4 ms·

This doesn't surprise me at all. From what a poster said down thread from your remark, it's largely platitudes. I never appreciated the nature of abuse until a

This doesn't surprise me at all. From what a poster said down thread from your remark, it's largely platitudes. I never appreciated the nature of abuse until a friend of mine confided in me about their own experience being an abuse survivor from something that happened when they were a child. The Internet is just a high profile target. I won't say that the overwhelming majority of abuse happens among people who know the victim, but it's almost certainly close. Of the survivors I've spoken with, while this is anecdotal, it seems to me that they all knew the perpetrator personally either through church, school, family, etc. The Internet wasn't involved. If anything, targeting the Internet may actually impede one's ability to speak out against abuse and seek out others to help encourage them to speak out, find help, or approach the appropriate authorities. It reminds me of a sad story. A number of years ago, there was a pastor who found out that there had been some abuse of a child in his church. So he reported it and the perpetrator to the authorities. When the dust settled, the church committee fired him for sewing division and dissent when all he did was follow the law. That's kind of what bills like this feel like.

toyg 5y ago
> I won't say that the overwhelming majority of abuse happens among people who know the victim Well, one could argue about "overwhelming", but I believe on the "majority" part there is no question, statistically speaking. So let's say it: the majority of abuse cases involve people familiar to the victim and their immediate relatives, regardless of any factor connected to the internet.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > the majority of abuse cases involve people familiar to the victim and their immediate relatives... This is and has always been true. >... regardless of any factor connected to the internet. The LEO narrative seems something like 'We didn't sex abuse before the internet so the internet must be responsible.' The flaw with that perspective is that police did not see sex abuse because (historically) they overwhelmingly Did. Not. Care. about children's (or women's) well being. As evidence, I offer a century of clergy (and other) sex-scandals that were rarely (or possibly never, ever, ever, ever) shut down by police - even tho the cops were the people who's actual damn job it was to put a stop to it.
  - candiodari 5y ago
    If you look at convictions you quickly arrive at the conclusion that all government action against abuse is there for other purposes. It just doesn't even target the observed problems. Most (just about half) child abuse is committed by other children (mostly slightly older than the victim). Almost always under government supervision (translation: at school/school related activities). Half of what remains is committed BY the government (meaning teachers/trainers/social workers/... government employees). A significant portion of this kind of abuse is either very young or "almost adult" kids. These cases are special because of often one sees very large numbers of victims per perpetrator (it is absolutely exceptional for a pedophile outside of any institution to have even 3 victims, whereas institutional employees have seen cases with thousands of victims for ONE perpetrator). You might wonder how one person even abuses thousands of children. In some cases government employees (ie. social workers, psychiatrists, ...) are found to abuse the power of the institutions they work for with the specific intention to abuse children. In one famous case, a German youth services therapist took that job, and climbed to director of an institution, to prove that both vulnerable children and pedophiles (including, of course, he himself) "benefit from being placed together". He implemented his experiment, not just placing children with himself, but also with pedophiles entrusted to him by the justice system, and managed to continue this practice ... for 30 years. He was in it, literally, to prove that child abuse benefits children. Hundreds, maybe thousands of victims. If you look into "clergy" sex abuse scandals you will find that these also mostly happened at schools, school-related youth associations and in things like orphanages. And as we can see now, clergy has mostly disappeared, school employees haven't. The abuse also hasn't disappeared. People abuse children when they have access to children. Clergy used to have that, because they were school employees, and their profession attracted pedophiles because of that. Now other people, almost all government workers, have access to children, and abuse that access just the same. For the remainder the largest groups is people the family knows that aren't related. Then strangers. Then relatively far or indirect relatives. And only then do we start seeing first foster siblings, foster parents, then "reconstituted family" siblings and parents (ie. legal, but not biological sibling/parents due to often multiple divorces and remarriage), and then as the least likely group natural parents. You will never hear anyone discuss anything but the need to hide these to maintain the reputation of various institutions (from schools to CPC itself). Sometimes things like teachers' unions actively suggest ignoring kids complaints to protect teachers (e.g. against false accusations, or to avoid pointing out that CPC regularly CAUSES abuse of a child to start, not exactly what they're here for. And questioning the results of CPC "protection" for kids, even when well-intentioned, we don't seem capable as a society to admit that good intentions don't make for good results). Anti-child abuse action invariable focuses on natural and reconstituted family parents, the least likely groups to abuse children. And going further, like acknowledging the many things that cause the abuse (like sexualization of youngsters in commercials and entertainment, even to youngsters themselves). Getting such groups to acknowledge the very big role of the government and various education and protection services play is just out of the question. If you want to limit child abuse, the area of focus for maximum effect seems very clear: school. Both protecting kids from each other as well as from the staff and other government employees (including, perhaps even especially due to large number of victims per perpetrator, those whose job specifically is to protect children). It seems it is very hard for people to believe that exactly children themselves and the people who we entrust children to are the biggest problem when it comes to child abuse. That, and of course that governments don't want to take clear measures against their own employees, even if they are the most likely child abusers. There are many sad cases where a perpetrator who is a teacher, sometimes with multiple previous convictions, succeeds in having child services go after parents after a complaint is filed. And of course, on occasion convicted child abusers are found to have taken jobs as for example a teacher or in youth mental care specifically with the intention to abuse children (even though it is pretty obvious that these people aren't in those jobs for the money).

