3 ms·

That doesn't sound like something anyone who wanted to watch child porn would post, right? You want to watch your porn in peace, not get the video taken down an

That doesn't sound like something anyone who wanted to watch child porn would post, right? You want to watch your porn in peace, not get the video taken down and your account tracked by Chris Hansen and the FBI. On a private pedophile forum, sure. Not on YouTube. It sounds more like something someone who wasn't a pedophile would post, because they were trying to get the video taken down or to bait real pedophiles into posting agreement.

komali2 8y ago
Well, we're both working with the same evidence, so, I disagree. I think it's more likely that it's a pedophile, that they're not willing to risk hopping on the dark net, that videos of children on youtube are enough to sexually gratify them without fear of retribution.
- Noumenon72 8y ago
  Someone who's not willing to risk hopping on the dark net is smart. Too smart to assume that most people who see a comment from 'predator133' on YouTube will approve of predators. There are neo-Nazi parades of people not afraid of being hated, but there are not, like, "I cheat on my taxes" parades. Too much to lose. And there are a lot of hoaxters, trolls, parodists, and false flaggers out there. Often more of them than the deviants, because the deviants are weird and underground.
- Yntec 8y ago
  I don't really know what @2:33 is about, but let me take a guess and ask you: would you let actual children see the contents that appear @2:33? And if they did, would they be horrified? If you asked them to describe what was happening on @2:33, would they feel unfomfortable? Or would they give some innocent, mundane description? This is a great test to see if something is dirty or if it's only dirty in your mind. If you have to create an imaginary pedophile in your mind that gets aroused by @2:33, and a whole group of them that are searching Youtube comments to find the timestamp for "what they're looking for", you have to wonder if you're not using some huge leap in logic to arrive to conclusions. Ironically, what this video has shown is that Youtube's system works, as this guy, to make his video, had to go for what seems to be hours of research and after it, he shows the most shocking videos of little girls he was able to find. And there wasn't any nudity, or anything actually implicitly sexual shown. Everything was clean and every timestamp led to family-friendly content. The "worst" thing I saw was the usage of the water emoji, and I'm like, really? People use the water emoji and suddenly you can be very detailed about their sexual orientation and why they timestamp videos or share them? All what is happening on these completely innocent videos could be explained in many ways, thinking the most likely explanation is "that's a pedophile" means the imaginary pedophile in your mind needs to be toned down.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Sure, I'd love a world where "the predator" links a timestamp to a child doing a yoga pose with the comment "all what we want here" is a fellow child supporting the kid on her yoga moves. I'd love that. I don't believe it's true. Why do you believe the innocent angle is more likely? Do you know people that make a habit of linking timestamps of children doing yoga poses?

komali2 8y ago

Well, we're both working with the same evidence, so, I disagree. I think it's more likely that it's a pedophile, that they're not willing to risk hopping on the dark net, that videos of children on youtube are enough to sexually gratify them without fear of retribution.

Noumenon72 8y ago
Someone who's not willing to risk hopping on the dark net is smart. Too smart to assume that most people who see a comment from 'predator133' on YouTube will approve of predators. There are neo-Nazi parades of people not afraid of being hated, but there are not, like, "I cheat on my taxes" parades. Too much to lose. And there are a lot of hoaxters, trolls, parodists, and false flaggers out there. Often more of them than the deviants, because the deviants are weird and underground.
Yntec 8y ago
I don't really know what @2:33 is about, but let me take a guess and ask you: would you let actual children see the contents that appear @2:33? And if they did, would they be horrified? If you asked them to describe what was happening on @2:33, would they feel unfomfortable? Or would they give some innocent, mundane description? This is a great test to see if something is dirty or if it's only dirty in your mind. If you have to create an imaginary pedophile in your mind that gets aroused by @2:33, and a whole group of them that are searching Youtube comments to find the timestamp for "what they're looking for", you have to wonder if you're not using some huge leap in logic to arrive to conclusions. Ironically, what this video has shown is that Youtube's system works, as this guy, to make his video, had to go for what seems to be hours of research and after it, he shows the most shocking videos of little girls he was able to find. And there wasn't any nudity, or anything actually implicitly sexual shown. Everything was clean and every timestamp led to family-friendly content. The "worst" thing I saw was the usage of the water emoji, and I'm like, really? People use the water emoji and suddenly you can be very detailed about their sexual orientation and why they timestamp videos or share them? All what is happening on these completely innocent videos could be explained in many ways, thinking the most likely explanation is "that's a pedophile" means the imaginary pedophile in your mind needs to be toned down.
- komali2 8y ago
  Sure, I'd love a world where "the predator" links a timestamp to a child doing a yoga pose with the comment "all what we want here" is a fellow child supporting the kid on her yoga moves. I'd love that. I don't believe it's true. Why do you believe the innocent angle is more likely? Do you know people that make a habit of linking timestamps of children doing yoga poses?