Vox is being a pox on independent media again.

So in a recent piece Vox media's Rani Molla has got all offended over Amazon Prime Video allowing user generated content on the service. Pointing out some of the strange and weird content on the service and seemingly fearmongering about some "dark underbelly".

What did they dig up? A weird arty film about shoes having sex, a few conspiracy theory videos and some stuff that wouldn't seem out of place on the History channel about WWII UFOs

The fact Vox calls this stuff

"...the trend of odd or offensive content on Amazon Prime Video...."

Is comedic as are comments to reframe this argument in the sense of 'Won't some-one please think of the children'. Considering we live in a world where people are offended by often the smallest thing implying that anything offensive should be removed would just lead to hours of just a white picture screen, until some-one claimed it was racist because the screen was only showing a white square not a rainbow coloured one.

YouTube is the prime example of these ills. In recent years, the platform has attracted criticism for being rife with questionable kids’ content, some of which showed children's favourite cartoon characters in sexual or violent situations. Some of that children’s content also seems to be generated using AI to feature the keywords and topics most likely for kids to click — and for ad sellers to make money. YouTube has cracked down on creepy videos but a few still make it through the cracks.

yes because the worst thing a child could stumble upon on Amazon Prime is clearly going to be user generated content not content by studios already on there like the 'Rape Revenge' films I spit On Your Grave 1-3. And no I'm not calling for them to be removed they just happen to be a good example to point to of already existing content that would likely offend most Vox writers by studios that aren't some two man operation.

What this seems more like (other than a shot against a rival to Netflix) is Vox carrying on its war against non establishment creators or those not part of established studios. Previously Vox and its contributors took issue with independent creator Steven Crowder trying to have him removed from the platform over what VOX deemed offensive comments said about Carlos Maza, who starred in a number of Vox media's youtube videos. Crowder being one of a number of people on youtube who argued against information put out in said videos and criticised factual inaccuracies in said Vox content. However before this Vox media property The Verge put out a terrible PC building video which was heavily criticised by many on youtube. Rather than accept the criticism that their PC building video could cause people to damage 1000s of dollars worth of computer parts due to their shoddy video which had multiple fairly serious mistakes which if anyone followed their guide to building a PC it would cause said PC to likely have expensive components burn out in out a few months; The Verge filed DMCA claims against two of the more prominent youtube critics of their video. When it was called out on the DMCA claims The Verge tried to double down initially claiming they were justified because they felt one of the videos in question was racist, which isn't what the DMCA claim is for. The Verge did remove the DMCA claims but has never apologised for the attempted strikes on youtubers. Also The Verge fired the host of said PC build guide video shortly after it appeared they'd lost in the court of public opinion over if their DMCA claims were valid or not. Part of this just feels like Vox trying to convince Amazon to give them some money to publish on Prime video just to shut them up too.

What Prime Video is in part is an alternative place some youtubers are putting their own creators be that James Rolfe with his Angry Video Game Nerd series or Rush by Corridor Digital. Or the series Which Die is that Again? Which is planning to have a second season which implies despite lackluster youtube view numbers it's Amazon Prime presence has made it worthwhile to try and continue.

Vox even shows their ignorance with a comment about the lack of vetting on Prime video

"Amazon Prime Video, on the other hand, presents itself as a Netflix competitor, and that might lead its users to believe that the content on the platform has been vetted"

The funny fact being a simple Google search for the information will tell you that Amazon does vet content in a way with all table showing where content is placed based on its ratings with unrated content always being set to adult only

This means unless you're letting your kids loose on your Amazon devices without any restrictions they won't be seeing any of the content Vox seems so worried about, and again there is arguably more extreme content from established studios aimed at adults that children would be as likely to stumble upon. Making the argument of essentially "what if a child stumbles upon it" really is a stupid one because it's an argument suggesting the whole service should be suitable for children. I mean what if a child stumbles upon Carnival Row and ends up seeing some of the more gruesome scenes in that? 

There's a reason for ratings and the options to restrict what children can see. Also unlike the video game industry the restrictions do stop kids being exposed to content likely inappropriate to them as you won't fine U (G) or PG films trying to sell kids on the idea of gambling.

Thanks for reading I don't have some big conclusion statement here I just felt like writing this and I hope you enjoyed reading it.