buisi

To some extent, education in schools in regards to consent, relationships, and how issues like this effect people could help to reduce the number of incidences of revenge porn. It isn't just harmless fun, it has very serious consequences.

Sadly, it'll be impossible to stop it entirely with the unverified upload model.

How common is child porn on there? There have certainly been some horrifying cases. But, how common is it? How fast is it being taken down? And how long ago are the incidents being referenced? PornHub has done a lot in the past year to crack-down on problematic content, even before the purge.

He focuses a lot on "things promoted towards pedophiles". But, he admits on many occasions, that the vast majority of the content (even in the problematic keywords) isn't problematic, and therefore, might just be simulated.

He hasn't said how common the child porn is. He assumes there is a lot of it, although all indicators show it is low (there may be a lot more which hasn't been detected, but he seems to have dug really deep into the site).

This isn't to excuse someone posting child porn or running a site which is likely to get such content with insufficient moderation. However, how big is the problem on there? Is there anyone who has quantified it? I am very curious to know.

* I am not familiar with PornHub or those keywords. I am just going by what other people have said about this issue.

Sex trafficking is a very difficult problem to address. Even if you were to shutdown an online network, someone could fly to a third world country to personally do it, and there are always going to be takers lining up.

People in third world countries are poor, and may be desperate. A purely technical solution is not going to address this. Rather, we need ways to lift people out of poverty, and improve their standard of living. No one should ever have to live like that to survive.

I don't know if it is possible to stop child pornography (anyone anywhere in the world can create it and anyone anywhere can view it), but it should be able to reduce the amount of sex abuse in the world, if the government were to pursue prevention initiatives to stop it where ever possible.

Are the blocklists public? I thought these schemes involved uploading files to a "trusted third party" like Microsoft, and for them to decide if the files are lawful?

Unfortunately, I don't think that'll work. For it to work, you would need every actor to play along, otherwise someone could just move to Tor to do the exact same thing. I don't think it's possible to eliminate what they want to eliminate, and they will only push for more and more.

I always found the "normalizing" argument to be odd. Society has never been more against pedophilia and the likelihood of it becoming "legal" or "normal" is so low as to be laughable. I don't feel threatened by fringe groups with no power, only by censors willing to exploit these feelings for their own gain.

It has never been normal and the idea it could ever be is a delusion. It is a tactic to censor content moral guardians don't like. Look at the bar of perceived "pedophilia" which keeps rising every year.

Did they ever confirm it was CP? Or did they report it without looking at it because it was flagged by the algorithm and didn't want to be held liable?

They have been censoring any results vaguely related to pedophilia for the past year. If you search for "lolis" or "lolicon" which are fictional cartoons, that will be censored.

I'm a bit conflicted on this. I don't want content like this appearing in search results. But I don't think a clumsy keyword filter will make it go away. And it might push pedophiles looking for a quick fix to places with harder content or echo chambers.

Do you have a source on the organ harvesting?

Yes, China does censor sites and apps. But is it really good to censor sites and apps just like they do? Aren't we better than that? Do we want anyone having that sort of power?

Some of these systems are so complicated it is hard for one person to reason about every eventuality.

Mandatory reports to police for certain crimes or registering people who seek therapy like in Canada only serves to push people away from getting therapy.

> I'm not arguing that CP should be legal

It is questionable whether possession should be illegal. It incentivizes people to cover up crimes as they themselves may be held complicit otherwise. It incentivizes law enforcement to disrupt support / prevention efforts as anything someone could say could be taken in evidence.

This won't be a popular notion, admittedly. But it is an important elephant to address.

> To some degree (and I suspect, to a similar degree to pedophiles) it has, see my comment here[1]. Exposure to pornography is usually shown to trigger or at least intensify feelings of sexual agression, either physical or verbal, even in non-experimental studies.

Do they climax or simply look at the images in an experimental lab setting?

Do they have a secondary condition? Do they have POCD?

> Is this true of all pedophiles generally based on a sample of the pedophile population, or those recruited to take part in such a study after being convicted of child abuse (contact or non-contact) offences? I can very easily see the fact they've been convicted as being a huge confounder here.

Many studies are done in a clinical setting. Someone who has self-control issues is more likely to go to a shrink for those issues than someone who does not. Other studies are done in a criminal justice setting which is similar.

Online crime is likely to rise with all the people who're locked at home with nothing to do and are newly unemployed.

Trying to stop information from spreading is akin to Prohibition and will cause far more trouble than it solves. This is presuming that censoring it isn't inherently counter-productive to begin with.

Child pornography is a strange example. Someone would serve more time for possessing an image than molesting someone. This is based on the notion someone might be distributing it or doing something else.

Some NGOs bizarrely make the claim that possession of child pornography is worse than committing a physical crime.

Sadly, NYT does this frequently to push their own ends.

