3 ms·

> 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 abus

> 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?

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?