3 ms·

I applaud the IWF's intentions - I agree with ending child abuse - and am personally quiet happy with effective if draconian measures the problem there is the

I applaud the IWF's intentions - I agree with ending child abuse - and am personally quiet happy with effective if draconian measures the problem there is the effective not the draconian We know some evil people record these vile acts, but we don't think that banning video cameras will solve the problem - so my gut feeling is that banning abuse images online is less about stopping the crime and more about not being reminded it exists. So I wonder what the effective solutions to child abuse are? Something to do with nosey neighbours willing to pry? With school teachers being amazingly sensitive? something to do with spending huge amounts on foster care and social services - something to do with simply getting to know and talk with your neighbours? or something else? Was childline ever effective? I don't know - but it's a huge problem with amazing ROI - and well worth spending at least as much as we do on pointless record my browser history projects.

DuskStar 7y ago
> We know some evil people record these vile acts, but we don't think that banning video cameras will solve the problem - so my gut feeling is that banning abuse images online is less about stopping the crime and more about not being reminded it exists. I'm personally always amazed that people seem to think the problem is the recording and not the abuse.
- yeaaaaaaaaaah 7y ago
  Banning images is a technical problem. Stopping abuse is a social problem.
  - penagwin 7y ago
    "Stopping abuse" isn't actionable - e.g. You can't say today I'm going to "stop abuse"(Unless you're an abuser). Banning images is an actionable measure - with the goal of stopping abuse. Not saying it's a good one.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It's both. Legally, child sexual abuse is considered so vile a practice that it's addressed on both supply side and demand side. Criminalizing possession and handling of such recordings is an attempt at reducing demand. It's not a complete solution, but no real world is really solved by a single thing. Banning video cameras obviously isn't happening, because they're too useful for other things. But if, hypothetically, a company sold cameras magically limited to only recording children, and such cameras would become popular among child pornographers, then you could expect calls for a legal ban on the grounds that denying a few companies the ability to fleece people through market segmentation doesn't outweigh making life more difficult for the child pornographers.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > Criminalizing possession and handling of such recordings is an attempt at reducing demand. It's not a complete solution, but no real world is really solved by a single thing. My personal opinion is that this does not reduce abuse. It almost certainly reduces demand for abuse videos, and possibly reduces demand for the creation of new abuse videos - but I don't care about those, I care about the kids being hurt. I'd rather have 10 kids a year get abused and the videos end up on YouTube than have 100 kids a year abused with no videos anywhere, if that makes any sense - and if abuse videos are a substitute for actual abuse one might expect that making the videos harder to acquire would make the latter more common.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > It almost certainly reduces demand for abuse videos, and possibly reduces demand for the creation of new abuse videos And thus it's expected to reduce the abuse done in the process of creating said videos. I provisionally believe your substitution argument. I have no clue if the total abuse is decreasing or increasing here.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        It probably depends highly on whether abuse recorded in the videos would have happened anyways. Is the abuser just recording their normal routine, or are they doing things for the camera?
benj111 7y ago
"Something to do with nosey neighbours willing to pry? With school teachers being amazingly sensitive? something to do with spending huge amounts on foster care and social services - something to do with simply getting to know and talk with your neighbours? or something else? Was childline ever effective?" All of the above basically. Unfortunately council funding cuts are having a detrimental effect on foster care and social services. So that part isnt as good as it should be.
DanBC 7y ago
> so my gut feeling This is absolutely the worst thing about HN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOv14fA-BI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOv14fA-BI "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, crypto zoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, liminology, history, herpatology, paleontology, or archeology, but I think ..." We know from interviewing the children who were abused that they continue to be traumatised by the knowledge that images of them being raped are still available online. We also know that fear of people viewing the images causes children to avoid seeking help. Some children feel huge amounts of shame or guilt, and they wrongly[1] think that they will be seen as willing victims. You're also making the mistake of limiting your thoughts to images created by a local abuser - someone in the same room as the child. You need to remember that some images of CSE are created by the children after they've been groomed. [1] Although reading any HN thread which mentions images of CSE these children aren't far wrong.
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  >>> available online ... still causes them trauma Thank you. Consider my opinion changed. There is a clear reason to pursue this course of action, even if it is less effective at the root cause. Personally I think having my prejudices called out is one of the good things about HN. I still would love to see research on other approaches to tackling the root problem (i.e. the abuse not the images) (This would presumably included what properly funded social services look like, how cross-department co-operation can be improved, as well as the more "Big Society" suggestions.) I mean a frustrating part of this is that in almost always some political issue has had a "yes but in Country X they are trying a new system that has had huge success" and slowly a consensus forms around the right way to tackle the problem - but on CSE I have never come across even the right direction of travel. Finally I hope the threads you mention in your footnote are at an end - there is no willing victim, this is crime and vile crime at that. Edit: general tidying
  - lifeisstillgood 7y ago
    Edit Edit: Rethinking this (frankly being called out is always time for reflection) I suppose my first request for my own education is to get a size of the problem - looking at the Rochdale case in the UK it is seemingly large - and can our knowledge of published images help size the problem.

