understand even in a broad sense unless you've internalised a certain set of counter-intuitive ideas. The section of society that Amber Rudd represents is slowly turning into your nan, hopelessly trying to change the TV channel using her glasses case.
>>21891 >Pregnant Elsa Gets Abortion and Peppa Pig Colonoscopy.
>I grew up on a diet of shit like Power Rangers and Ren and Stimpy.
Doesn't seem like the same thing at all, to me. Not even Ren and Stimpy. Grim fairy tales have a sense of childish wonder and mischief, whereas Else Gets a Fist Up the Arse isn't exactly the kind of thing going through a childs mind on any level. Expose to that would hurt.
I remember stealing a pack of porno playing cards from my parents Ann Summers stock once and it traumatised me for maybe 3 or 4 days. I wen't for a long walk into the early evening (late for a kid in those days) and ended up sitting outside until it became dark. I think it was mainly curiosity-overcoming-morality-followed by-the-associated-shame, but hopefully you get where I'm coming from.
> YouTube have a recommendation algorithm that determines which videos are promoted to which viewers. Content is being produced specifically to hack that algorithm, often by other algorithms. This content is computer-generated, often using synthesised speech and other generative techniques. It's clear that a lot of this content is being produced in the developing world in digital sweatshops. These videos didn't spring from the twisted imagination of a human author - they're the product of a runaway Darwinian process.
Going down the nightmare rabbit hole of the "Daddy finger" youtube videos is a serious mindfuck and even /boo/ material if you're technologically minded. They make allowing a child to use youtube for specific child-friendly content a nightmare because you turn around for half a minute and suddenly they're 10 videos deep in some utterly bizarre syntho-pop Daddy Finger surrealist nightmare.
I need to figure out a way to filter these videos out of my life.
> I think that this gap in understanding will greatly widen in the coming years. Certain technologies are transforming society, but they're also impossible to understand even in a broad sense unless you've internalised a certain set of counter-intuitive ideas.
This was something I've been saying for ... Christ ... nearly twenty years now; that as technology becomes easier and easier to use (the underlying workings are abstracted further and further away)), yet harder and harder to actually understand that there will be an ever growing gap between the technological haves and haves not.
> The section of society that Amber Rudd represents is slowly turning into your nan, hopelessly trying to change the TV channel using her glasses case.
>I need to figure out a way to filter these videos out of my life.
The only realistic way to do that is to train a neural network to recognise things that you find profoundly disturbing. That's a bit of a pandora's box, because then you're only one step away from creating a generative adversarial network that can produce profoundly disturbing material. Once you've got that GAN, you can train it on itself indefinitely until you've got an AI with a superhuman ability to fuck with your mind.
IDK lad, I was thinking more like a Firefox extension that sends youtube to a more wholesome videoid if it detects any regex of "Finger Family" anywhere in the page. The whole AI with a superhuman ability to fuck with my mind thing just sounds whatever entity is controlling my life anyway.
You'd filter out the finger family videos, but it would miss eleventy-thousand different kinds of horror that might pop up in the recommendations bar. You'd be far better off whitelisting a handful of trusted channels.
How about instead of programming omniscient AI firefox extension filters you just don't leave your kid unattended on youtube? If you want to be lazy and switch off their brains in front of shitty content while you take your lavender-scented bath and glass of wine then there are both Amazon Prime and Netflix, both together for a month are still cheaper than a babysitter for a night. Televisions and DVD box sets also still exist.
What worries me about the videos isn't that they're about pregnancy or colonoscopies or whatever because yeah kids will find "mature" shit on their own (and learn to avoid it if it bothers them), but the surreal nature of them. The Clangers, Magic Roundabout, Midnight Garden, Teletubbies, Blues Clues and so on are all kind of weird but they all have narratives, cause and effect, they teach kids to understand how people interpret the world and time. These videos ... are just disjointed sequences of nothing that makes any sense.
Actually I'm not worried what it'll do to kids so much as curious, fuck knows what it'll do to their developing brains, could have some interesting results. The next step is raising children in a VR environment that treats space and physics in equally unrealistic ways.
