Hacker News Reader

Comment by nopriorarrests | Hacker News Reader

Lets be specific. My first question -- so, 12 y.o. girl being dressed in police uniform and acting like in an opening of a cheesy porn movie is your definition of "just kids having fun"?

View on HN

I haven't suggested a definition of where to draw the line, it's exactly what I'm asking.

Is that video sexual content? And how would you suggest encoding it in a policy change? Obviously, "I'll know it when I see it" doesn't scale.

I don't have an answer.

But what I can tell is that video I linked above... I'll give 99% probability easily, that this video was made for purpose, with sexual context in mind, most probably by some adult person, not another kid, and it is not "just kid having fun", and it's not "family video".

This is softcore erotica with 12-14 y.o. girl, and it was made to be a softcore erotica. There is literally zero other reasons to shoot video like this.

If you don't know anything about ASMR you might think that. But that's pretty standard content in the ASMR-sphere. The only difference is that it's being made by a preteen.

>If you don't know anything about porn you might think that. But that's pretty standard content in the porn-sphere. The only difference is that it's being made by a preteen.

is also true.

Some loose similarities does not establish the sexual nature of these kind of videos.

>loose similarities

Without sex or nudity, how do you purpose you'd make it more similar?

I'm not sure what you're asking. The argument was attempting to use a similarity to establish the pornographic nature of the content. My point was that a loose similarity doesn't prove his claim.

Establishing a criteria for pornography is hard, but the usual metric seems relevant: designed to sexually arouse and otherwise devoid of value. But roleplay ASMR content presumably isn't designed to sexually arouse, and has other value for those who experience a physiological ASMR response from it.

I can't think of a single element to add that would make it more similar to pornography without it being actual pornography. I believe that it is as similar as is possible, and getting so close cannot be accidental. I assert that if you can think of something that would make it more similar your premise that the similarity is loose may hold water, if not however it would seem that I'm correct and the similarly is uncanny.

>I can't think of a single element to add

How about explicit language?

>and getting so close cannot be accidental

Probably because sexual arousal and ASMR are both physiological responses.

>How about explicit language?

Can you point to another piece of media, say something on the Disney Channel, where adding a few curse words would turn that production from innocent children's entertainment into soft core pornography? If not why is that a unique feature to this particular video?

Somehow I knew you weren't actually going to accept your own stated criteria.

I'm just pointing out that you are engaging in special pleading[0] here. I've seen pornographic videos that did not have explicit language prior to the sexual acts taking place. In fact most of them are like that during the brief interludes of plot that justify the sex.

Let me put it this was if I was an evil person and my goal was to create a legal facsimile of child pornography I don't know that I could do better than this video did at that stated goal. Perhaps legally it doesn't cross a line but can you honestly say that you'd leave your daughter in the care of the person who made this video to do the same?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

I don't see how anything I said was special pleading. You set up a challenge that purported to test whether this content was pornographic. I answered the challenge. It was a bad criteria from the start (as in the answer to the challenge was irrelevant), but I played along.

> I don't know that I could do better than this video did at that stated goal.

What is this supposed to establish? That creeps can get off on this video? Creeps get off on mundane things all the time. It establishes nothing.

>Perhaps legally it doesn't cross a line but can you honestly say that you'd leave your daughter in the care of the person who made this video to do the same?

Since the artists in the video are generally those creating it, sure.

Presumably you mean would I leave my daughter in the care of someone who enjoyed such videos. If I knew them, sure. If I didn't know them, it wouldn't really add much information. It would slightly alter my prior against them, but that's not saying much. In the space of non-pornographic things that creeps would get off on, this video surely ranks higher than average. But this isn't an indictment of the content.

Why must it scale? Laws don't have to scale.

That the solution must scale algorithmically is purely for the convenience of the site, and for matters of law and taste nothing but an excuse.

Even having different countries with different laws and standards doesn't scale. So what?

Laws have to be objective.

Yet for matters of taste, public decency, movie censorship, obscenity etc laws necessarily depend on "I'll know it when I see it" to some extent. Or you end up with absurd lists of approved and banned words, poses, bits, and "you may only reveal upto 5" above...". Objective but useless. In Florida public nudity is legal unless "vulgar or indecent". Objective how?

Then we inject judges and juries into the process to make them even more subjective.

That's exactly why those are all examples of bad laws.

So how would you propose legislating them? Or are you suggesting that there should be no limit at all on what is available or permissible, or of age? Case law and precedent generally makes it clear enough, and adapts to changing expectations without needing to be rewritten. It may adapt slower than many would like. Doesn't make the laws bad.

Every country has some limits, and standards for movie ratings and age restrictions etc.

I propose that there should be no limits on what's available or permissible that cannot be objectively defined. You can ban alcohol for people under 21, for example, but not for "people that I know when I see them shouldn't have alcohol". If you want to ban violence, you have to be specific about what this means (e.g. "no blood", "no slaying", "no physical struggle" etc).

If some legislation cannot be so rewritten, it should be thrown out. Yes, that goes for anything with "vulgar" or "indecent" in the title.

Speaking of standards for movie ratings - they aren't law in US, just industry guidelines. So they're subjective, but people have a choice of following them (e.g. because they believe the board that rates stuff has the same subjective opinion of what is "inappropriate" as they do) or not. Similarly, movie makers can, and do, release unrated movies. Since it's all voluntary, there's no problem here.

But are you sure that no one on this planet would consider it as "kids having fun"? YT is a global medium. Just because you (or even the majority of people) are offended, it doesn't mean that everyone should be.

A 12 year old girl, whispering in a sexual manner, wearing a stripper style police outfit, saying things like "I need to leave for my tinder date tonight" and "this is never happening" while pointing at the camera and herself. (and that's just the first 30 seconds)

I'm sorry If you think that's "kids having fun" you belong on a cross.

Edit (more details on exactly why this is wrong): It's shot in the style of POV porn videos that are popular today, the driver is male (why not female if the purpose is not sexual), his name is used infrequently as possible (don't want to ruin the immersion of the viewers), she holds up handcuffs and suggests that she "might have to use them on you", the outfit either doesn't fit or is purposefully open in her chest area, she is wearing exaggerated makeup and has press on nails in a manner fitting of a central casting prostitute.

It's about as extreme as you can get without the FBI coming knocking on your door. I'm a atheist and I'm praying that someone, somewhere in law enforcement is keeping a close eye on her. Poor girl.

So is the girl in this video .. deciding to make this herself? Like she saw other examples of this, with adults, and then decided to do this as a child, was somehow a good idea? In that linked video the guy reacting points out the terrible Tinder joke. So therefore, she's aware to some extend how fucked up this is right? ...

I realize some of these kids make tons from ads on these videos .. but at some point ... that's just bad parenting. Like what are you teaching your child?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com