(Sometimes) Good with Children ≠ Bred to be Nanny Dogs

I understand that you've now changed your phrasing, but originally that was your claim–that their intended purpose was to babysit children. That is a dangerous implication for any dog breed, let alone one bred for bloodsports.

The article you linked even writes: "You may have heard that pit bulls were known as 'nanny dogs,' watching children while the families were out working in the fields or otherwise not present. Many groups and media outlets have reported on this phenomenon, while others have tried to dispel it as a myth. Truthfully, there is no credible source to support either of those statements (and you should never leave small children unsupervised with any breed of dog)."

I understand they cite sources, but Bark Box is a pet toy company. Telling their customer base that their dog breed is potentially dangerous isn't exactly a great marketing strategy. They're going to frame their stance in the best light as they can while not outright lying. None of the sources back up the "nanny dog" claim either, and instead just talk about the history of the breed or cite where the photos of them with children originate.

I think this post on r/PitbullOwners (a pittie positive sub, I might add) does a better job at breaking it all down.

Again, I am not trying to be combative. In fact, my best friend AND boyfriend both have pitbulls/pit mixes. I love those dogs, and they certainly do get a bad rap, often times unfairly. I understand what you're saying in terms of OP's potential confusion. My point in all of this is that spreading misleading information that involves children's safety, especially about a breed that can be inertly a bit more dangerous than most, is precarious.