4 ms·

I honestly see the paparazzi photo scene as comparable to child porn (obviously, lesser, but on the same scale). Here we have a mass market of seemingly ordinar

I honestly see the paparazzi photo scene as comparable to child porn (obviously, lesser, but on the same scale). Here we have a mass market of seemingly ordinary people consuming violations of other people in a way that makes it clear they don't see the victims as other than a source of titillation, an industry that serves this content up to them out of pure asocial greed, and these photographers actually going out there and committing the violations, because it's fun and the money is good if you don't have a working conscience and can depersonalize your prey. Each blames the others. Guilty, all of them.

derefr 11y ago
Regarding your analogy: I still never had it explained to me who pays child-porn producers. The economics of invasive celebrity photography go like this: companies pay (down-market) advertisers to get them name recognition; those advertisers pay tabloids for ad-space; the tabloid pays paparazzi for a hook to go on the cover. What are the comparable economics of child abuse?
- coldtea 11y ago
  Do the producers actually get paid, from some kind of market, or do they do it to on their own (like "amateur pornography") and just share it / leak it? The moral issues and the huge risks involved seem to big for people to go into that professionally and I can't imagine any viable market. Secondary sources might get paid for access of course -- or might even not, all those stories in the media always talk about forums / clubs etc. and people exchanging stuff, not so much paying for it.
  - derefr 11y ago
    I know the supply side of the economy exists; the Russian mafia apparently does quite a bit of child-porn production, and probably it's not because they're a bunch of pedophiles. I'm just not sure where the demand side is. Like you said, I've also never heard of child porn "consumers" who weren't just trading the "amateur" videos created by others in the same groups. From another angle: jump on Tor and you can find places to buy stolen credit cards, hire hit-men, or order drugs within 15 minutes. But you'll never encounter a "put Bitcoins in, get illegal pornography out" page. Is this sort of stuff just really well hidden (which I doubt, given the Streisand Effect); or is it a semi-backwards "industry" that avoids using the Internet for anything; or what?
    - pjc50 11y ago
      CP seems to be the one thing that's sufficiently illegal and unpopular that it will be banned from all message boards and hosts except those dedicated to it. So it doesn't get the Streisand Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore is a good reference: CP was being sold fairly openly from a website, and it and every single credit-card-holder found in its customer database was raided. Subsequently it appears that a number of those CC holders hadn't actually bought it themselves, but had had their card stolen. I've also heard reports of 'sharing rings' that require the user to maintain an upload/download ratio, rather like the regular piracy torrent community and old BBSs. These are particularly dangerous as they're incentivising the making of new "content" (ie committing horrible traumatising abuse).
icanhackit 11y ago
While I agree the voyeurism is distasteful and a blatant violation of privacy, in my mind the more egregious aspect comes from the written content accompanying the photos -- The faux narrative about the rich and famous that twists reality into a narcissistic and somewhat psychopathic social order which people try to emulate. Their fictitious stories perpetuate copy-cat behavior from the lower and middle classes yearning to reach the rubicon of celebritydom, leaving a vacuous and cruel chunk of society brainwashed by sadistic fairy-tails.
aaron695 11y ago
Paparazzi aren't 100% parasitic. A lot of celebrities get benefit from them. Princess Di was thought to be a master of the press for instance. There is a certain amount of celebrities creating their own feeding frenzy. My issue is more when people not in the game get hit by media storms.
- tabio 11y ago
  The official inquest concluded that paparazzi killed Princess Di. "press" != "paparazzi" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Death
  - renox 11y ago
    > The official inquest concluded that paparazzi killed Princess Di. Drunk driving probably didn't help either if you read the link you posted..

derefr 11y ago

Regarding your analogy: I still never had it explained to me who pays child-porn producers. The economics of invasive celebrity photography go like this: companies pay (down-market) advertisers to get them name recognition; those advertisers pay tabloids for ad-space; the tabloid pays paparazzi for a hook to go on the cover. What are the comparable economics of child abuse?

coldtea 11y ago
Do the producers actually get paid, from some kind of market, or do they do it to on their own (like "amateur pornography") and just share it / leak it? The moral issues and the huge risks involved seem to big for people to go into that professionally and I can't imagine any viable market. Secondary sources might get paid for access of course -- or might even not, all those stories in the media always talk about forums / clubs etc. and people exchanging stuff, not so much paying for it.
- derefr 11y ago
  I know the supply side of the economy exists; the Russian mafia apparently does quite a bit of child-porn production, and probably it's not because they're a bunch of pedophiles. I'm just not sure where the demand side is. Like you said, I've also never heard of child porn "consumers" who weren't just trading the "amateur" videos created by others in the same groups. From another angle: jump on Tor and you can find places to buy stolen credit cards, hire hit-men, or order drugs within 15 minutes. But you'll never encounter a "put Bitcoins in, get illegal pornography out" page. Is this sort of stuff just really well hidden (which I doubt, given the Streisand Effect); or is it a semi-backwards "industry" that avoids using the Internet for anything; or what?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    CP seems to be the one thing that's sufficiently illegal and unpopular that it will be banned from all message boards and hosts except those dedicated to it. So it doesn't get the Streisand Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore is a good reference: CP was being sold fairly openly from a website, and it and every single credit-card-holder found in its customer database was raided. Subsequently it appears that a number of those CC holders hadn't actually bought it themselves, but had had their card stolen. I've also heard reports of 'sharing rings' that require the user to maintain an upload/download ratio, rather like the regular piracy torrent community and old BBSs. These are particularly dangerous as they're incentivising the making of new "content" (ie committing horrible traumatising abuse).

icanhackit 11y ago

While I agree the voyeurism is distasteful and a blatant violation of privacy, in my mind the more egregious aspect comes from the written content accompanying the photos -- The faux narrative about the rich and famous that twists reality into a narcissistic and somewhat psychopathic social order which people try to emulate. Their fictitious stories perpetuate copy-cat behavior from the lower and middle classes yearning to reach the rubicon of celebritydom, leaving a vacuous and cruel chunk of society brainwashed by sadistic fairy-tails.

aaron695 11y ago

Paparazzi aren't 100% parasitic. A lot of celebrities get benefit from them. Princess Di was thought to be a master of the press for instance. There is a certain amount of celebrities creating their own feeding frenzy. My issue is more when people not in the game get hit by media storms.

tabio 11y ago
The official inquest concluded that paparazzi killed Princess Di. "press" != "paparazzi" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Death
- renox 11y ago
  > The official inquest concluded that paparazzi killed Princess Di. Drunk driving probably didn't help either if you read the link you posted..