If a parent doesn't want their child watching certain types of content the parent needs to monitor the child and not rely on youtube filters.
If you do not approve of 50 shades it is up to you to police that. Another parent might be offended by religious vidoes. Another by non religious. Some may not allow Trump in the home while others might burn any Hilary comeback book.
The problem is the connected and omnipresent nature of the web means there's a constant, loud sea of voices and content you have to war against, one that's really hard to control or stop. In the old days, you worried about dirty magazines under the bed, but the net has an infinite supply of the dirtiest content that's more or less trivial to find.
The culture before often affected your kids a lot, but in the 70s or 80s it was local and controllable. Now its distributed and universal, while parenting is more or less the same. The old rules and chestnuts no longer apply.
No, I was just giving a possible reason as to why people might act like its the role of others to raise their children. I neither support it, nor wish it extended to the Internet.
I'm not actually sure why you'd think I was supporting it? I'm merely showing why it may be that way.
In my experience, it became fairly popular to say/believe such in the early 70s, after the hippies took their clothes off and moved into the woods for a short while.
Unless there's some kind of technical tool, that amounts to standing over the kid's shoulder any time they're touching a computer and stopping them from tapping the wrong buttons. Besides being difficult, this sort of thing causes its own problems from a parenting standpoint. So yeah, still not a good solution.
If you do not approve of 50 shades it is up to you to police that. Another parent might be offended by religious vidoes. Another by non religious. Some may not allow Trump in the home while others might burn any Hilary comeback book.
There isn't a technical solution to parenting.