This company is training machine learning on grooming language and they could sell that data to companies like Facebook to automatically monitor child accounts-- with their parents' consent. That's a much better solution.
So much so that I'm surprised it hasn't already happened. If favourite rogue state infiltrated FB/IG enough to do what Bark is doing on a system level... that's a scary amount of leverage.
And it's difficult to see how our society could protect against it.
I suspect the conflation occurrs because most people don't want to bear thinking about specifics, and stop at "abuse". This is understandable, but distinctions are important when analyzing any problem. For example, the idea that grabbing the perps from the story means there are fewer kidnappers is highly wishful thinking.
Details are necessary to develop appropriate solutions. The behavior in the article is something that legal enforcement likely cannot curb, like "speeding" 10mph over. The perps are certainly problematic and guilty of something, but their quantity/fan-in is too great at Internet scale. The only solution I can see working is curated whitelist-only environments, the same way you drop kids off at a purpose-tailored daycare rather than a downtown alley or a prison.
Details are also important for making sure that the "kid-safe" solutions are appropriately targeted so they don't end up leaking to wider society. Anonymity in general is important for a whole host of marginalized peoples, and there are many interests that wish to erode it for their own nefarious ends.
Is there evidence that no correlation exists between downloading child porn and soliciting minors for sex online? It seems oddly pedantic to insist that only a lack of critical thinking ability could lead one to assume that behaviors on the same platform which try to satisfy the same form of sexual urge might be related, because they're not literally the same.
>For example, the idea that grabbing the perps from the story means there are fewer kidnappers is highly wishful thinking.
I mean... there are n fewer for n arrests. The set of all child predators may be undefined, but it isn't infinite. Are you arguing that law enforcement shouldn't bother attempting to investigate or arrest criminals because crime still persists?
>The only solution I can see working is curated whitelist-only environments, the same way you drop kids off at a purpose-tailored daycare rather than a downtown alley or a prison.
Why can't multiple solutions work? Why should the only acceptable solution be society retreating behind walled gardens and simply accepting that pedophiles will (even, for the sake of maximizing freedom of speech, should) be left alone to freely operate in any public space?
Although I do agree that children probably shouldn't be on these networks, and better curation would definitely be a good idea (particularly where PMs are concerned,) I also believe a public platform has every right to moderate activity and police itself.
> Anonymity in general is important for a whole host of marginalized peoples, and there are many interests that wish to erode it for their own nefarious ends.
And speaking of blatant conflation, it seems like all such interests are assumed to be nefarious in these discussions, and everything is a slippery slope towards the camps.
The point isn't pedantry or to defend any of these people, but rather to avoid succumbing to too-easy explanations. For instance, your mentioning of "image hashes" in response to the topic of "protecting children". Instagram certainly loves that narrative, but it doesn't actually address the topic at hand.
> Why should the only acceptable solution be society retreating behind walled gardens
For the same reason that dropping your kids off in the middle of a city doesn't make for daycare. Greater society inherently involves being robust to normalized ever-present abuse (eg advertising, for one), which requires adult maturity.
All the dialogs in the article are creepy as fuck, but half of them were ultimately just conversation and will likely ignored by law enforcement as inactionable. If you want to prevent those conversations, the only way is to drastically reduce the scope, eg a heavily-curated playground.
> text-chatted with 17 men ... and seen the genitalia of 11 of those
So even though two thirds are doing something that could be straightforwardly prosecuted, it seems like one third are still abusive in some way that isn't necessarily easy to write into law, especially one that won't be worked around.
FWIW "regularly prosecuted" doesn't necessarily mean that the chance of an individual prosecution is high!
I overlooked the word ‘half’ in your original comment and brought up the dick pics because they make the crime so easy to prove. I’d say all of the conversations were illegal grooming, but it’s harder to prove that the person had the necessary intent when the conversation isn’t explicitly sexual.