DuskStar 7y ago

> We know some evil people record these vile acts, but we don't think that banning video cameras will solve the problem - so my gut feeling is that banning abuse images online is less about stopping the crime and more about not being reminded it exists. I'm personally always amazed that people seem to think the problem is the recording and not the abuse.

yeaaaaaaaaaah 7y ago
Banning images is a technical problem. Stopping abuse is a social problem.
- penagwin 7y ago
  "Stopping abuse" isn't actionable - e.g. You can't say today I'm going to "stop abuse"(Unless you're an abuser). Banning images is an actionable measure - with the goal of stopping abuse. Not saying it's a good one.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
It's both. Legally, child sexual abuse is considered so vile a practice that it's addressed on both supply side and demand side. Criminalizing possession and handling of such recordings is an attempt at reducing demand. It's not a complete solution, but no real world is really solved by a single thing. Banning video cameras obviously isn't happening, because they're too useful for other things. But if, hypothetically, a company sold cameras magically limited to only recording children, and such cameras would become popular among child pornographers, then you could expect calls for a legal ban on the grounds that denying a few companies the ability to fleece people through market segmentation doesn't outweigh making life more difficult for the child pornographers.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > Criminalizing possession and handling of such recordings is an attempt at reducing demand. It's not a complete solution, but no real world is really solved by a single thing. My personal opinion is that this does not reduce abuse. It almost certainly reduces demand for abuse videos, and possibly reduces demand for the creation of new abuse videos - but I don't care about those, I care about the kids being hurt. I'd rather have 10 kids a year get abused and the videos end up on YouTube than have 100 kids a year abused with no videos anywhere, if that makes any sense - and if abuse videos are a substitute for actual abuse one might expect that making the videos harder to acquire would make the latter more common.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > It almost certainly reduces demand for abuse videos, and possibly reduces demand for the creation of new abuse videos And thus it's expected to reduce the abuse done in the process of creating said videos. I provisionally believe your substitution argument. I have no clue if the total abuse is decreasing or increasing here.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      It probably depends highly on whether abuse recorded in the videos would have happened anyways. Is the abuser just recording their normal routine, or are they doing things for the camera?

benj111 7y ago

"Something to do with nosey neighbours willing to pry? With school teachers being amazingly sensitive? something to do with spending huge amounts on foster care and social services - something to do with simply getting to know and talk with your neighbours? or something else? Was childline ever effective?" All of the above basically. Unfortunately council funding cuts are having a detrimental effect on foster care and social services. So that part isnt as good as it should be.

DanBC 7y ago

> so my gut feeling This is absolutely the worst thing about HN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOv14fA-BI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOv14fA-BI "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, crypto zoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, liminology, history, herpatology, paleontology, or archeology, but I think ..." We know from interviewing the children who were abused that they continue to be traumatised by the knowledge that images of them being raped are still available online. We also know that fear of people viewing the images causes children to avoid seeking help. Some children feel huge amounts of shame or guilt, and they wrongly[1] think that they will be seen as willing victims. You're also making the mistake of limiting your thoughts to images created by a local abuser - someone in the same room as the child. You need to remember that some images of CSE are created by the children after they've been groomed. [1] Although reading any HN thread which mentions images of CSE these children aren't far wrong.

lifeisstillgood 7y ago
>>> available online ... still causes them trauma Thank you. Consider my opinion changed. There is a clear reason to pursue this course of action, even if it is less effective at the root cause. Personally I think having my prejudices called out is one of the good things about HN. I still would love to see research on other approaches to tackling the root problem (i.e. the abuse not the images) (This would presumably included what properly funded social services look like, how cross-department co-operation can be improved, as well as the more "Big Society" suggestions.) I mean a frustrating part of this is that in almost always some political issue has had a "yes but in Country X they are trying a new system that has had huge success" and slowly a consensus forms around the right way to tackle the problem - but on CSE I have never come across even the right direction of travel. Finally I hope the threads you mention in your footnote are at an end - there is no willing victim, this is crime and vile crime at that. Edit: general tidying
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  Edit Edit: Rethinking this (frankly being called out is always time for reflection) I suppose my first request for my own education is to get a size of the problem - looking at the Rochdale case in the UK it is seemingly large - and can our knowledge of published images help size the problem.