zlacker

The salesman is at their friends place. And is a prerequisite for soccer team meetups. Etc. You need most parents to cooperate to bar him... but yeah I guess being prudent at home helps.

>>rightb+(OP)
I totally understand that "the salesman" is everywhere and that a single person can't fight against that, but he is everywhere because most parents are not blocking him in the first place, and that's exactly my point. Those are the parents that need to be blamed.

In my first message I was not targeting those parents who try to block this but can't; I was targeting those parents that use Youtube to distract their kids since they are babies, those who give unrestricted access with no control at all, those who don't care. We all know people like that.

This is just an hypothesis, but if parents were fined every time their kid accessed social media, I'm sure most kids wouldn't be on it.

>>uniq7+ch
This is a surprising take. So you know that this gun salesman is targeting the youth, and that parents can only resolve it by massive collective action, but they are to blame, and the gun salesman should be allowed to continue on his merry way?

Do you think a crack dealer should be allowed to hang around on the playground and every kid has to talk to him too (and its up to parents to make sure the kids know not to buy his stuff)?

>>progra+uv
> and the gun salesman should be allowed to continue on his merry way?

I see nothing in their comments to suggest that.

They argued against the government tracking people, that's it.

>>Dylan1+4B
I was responding to this:

"I totally understand that "the salesman" is everywhere and that a single person can't fight against that, but he is everywhere because most parents are not blocking him in the first place, and that's exactly my point. Those are the parents that need to be blamed."

>>progra+Mg2
I see that sentence. Your paraphrase is not accurate to it. They're talking about how to fight back effectively, which is different from allowing him to continue on his merry way.