7 ms·

This is yet another of those "Omg pedophiles everywhere!" hysteria cases where people are too busy being all freaked out without actually looking at the facts.

This is yet another of those "Omg pedophiles everywhere!" hysteria cases where people are too busy being all freaked out without actually looking at the facts. Ain't helping that the guy who "discovered" this claims it is some kind of "YouTube wormhole" you supposedly fall into and never ever can escape from. Even tho he pretty much did everything to make the results come out as they did (fresh YouTube account, using a VPN, looking up content that's already considered as "soft-core" for many users). But the reality is that these videos show nothing illegal or really that out of the ordinary. The fact that some people derive sexual pleasure from them, is something that can never be stopped unless you introduce something akin to mass-scale thought/mind-control. Because before it was YouTube videos or the Internet it was plain old children underwear catalogs printed on paper and without these, or YouTube videos, those people would just do a Google picture search of "childrens underwear" and get unlimited pictures of children in equally revealing poses as in those YouTube videos. What to do about that? How to "fix" any of this? Particularly in an age where becoming a "YouTube personality/influencer" is increasingly peddled as some kind of viable choice of occupation for younger people and even children [0]? [0] https://www.businessinsider.de/ryan-toysreview-7-year-old-makes-22-million-per-year-youtube-2018-12?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.de/ryan-toysreview-7-year-old-ma...

