4 ms·

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 "hysteric

by _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.
  - falcolas 8y ago
    You're asking someone to prove a negative, which is pretty much impossible. But it does seem fair in response to ask if you can prove, with the same 100% accuracy, that any one of children in the videos identified by the article are being exploited and/or abused?
    - jjulius 8y ago
      >You're asking someone to prove a negative, which is pretty much impossible. Fair, but why state it as fact if it's impossible to prove? >But it does seem fair in response to ask if you can prove, with the same 100% accuracy, that any one of children in the videos identified in the article are being exploited and/or abused? Also a fair point, and I can provide at least two articles that addressed YouTube removing content involving the exploitation of children in the past. Granted, these aren't "the videos identified by the article", but they're strong evidence that, contrary to OP's claim, children have been exploited on the platform. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/youtube-has-deleted-hundreds-of-thousands-of-disturbing https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/youtube... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/youtube-is-addressing-its-massive-child-exploitation-problem https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/youtube-i...
stcredzero 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". I read the position as: "The problem can be mitigated, but we shouldn't go so far as to actually try to police people's internal thoughts and feelings. There are some who are so overcome by emotions with this issue, that they would even advocate going that far."

by _wmd 8y ago

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.
- falcolas 8y ago
  You're asking someone to prove a negative, which is pretty much impossible. But it does seem fair in response to ask if you can prove, with the same 100% accuracy, that any one of children in the videos identified by the article are being exploited and/or abused?
  - jjulius 8y ago
    >You're asking someone to prove a negative, which is pretty much impossible. Fair, but why state it as fact if it's impossible to prove? >But it does seem fair in response to ask if you can prove, with the same 100% accuracy, that any one of children in the videos identified in the article are being exploited and/or abused? Also a fair point, and I can provide at least two articles that addressed YouTube removing content involving the exploitation of children in the past. Granted, these aren't "the videos identified by the article", but they're strong evidence that, contrary to OP's claim, children have been exploited on the platform. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/youtube-has-deleted-hundreds-of-thousands-of-disturbing https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/youtube... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/youtube-is-addressing-its-massive-child-exploitation-problem https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/youtube-i...

stcredzero 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". I read the position as: "The problem can be mitigated, but we shouldn't go so far as to actually try to police people's internal thoughts and feelings. There are some who are so overcome by emotions with this issue, that they would even advocate going that far."