>>718712781
>Both. The CEO because he's a massive prick who allows this stuff because it brings in money and the Youtuber because he expects a billion dollar company to care about kids with zero survival instincts instead of urging parents to monitor their children.

Seriously though the guy seemed to be doing the best with the platform he had which was probably directly reaching the kids, as well as giving them to the cops. His mentality seemed to be more "hey you guys gonna do anything? No, okay, guess I'll do it myself" to passive aggressively try to get them fix their shit, but they took the worst option in retaliating towards him. Even if you think his actions are misguided or useless, there's no way you could even imply they're both in the wrong since it's the difference of inefficiently helping[ people and actively and aggressively impeding what little good is being done because it shines light on the issue you refuse to fix, now making it so you're effectively assisting it now.