crushcrashcrush 8y ago
Your comment is highly disturbing. I don't have enough Karma to downvote you, but please take a long walk and come back and read what you've written.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  As disgusting as the thoughts and feelings might be, we shouldn't be trying to regulate what people think and feel inside their own heads. That's a level of tyranny that would be a living hell. It's also corrosive to society to create a situation where everyone is paranoid about the "other" hiding in plain sight among us. This paranoia over internal mental states is precisely the kind of oppression which was directed against Jewish people and against homosexuals in the past. This is precisely what was called out in the "Have you no Decency?" moment where McCarthy's fall started. In 2019, outrage mongering should automatically trigger skepticism -- especially if the subject matter is extra lurid and stigmatizing.
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    > As disgusting as the thoughts and feelings might be, we shouldn't be trying to regulate what people think and feel inside their own heads. That's a level of tyranny that would be a living hell. There is this thing called "criticism". Or "feedback". GP gave an example of it. If you cannot distinguish between that and "regulating what other people think and feel", anti-Semitism, homophobia and McCarthyism, then maybe you should rethink your own lack of perspective.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      There is this thing called "criticism". Or "feedback". When people are starting to go around and imagine what's going on in other people's heads, it's gone too far beyond "criticism" or "feedback." If you cannot distinguish between that and "regulating what other people think and feel", anti-Semitism, homophobia and McCarthyism, then maybe you should rethink your own lack of perspective. One horrible thing about being gay-bashed, and I have experienced this personally, is having other people talk about what's going on in your head, as if they know better than you. There's something particularly dehumanizing about it. Such things also come into sectarian bigotry and out-grouping. I've even experienced a bit of that from being raised Catholic, though that sort of thing was much rarer. Certainly McCarthyism involved a lot of this speculation about what's "really" going on in your head or other people's heads. then maybe you should rethink your own lack of perspective. Having been the recipient a lot of bigotry in my lifetime, one common pattern I've seen is people arrogantly, confidently, even self righteously jumping to conclusions about what's going on in my head while being spectacularly wrong. I think that's quite a profound perspective. It's also a perspective which is the foundation of caution against people who use phrases like "maybe you should rethink your own lack of perspective" in such a gaslighting fashion.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    You think having an issue with pedophilia is just "othering"? Really?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
- malnourish 8y ago
  Can you please explain what you find highly disturbing?
_wmd 8y ago
Your position seems to boil down to suggesting since the problem cannot be fixed perfectly, nobody should even try, and meanwhile those who do try are "hysterical". In other words, simultaneously defeatist and offensive. If you feel so hopeless about your impact on the world around you, please keep such depressing ideas to yourself
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  What exactly is the problem though? No children are exploited or abused neither any demand is created for abuse or exploitation of children with any of this, etc. So what then? You don't like what some people might think and do in the privacy of their home? Keep in mind, there is no evidence that they actually think and do anything you don't like, someone just claims they do. There is, however, plenty of evidence of pushing for censorship, policing, control using emotional manipulation. Like every child porn smear campaign ever.
  - _wmd 8y ago
    What exactly is the harm behind beheading videos? It's not like anyone is being beheaded every time you watch it, right. Nobody pays attention to these videos ever, nobody has ever been radicalized by them. No 15 year old British schoolgirl has run away to Syria and found herself pregnant and stateless because of them ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623 ) You could take the common line where if someone is driven to a compulsion though self-temptation, all responsibility lies with them. But if you encourage that compulsion knowing full well what it leads to, are you blameless? I posit that knowingly providing tooling that actively seeks out, recommends on behalf of and encourages the behaviour of voyeuristic individuals interested in children, in an absolutely concrete way the provider of the tool is in part responsible for any child abuse that may result. When you're talking about a planetary-scale recommender, the scale of the viewers is terrifying -- and even if a small fraction of those compulsions are acted upon, that's far, far too many. edit: apparently this line of thinking is so repugnant to some that it doesn't even deserve a reply
  - jjulius 8y ago
    >No children are exploited or abused... Can you verify this 100%? You're absolutely certain that there isn't a single video on YouTube of a child where a grown up might've instructed them to do something that seemed innocent but the adult found sexual? I understand what you're getting at with the rest of your comment, but to sit there and say that not a single child on YouTube has been exploited or abused is really, really reaching and deserves a cited source.
duado 8y ago
There’s a big difference between someone getting turned on by motorcycles and a two-sided marketplace of sexualized videos of minors.
- freeflight 8y ago
  Is it really a two-sided marketplace? Most of that content could easily be just aggregated from random social media accounts. The sexualization only happens in the context of the viewer mentally sexualizing the content. The vast majority of people who see these videos, without any further context, would simply assume those are just family videos. In that context, it is quite a bit perverse to have some people constantly fantasize how certain content could be "abused" for sexual pleasure by other individuals and how to best go about to deny them that pleasure. When in reality human sexuality is just fucked generally [0] and people can derive sexual pleasure from the weirdest of things, like naked feet in high-heels. Would you rather these people build secretive in-groups where they trade real hardcore material, supporting actual physical child abuse? Should we ban the depiction of animal violence in general because some people derive sexual pleasure from it? I just see no practical solution to this that doesn't end up with a lot of quite arbitrary censoring rules, that would then need to be expanded. Case in point: Just do a Google image search on "children's underwear" and you will find plenty of similar stuff like in those videos. Should that stuff also be all removed/deleted/censored? That's where the real slippery slope begins. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201605/crush-fetishism-and-animal-torture-porn https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201605/cru...
warent 8y ago
First, there is, in point of fact, a network of pedophiles on YouTube as demonstrated by the article. Your comment is twisting it into "Omg pedophiles everywhere!" hyperbole for what reason? The seriousness of even a single case of pedophilia or child exploitation cannot be overstated. Not only is it ethical and moral to take it very seriously, but it's also the logical action because children are our future and if they are healthy and happy then the human race is healthy and happy. There is no fixing the problem, but we can mitigate it. The first step would be, apparently, to educate the public because comments like yours still exist which is deeply concerning. The second step is up for discussion of course, but perhaps it would be useful to ban children under the age of N from appearing in videos for more than T amount of time or perhaps ban altogether.
- tcd 8y ago
  Yet, I find it funny when people also say, in the same breath "omg governments using children as scapegoat for censorship". Which is it? If you think you can have a 100% success rate you are horribly, stupidly mistaken. You WILL get innocents caught in the crossfire, you WILL see videos removed that are okay, and people WILL cry censorship. People are demanding a flawless system, that never makes mistakes, that has 100% accuracy to be developed and released in the next week, and yet, we need a "free and open internet" otherwise Reddit gets angry and puts up hundreds of "net neutrality" posts. Oh, what's that, Article 13 wants upload filters? BOO!! Yet they may catch this type of content. Nobody likes that idea because it'd "ruin" the internet. Which is it. This problem can ONLY be fixed with upload filters, potential censorship and mistakes which will affect a number of legit videos. That okay with you? People seem pretty mad at youtube for their content ID and DMCA, just check r/videos. This would increase 10 fold with any further automated system designed to attempt to filter certain categories of content. People will have channels deleted and potentially their Youtube 'careers' ended by a machine. But r/videos hates this.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    Problems and solutions have a relationship that is many to many. A problem may or may not have a solution or many solutions. And solutions have a relationship not just to the problem they solve but also the problem or problems they create. This fundamental meta-problem is a problem to which there is no solution. This is why we argue. This is why we fight. This... is why we politick.
umvi 8y ago
> What to do about that? How to "fix" any of this? Ideas: A. Auto take-down videos featuring minors with unusual amounts of sexual comments B. Auto ban accounts that are repeat offenders of (a) C. Require all uploaders have a real paper trail so they can be held accountable for what they upload
- freeflight 8y ago
  Uhm, A and B don't really feel that well thought out. The creator/uploader rarely has any influence over what people are commenting, yet you would punish them if they had repeat offenders commenting under their videos. A system that would be very easy to abuse to get peoples channels banned. This whole system would also heavily depend on how you classify "sexual comments", working on the assumption that communities wouldn't adapt by using invented slang. While C is just straight up anti-privacy without any direct advantages. I have no doubt Google/YouTube/law enforcement currently have the capabilities of tracking down anybody using these services without any paper trails, that's in no way part of the issue.
  - umvi 8y ago
    > yet you would punish them if they had repeat offenders commenting under their videos You misunderstand. If the uploader keeps uploading videos of minors that garner mass sexual comments, the uploader gets banned. Uploader uploads preteen girl deepthroating popsicle. Lots of pedophiles come along and express their pleasure in the comments with water squirting emoticons and such. Bam, video flagged and taken down. Uploader uploads preteen daughter doing handstands/nipslips. Pedophiles return to comments to express pleasure in their sick way. Uploader is now repeat offender and account is banned. I don't see why this is a big problem. If it's a family video make it private. ML can be used to train algo on the latest slang. > I have no doubt Google/YouTube/law enforcement currently have the capabilities of tracking down anybody using these services without any paper trails, that's in no way part of the issue. Really? Why aren't they doing it? How do they track down people uploading via VPNs and such? Tying account to bank makes it much more difficult to evade law enforcement.
    - 8y ago
matz1 8y ago
There are no objective solutions to this kind of "problem". What one person think its OK, might not be OK for other. What one person thing disturbing, might not be disturbing for other. It will always be forever battle between the 2 sides. The side who can force/convince the other will become the "solution". The only thing you can do is fight for the side you believe in, whatever that side.
samstave 8y ago
Facts: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ahzv21/important_thread_must_read_from_55_years_ago/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ahzv21/importan... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/24/pentagon-us-staff-downloaded-child-pornography https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/24/pentagon-us-st... I mean -- I could give you literally dozens of "facts" -- so your comment is a strawman. its not hysteria, and I am skeptical of anyone who denies abuse. As a victim of abuse, I really can't stand people who say such things.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I mean -- I could give you literally dozens of "facts" Facts are good. We can corroborate facts. Non-facts can eventually be debunked. its not hysteria, and I am skeptical of anyone who denies abuse. As a victim of abuse, I really can't stand people who say such things. As a victim of abuse, I still think everyone should exercise their skepticism, and not just victims and the outraged. If you advocate for skepticism, then you should not object to fair skepticism being directed at you as well. There is a great power in strong emotions and outrage, and with great power, comes great responsibility. Transparency is paramount. The best way forward is to avoid hysteria, and to go forward rationally.