That's what makes it seem rather less threatening than some people seem to think, to me. Yeah it produces wierd, dark, often inappropriate material; but at the end of the day these videos are being generated by a refined algorithm based on what kids are clicking on. It's a feedback loop based on what, fir whatever reason, already elicits a soothing dopamine response in the childish brain, and just amplifying it until it turns into bizarre fetishistic nonsense. In the grander scheme of things, I think humans will retain the ability to filter out the blatant machine white noise from the reasonable content.
Given the choice, most kids would gorge themselves on fast food and sweets. Our bodies naturally crave high-calorie foods because we evolved for an environment of scarcity; now that we live in an environment of abundance, obesity has become a leading cause of premature death. What you want isn't necessarily what's good for you.
Giving kids whatever they want is risky. Building a superintelligent machine to pander to their most powerful impulses is riskier still. YouTube may well be generating the digital equivalent of a Big Mac or a cigarette - something that is irresistible and toxic in equal measure.
I agree, but in the same way a parent wouldn't let their kids eat McDonald's every day, they should also be limiting their kid's time online. It's creepy sure, but a very easily contained threat- At least for those of us with an amount of self-awareness.
What's worrying is how these sorts of systems work on people who are too stupid to know any better. We've all seen the far right/left echo chambers around the web. The same technology that constantly shows me sex toys on Wish is shaping the future of our politics. But again, it is only an amplified reflection of our own psychology. As usual, the enemy here is ourselves.
>>21899 > How about instead of programming omniscient AI firefox extension filters you just don't leave your kid unattended on youtube?
What part of "you turn around for half a minute" did you not grasp?
I'd also argue there's more educational stuff on youtube than there is on Netflix (maybe 3-4 shows he's shown any interest in on there at all).
Although obviously I'd rather have him playing with actual physical toys than poking buttons on a screen like a lab rat, it's also somewhat hypocritical of me to say "Ok so daddy can be at his keyboard and on his phone all day, but you can't, even for an hour". My current compromise is (very) limited amounts of tablet use per day at specific times, although a better solution is probably going to be one of these (again with very limited usage times) https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-New-Fire-Tablet-Display-Kid-Proof/dp/B01J90MTXW
Sage for britda.ds
> The next step is raising children in a VR environment that treats space and physics in equally unrealistic ways.
Haven't we sort of been doing that through videogames for a while?
>>21903 >What part of "you turn around for half a minute" did you not grasp?
The bit where they managed to watch ten videos in that time despite most of them being 15 minutes plus long. Why turn around at all? Just don't hand your child a machine with youtube access. If you're vetting stuff for them then you can just as easily download it temporarily.
>Haven't we sort of been doing that through videogames for a while?
Not to the same relative degree of weirdness. Every doorway or random piece of empty space should function like a Portal, people should sometimes move in a 4th spatial dimension according to unfathomable rules, everything as strange as possible.
> The bit where they managed to watch ten videos in that time despite most of them being 15 minutes plus long.
Ah I see, you're a moron with no understanding of hyperbole or flippant modes of speech. I'll be more careful when being anything less than clinically and calculatedly literal on the Internet in future. (Also any kid over a year old with more than a day's experience of a device has already figured out how to skip to the next video, how to choose they videos they want, and how to leave comments along the lines of "ajhdflasfjkds").
> Just don't hand your child a machine with youtube access.
You're acting like you can just remove Chome or Safari from a tablet device. Let's not forget all the Smart TVs, Games consoles, DVD players and hell even fridges that all come with youtube access these days, either.
Technology with internet access is dangerous, yet ubiquitous. You essentially have these options:
1) Forbid all access it to (retrogressive and frankly Luddist)
2) Helicopter parent, literally hovering over your child with a comfort blanket in one hand and a Gwyneth Paltrow parenting book in the other while uttering the sacred litany of "Oh no, don't click that. Oh no, don't click that.".
3) Do your best to sandbox against and filter out the most dangerous parts of the device / content (Camera? Don't need that. Install your own apps? Don't think so.) while supervising use and laying functional boundaries.