toyg 5y ago

> I won't say that the overwhelming majority of abuse happens among people who know the victim Well, one could argue about "overwhelming", but I believe on the "majority" part there is no question, statistically speaking. So let's say it: the majority of abuse cases involve people familiar to the victim and their immediate relatives, regardless of any factor connected to the internet.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> the majority of abuse cases involve people familiar to the victim and their immediate relatives... This is and has always been true. >... regardless of any factor connected to the internet. The LEO narrative seems something like 'We didn't sex abuse before the internet so the internet must be responsible.' The flaw with that perspective is that police did not see sex abuse because (historically) they overwhelmingly Did. Not. Care. about children's (or women's) well being. As evidence, I offer a century of clergy (and other) sex-scandals that were rarely (or possibly never, ever, ever, ever) shut down by police - even tho the cops were the people who's actual damn job it was to put a stop to it.
- candiodari 5y ago
  If you look at convictions you quickly arrive at the conclusion that all government action against abuse is there for other purposes. It just doesn't even target the observed problems. Most (just about half) child abuse is committed by other children (mostly slightly older than the victim). Almost always under government supervision (translation: at school/school related activities). Half of what remains is committed BY the government (meaning teachers/trainers/social workers/... government employees). A significant portion of this kind of abuse is either very young or "almost adult" kids. These cases are special because of often one sees very large numbers of victims per perpetrator (it is absolutely exceptional for a pedophile outside of any institution to have even 3 victims, whereas institutional employees have seen cases with thousands of victims for ONE perpetrator). You might wonder how one person even abuses thousands of children. In some cases government employees (ie. social workers, psychiatrists, ...) are found to abuse the power of the institutions they work for with the specific intention to abuse children. In one famous case, a German youth services therapist took that job, and climbed to director of an institution, to prove that both vulnerable children and pedophiles (including, of course, he himself) "benefit from being placed together". He implemented his experiment, not just placing children with himself, but also with pedophiles entrusted to him by the justice system, and managed to continue this practice ... for 30 years. He was in it, literally, to prove that child abuse benefits children. Hundreds, maybe thousands of victims. If you look into "clergy" sex abuse scandals you will find that these also mostly happened at schools, school-related youth associations and in things like orphanages. And as we can see now, clergy has mostly disappeared, school employees haven't. The abuse also hasn't disappeared. People abuse children when they have access to children. Clergy used to have that, because they were school employees, and their profession attracted pedophiles because of that. Now other people, almost all government workers, have access to children, and abuse that access just the same. For the remainder the largest groups is people the family knows that aren't related. Then strangers. Then relatively far or indirect relatives. And only then do we start seeing first foster siblings, foster parents, then "reconstituted family" siblings and parents (ie. legal, but not biological sibling/parents due to often multiple divorces and remarriage), and then as the least likely group natural parents. You will never hear anyone discuss anything but the need to hide these to maintain the reputation of various institutions (from schools to CPC itself). Sometimes things like teachers' unions actively suggest ignoring kids complaints to protect teachers (e.g. against false accusations, or to avoid pointing out that CPC regularly CAUSES abuse of a child to start, not exactly what they're here for. And questioning the results of CPC "protection" for kids, even when well-intentioned, we don't seem capable as a society to admit that good intentions don't make for good results). Anti-child abuse action invariable focuses on natural and reconstituted family parents, the least likely groups to abuse children. And going further, like acknowledging the many things that cause the abuse (like sexualization of youngsters in commercials and entertainment, even to youngsters themselves). Getting such groups to acknowledge the very big role of the government and various education and protection services play is just out of the question. If you want to limit child abuse, the area of focus for maximum effect seems very clear: school. Both protecting kids from each other as well as from the staff and other government employees (including, perhaps even especially due to large number of victims per perpetrator, those whose job specifically is to protect children). It seems it is very hard for people to believe that exactly children themselves and the people who we entrust children to are the biggest problem when it comes to child abuse. That, and of course that governments don't want to take clear measures against their own employees, even if they are the most likely child abusers. There are many sad cases where a perpetrator who is a teacher, sometimes with multiple previous convictions, succeeds in having child services go after parents after a complaint is filed. And of course, on occasion convicted child abusers are found to have taken jobs as for example a teacher or in youth mental care specifically with the intention to abuse children (even though it is pretty obvious that these people aren't in those jobs for the money).