crushcrashcrush 8y ago

Your comment is highly disturbing. I don't have enough Karma to downvote you, but please take a long walk and come back and read what you've written.

stcredzero 8y ago
As disgusting as the thoughts and feelings might be, we shouldn't be trying to regulate what people think and feel inside their own heads. That's a level of tyranny that would be a living hell. It's also corrosive to society to create a situation where everyone is paranoid about the "other" hiding in plain sight among us. This paranoia over internal mental states is precisely the kind of oppression which was directed against Jewish people and against homosexuals in the past. This is precisely what was called out in the "Have you no Decency?" moment where McCarthy's fall started. In 2019, outrage mongering should automatically trigger skepticism -- especially if the subject matter is extra lurid and stigmatizing.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  > As disgusting as the thoughts and feelings might be, we shouldn't be trying to regulate what people think and feel inside their own heads. That's a level of tyranny that would be a living hell. There is this thing called "criticism". Or "feedback". GP gave an example of it. If you cannot distinguish between that and "regulating what other people think and feel", anti-Semitism, homophobia and McCarthyism, then maybe you should rethink your own lack of perspective.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    There is this thing called "criticism". Or "feedback". When people are starting to go around and imagine what's going on in other people's heads, it's gone too far beyond "criticism" or "feedback." If you cannot distinguish between that and "regulating what other people think and feel", anti-Semitism, homophobia and McCarthyism, then maybe you should rethink your own lack of perspective. One horrible thing about being gay-bashed, and I have experienced this personally, is having other people talk about what's going on in your head, as if they know better than you. There's something particularly dehumanizing about it. Such things also come into sectarian bigotry and out-grouping. I've even experienced a bit of that from being raised Catholic, though that sort of thing was much rarer. Certainly McCarthyism involved a lot of this speculation about what's "really" going on in your head or other people's heads. then maybe you should rethink your own lack of perspective. Having been the recipient a lot of bigotry in my lifetime, one common pattern I've seen is people arrogantly, confidently, even self righteously jumping to conclusions about what's going on in my head while being spectacularly wrong. I think that's quite a profound perspective. It's also a perspective which is the foundation of caution against people who use phrases like "maybe you should rethink your own lack of perspective" in such a gaslighting fashion.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  You think having an issue with pedophilia is just "othering"? Really?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
malnourish 8y ago
Can you please explain what you find highly disturbing?