Anyway, any more of this and we might as well fuck off to mumsnet.
>>21905 The fact that you were not being literal is why I took it to mean more than a minute and a half.
>You're acting like you can just remove Chome or Safari from a tablet device.
No, I'm acting like you can just install a web filter that blocks access to youtube on a tablet device.
It's not particularly difficult to lock down a tablet device, especially the ones designed for children. Add that to other options (many ISPs offer parental control suites, as do their routers) and you have a reasonable way to block whatever you want.
Or yes, you could just not put your child on the internet. I hate to be cliched, but how many of us had the internet when we were six? I do think our kids can survive without YouTube until they're old enough to not be moulded by Daddy Finger videos. I don't think it's that absurd or luddist. The advantages they can gain from the internet can be provided to them, as you say, in a highly restricted sandbox.
It's ok lads, Social Services intervention averted; I just found out that google have a specific "Youtube Kids" app that allows me to disable search, and block channels and videos to my heart's content. It's not as good as a whitelist of specific channels that I approve of, but it's better than a kick in the teeth.
>>21908 The YouTube Kids app is far, far worse for those Daddy Finger songs and shit like that. Far worse. There's also loads of Portuguese bollocks on it.
It's just a Youtube client that recommends "kids" content and filters out "adult" content. Obviously that'll bring that kind of generated content to the fore (for reasons outlined above), but at least now I can block it a whole damn channel at a time. If it doesn't work out then I'll probably have to go full nuclear and just restrict youtube altogether (or just rip his favourite stuff off there with youtube-dl and show him how to work vlc).
>>21910 An app or browser extension which shows you only whitelisted youtube channels or videos seems like it would be hugely popular, not just for parents but for people who are frustrated with youtube's ecosystem in general.
How hard would it be to make something like this for someone with no prior background in programming? Also would Google allow such a thing in their Play store or would we have to be content with browser add-ons?
My guess would be that Google would most definitely not allow it, for the same reasons they don't allow add blockers. Also good luck interacting with the official youtube app.
I think your best bet would be to write your own youtube frontend as an Android app. I would start (other than by learning how to write a basic Android video app in Java) by taking a shuftie at https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe and going from there. It's probable that adding a channel and video whitelist to NewPipe would be less complex than writing your own client from scratch.
Having read this thread and given it a few moments more thought than I would usually give, most of the debate around here (including that Medium article) appears to view the internet and dangers therein as one where Kid's lack of ability to choose and/or filter content. Can I suggest that it may be more productive to think of it in physical terms as more like a library, or a little more absurdly, like popping out onto the street. You wouldn't leave little timmy to wander around the bookshop, or to amuse himself out on the road, not because you think he'd make poor choices but because of the obvious dangers present, and because he probably wouldn't have much fun. You'd take him to the right section and let him have a look, or to the park. I think to treat the internet like it's something new or even more threatening thing to kids because of some implied lack of control or filtering is purely down to poor parenting.
Similarly, it's not the internet which is ruining our brains but the way we choose to not engage with the the production of content and instead passively consume. Most of us are really just poking that 'Next Video' button when we click on links to medium articles, read to news or hop on redtube, and leaving a vaguely structured form of fjierjfierfjirjf in the comments.
>>21914 > Similarly, it's not the internet which is ruining our brains but the way we choose to not engage with the the production of content and instead passively consume. Most of us are really just poking that 'Next Video' button when we click on links to medium articles, read to news or hop on redtube, and leaving a vaguely structured form of fjierjfierfjirjf in the comments.
Mumble, mumble, something, something, my addiction to internet Skinner boxes.
This is obviously quite different from the OP of this thread, but it's definitely YouTube dreck. I mean, from the generic, brand new, untraceable account, to the Mr Chrome comeo, this is such reprehensible and obviously untrue shit I dare not imagine the dark minds behind it.
I agree unless there is a built in tool in video software now for automatic face blurring, it is suspiciously professionally produced for some arseholes first random dash cam upload . Then there is that the events unfold with a nearly too pefect swift pace and the action is perfectly framed.
