cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/30126921
By Marc Tracy
May 14, 2025"In March, for instance, Accurso posted a video of two children watching a Ms. Rachel video amid rubble. The caption read: “My friends Celine and Silia in what used to be their home in Gaza. They deserve to live in a warm, safe home again.”
On Monday, Accurso posted to her Instagram account photos of a meeting she said she had last week with Rahaf, a 3-year-old girl from Gaza who lost her legs in an airstrike, and the child’s mother. The meeting was arranged through the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund."
Toddlers shouldn’t be on twitter anyway
No one should be on twitter. It’s a nazi-owned platform.
Maybe toddlers whose home is rubble need a little mental escape into a Ms. Rachel video. Mr Rogers would be better, but it’s not like they can go to a nice park.
Are either of them dubbed? I don’t think subtitles that young would be appropriate
There are people in Gaza who speak English and want their kids to learn it. Also, subtitles or closed captions is a good first step in teaching toddlers to read.
Yes to the English. But toddlers can’t read yet, so subtitles won’t be useful unless an adult is also reading or explaining them — just watching TV, even with subtitles, is not enough for language development in toddlers.
As in the image, the parents are right there, kids on their laps in the rubble. And for wee toddlers, it’s not that anyone expects them to read all or any of the words in the dialogue. It’s making the initial connection between the spoken (or sung) words and those groups of letters on the screen. A little further along it’s associating the sounds of the letters rather than just their names.
And then they’ll start to recognize the basic sight words, even when they’re not phonetic. Similar to reading a book along with a preschooler and having them do all the "the"s as you point to them.
Did you eat paint chips when you were young or something?
You do realize it is the parents who are choosing the videos for their children to watch, right?
UnCiViL!
What does this mean?
She does educational videos on YouTube that parents put on for their toddlers.
Toddlers shouldn’t be on YouTube anyway
The toddlers aren’t the ones on YouTube.
There’s an ad free kid friendly version of YouTube that hides all the weird shit.
Where is the show?
On whatever screen the adult plays it on 👀
What, do you expect parents to parent instead of letting the TV parent? Based.
Or, hear me out: These videos can be a fun way to supplement what parents are teaching their children.
Anything less than actual human or world interaction is less effective for child development. If we look at Coco melon, it is actively detrimental.
Found the non parent who thinks they know better.
Do you think Coco Melon is a good thing?
I think in small doses, exposing children to the similar sins and messages in the show can be beneficial, yes. Why do you think coco melon is the only thing in kids YouTube? You seem to be singing your entire argument on this one show. There’s better shows available out there, AND far worse.
Having your house reduced to rubble is also pretty bad for early childhood development. Maybe let’s focus on the bigger issues here.
That’s ridiculous. 🙄
It’s like buying an expensive car and not doing any maintenance on it and then getting pissed off when it kills a classroom full of kids.
Mate. I think it’s you who needs less YouTube.
I don’t use google products.
I mean yeah, but only if you pointed the car at the school and put a brick on the gas pedal.
If you don’t point it there…… it won’t go there.