_wmd 8y ago

Your position seems to boil down to suggesting since the problem cannot be fixed perfectly, nobody should even try, and meanwhile those who do try are "hysterical". In other words, simultaneously defeatist and offensive. If you feel so hopeless about your impact on the world around you, please keep such depressing ideas to yourself

zzzcpan 8y ago
What exactly is the problem though? No children are exploited or abused neither any demand is created for abuse or exploitation of children with any of this, etc. So what then? You don't like what some people might think and do in the privacy of their home? Keep in mind, there is no evidence that they actually think and do anything you don't like, someone just claims they do. There is, however, plenty of evidence of pushing for censorship, policing, control using emotional manipulation. Like every child porn smear campaign ever.
- _wmd 8y ago
  What exactly is the harm behind beheading videos? It's not like anyone is being beheaded every time you watch it, right. Nobody pays attention to these videos ever, nobody has ever been radicalized by them. No 15 year old British schoolgirl has run away to Syria and found herself pregnant and stateless because of them ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623 ) You could take the common line where if someone is driven to a compulsion though self-temptation, all responsibility lies with them. But if you encourage that compulsion knowing full well what it leads to, are you blameless? I posit that knowingly providing tooling that actively seeks out, recommends on behalf of and encourages the behaviour of voyeuristic individuals interested in children, in an absolutely concrete way the provider of the tool is in part responsible for any child abuse that may result. When you're talking about a planetary-scale recommender, the scale of the viewers is terrifying -- and even if a small fraction of those compulsions are acted upon, that's far, far too many. edit: apparently this line of thinking is so repugnant to some that it doesn't even deserve a reply
- jjulius 8y ago
  >No children are exploited or abused... Can you verify this 100%? You're absolutely certain that there isn't a single video on YouTube of a child where a grown up might've instructed them to do something that seemed innocent but the adult found sexual? I understand what you're getting at with the rest of your comment, but to sit there and say that not a single child on YouTube has been exploited or abused is really, really reaching and deserves a cited source.

duado 8y ago

There’s a big difference between someone getting turned on by motorcycles and a two-sided marketplace of sexualized videos of minors.

freeflight 8y ago
Is it really a two-sided marketplace? Most of that content could easily be just aggregated from random social media accounts. The sexualization only happens in the context of the viewer mentally sexualizing the content. The vast majority of people who see these videos, without any further context, would simply assume those are just family videos. In that context, it is quite a bit perverse to have some people constantly fantasize how certain content could be "abused" for sexual pleasure by other individuals and how to best go about to deny them that pleasure. When in reality human sexuality is just fucked generally [0] and people can derive sexual pleasure from the weirdest of things, like naked feet in high-heels. Would you rather these people build secretive in-groups where they trade real hardcore material, supporting actual physical child abuse? Should we ban the depiction of animal violence in general because some people derive sexual pleasure from it? I just see no practical solution to this that doesn't end up with a lot of quite arbitrary censoring rules, that would then need to be expanded. Case in point: Just do a Google image search on "children's underwear" and you will find plenty of similar stuff like in those videos. Should that stuff also be all removed/deleted/censored? That's where the real slippery slope begins. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201605/crush-fetishism-and-animal-torture-porn https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201605/cru...

warent 8y ago

First, there is, in point of fact, a network of pedophiles on YouTube as demonstrated by the article. Your comment is twisting it into "Omg pedophiles everywhere!" hyperbole for what reason? The seriousness of even a single case of pedophilia or child exploitation cannot be overstated. Not only is it ethical and moral to take it very seriously, but it's also the logical action because children are our future and if they are healthy and happy then the human race is healthy and happy. There is no fixing the problem, but we can mitigate it. The first step would be, apparently, to educate the public because comments like yours still exist which is deeply concerning. The second step is up for discussion of course, but perhaps it would be useful to ban children under the age of N from appearing in videos for more than T amount of time or perhaps ban altogether.