In one story, they tried really hard to push for authoritarian laws to protect children and ended up wading through history to find a retracted and discredited paper. All this to make criminals look more dangerous than they actually are. They even admitted it was an old retracted paper in the article. But downplayed it.

If the evidence was so solid, they could have cited a more recent paper of higher prestige.

This is a very ethically complicated issue. Although, one I hope we can resolve with advances in technology without having to consider this.

Assuming this is a course people would agree to take, would it faster to convince society to adopt a new mindset or would it be faster to create ethical alternatives?

This is true. Some countries allow less realistic content but not more realistic content despite it being a wholly arbitrary differentiation.

Many filters censor all of it, regardless of legality and boast 99% abuse detection rates with a low false positive rate. Some filters only the more realistic content.

Realistic content does admittedly have a problem where it may become difficult for a human to differentiate it from unlawful content. Although in that particular case, it is hoped it would end up competing with unlawful content and drive demand for it down.

People with some degree of awareness to the children harmed to produce the content will not want to contribute to it when there are other avenues which are virtually indistinguishable. It may be possible to do outreach in legal outlets to raise awareness of harms or provide resources to prevent them from committing serious crime.

The DSM is a bit vague and outdated. Until fairly recently, a number of conditions which were similar but different were lumped in as one thing in research and the media.

Some people have an OCD which makes them obsess over children but they're not interested in them per say.

Some people insert themselves as children. This could happen due to abuse and neglect in their childhood or other factors. Some people are into certain aesthetics and media like cartoons and are not so interested in actual children.

There are two proper types. Exclusive and non-exclusive.

One is the exclusive who are alien in thinking. Instead of thinking of adults as romantic or sexual partners, they're wired to think of children. Without adequate socialization, they may even think of it as harmless to do. Education is vital.

They will be very lonely and depressed throughout their lives as it is impossible for anyone to allow them to do such a thing. I can't imagine someone going their entire life without ever fantasizing or looking at some sort of porn. Even as an escape. It isn't healthy not to do so either. It would only serve to make them more frustrated and to adopt an antagonistic relationship with society.

The non-exclusive aren't just attracted to children.

It is either wholly fraudulent or a vigilante.

The law does not discriminate between someone pursuing images for their own usage or to report them. If it did, every criminal would be able to use reporting them as a defense in court and look at them for decades.

Possession / viewing / downloading is illegal because it is very difficult to get probable cause for distribution. Some of them encourage distributors as-well. If viewing was legal and it led to more reports and content being taken down, that would be positive but it could go the other way with it being harder to pursue.

It would have to be a dwarf who looks like a child in features not merely stature.

Non-pornographic situations are complicated.

The incident with YouTube was a sign that some people are a little disconnected from society. They went around random videos uploaded by children posting flirtatious comments and highlighting timestamps of them in compromising positions.

You could argue them viewing the videos alone was immoral. But their conduct was just atrocious. I don't know how it got into their heads that something like that is acceptable. I really hope we could teach them a thing or two about common sense, regardless of whether viewing images is moral or immoral.

Training models is complicated. Whoever it is is going to want to have the rights to their likeness. This would be after they are of age. In theory, you may be able to teach an AI with many images how to produce a generic person.

They will never find out is a bad mindset. It is true in many cases they won't find out and they may be better off not knowing what someone is doing. But when and if they find out, it will happen in the worst possible way at the worst possible time and it will blow up really badly.

It's a very specific body type. The age range depends on the person.

There was a study in the Netherlands or Denmark which came to the conclusion that such people viewing this content or exercising their creativity in producing it can help to divert them from attacking children.

The new title is more accurate (in the sense of fraudulent) although the new terms may be less immediately recognizable to readers and it doesn't mention the sheer scale of the problem. What IWF chases goes beyond the range of actual abuse to actual people too.

I don't really mind it. I'm just clarifying my rationale for the previous one I chose. The new one is fine as it's closer to the original title of the article.

What research? The research with correlations that people who look at that are statistically more likely to do things?

Sure. If you take a sample of people with absolutely no interest and a sample with people who do have interest you would find the sample with interest would be more likely to attack someone.

Does the consumption of CP drive the desire or does the desire lead to the consumption and subsequent unwanted behavior in some people? Is punishing people for their desires and driving them underground really helpful? All to sate our sense of disgust? Is this even compatible with due process?

Ideally, you would advance technology such as to make artificial alternatives indistinguishable from reality and produce robots. Or whatever it takes. Disgusting? Sure. But, it is better than the alternative and it preserves the high standards we set for our liberal democracy.

You keep out of other people's business and they keep out of yours. No one tells you how to live your life, so long as you don't bother them.

Many criminals are prosecuted under State Law IIRC. NYT covers Federal statistics.

Child porn carries very steep mandatory minimums. It is common for defendants to settle for a plea deal under the minimum.