tcd 8y ago
Yet, I find it funny when people also say, in the same breath "omg governments using children as scapegoat for censorship". Which is it? If you think you can have a 100% success rate you are horribly, stupidly mistaken. You WILL get innocents caught in the crossfire, you WILL see videos removed that are okay, and people WILL cry censorship. People are demanding a flawless system, that never makes mistakes, that has 100% accuracy to be developed and released in the next week, and yet, we need a "free and open internet" otherwise Reddit gets angry and puts up hundreds of "net neutrality" posts. Oh, what's that, Article 13 wants upload filters? BOO!! Yet they may catch this type of content. Nobody likes that idea because it'd "ruin" the internet. Which is it. This problem can ONLY be fixed with upload filters, potential censorship and mistakes which will affect a number of legit videos. That okay with you? People seem pretty mad at youtube for their content ID and DMCA, just check r/videos. This would increase 10 fold with any further automated system designed to attempt to filter certain categories of content. People will have channels deleted and potentially their Youtube 'careers' ended by a machine. But r/videos hates this.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Problems and solutions have a relationship that is many to many. A problem may or may not have a solution or many solutions. And solutions have a relationship not just to the problem they solve but also the problem or problems they create. This fundamental meta-problem is a problem to which there is no solution. This is why we argue. This is why we fight. This... is why we politick.

umvi 8y ago

> What to do about that? How to "fix" any of this? Ideas: A. Auto take-down videos featuring minors with unusual amounts of sexual comments B. Auto ban accounts that are repeat offenders of (a) C. Require all uploaders have a real paper trail so they can be held accountable for what they upload

freeflight 8y ago
Uhm, A and B don't really feel that well thought out. The creator/uploader rarely has any influence over what people are commenting, yet you would punish them if they had repeat offenders commenting under their videos. A system that would be very easy to abuse to get peoples channels banned. This whole system would also heavily depend on how you classify "sexual comments", working on the assumption that communities wouldn't adapt by using invented slang. While C is just straight up anti-privacy without any direct advantages. I have no doubt Google/YouTube/law enforcement currently have the capabilities of tracking down anybody using these services without any paper trails, that's in no way part of the issue.
- umvi 8y ago
  > yet you would punish them if they had repeat offenders commenting under their videos You misunderstand. If the uploader keeps uploading videos of minors that garner mass sexual comments, the uploader gets banned. Uploader uploads preteen girl deepthroating popsicle. Lots of pedophiles come along and express their pleasure in the comments with water squirting emoticons and such. Bam, video flagged and taken down. Uploader uploads preteen daughter doing handstands/nipslips. Pedophiles return to comments to express pleasure in their sick way. Uploader is now repeat offender and account is banned. I don't see why this is a big problem. If it's a family video make it private. ML can be used to train algo on the latest slang. > I have no doubt Google/YouTube/law enforcement currently have the capabilities of tracking down anybody using these services without any paper trails, that's in no way part of the issue. Really? Why aren't they doing it? How do they track down people uploading via VPNs and such? Tying account to bank makes it much more difficult to evade law enforcement.
  - 8y ago

matz1 8y ago

There are no objective solutions to this kind of "problem". What one person think its OK, might not be OK for other. What one person thing disturbing, might not be disturbing for other. It will always be forever battle between the 2 sides. The side who can force/convince the other will become the "solution". The only thing you can do is fight for the side you believe in, whatever that side.

samstave 8y ago

Facts: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ahzv21/important_thread_must_read_from_55_years_ago/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ahzv21/importan... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/24/pentagon-us-staff-downloaded-child-pornography https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/24/pentagon-us-st... I mean -- I could give you literally dozens of "facts" -- so your comment is a strawman. its not hysteria, and I am skeptical of anyone who denies abuse. As a victim of abuse, I really can't stand people who say such things.

stcredzero 8y ago
I mean -- I could give you literally dozens of "facts" Facts are good. We can corroborate facts. Non-facts can eventually be debunked. its not hysteria, and I am skeptical of anyone who denies abuse. As a victim of abuse, I really can't stand people who say such things. As a victim of abuse, I still think everyone should exercise their skepticism, and not just victims and the outraged. If you advocate for skepticism, then you should not object to fair skepticism being directed at you as well. There is a great power in strong emotions and outrage, and with great power, comes great responsibility. Transparency is paramount. The best way forward is to avoid hysteria, and to go forward rationally.