6 ms·

Please, let's not get distracted by videogame violence. We have seen historically massive upticks in child abuse material [1], caused by two inventions: the in

Please, let's not get distracted by videogame violence. We have seen historically massive upticks in child abuse material [1], caused by two inventions: the internet and smartphones with cameras, and there's a strong case made that it reflects an actual, large, increase in child sexual abuse. I don't have a specific article to link to, but Gabriel Dance discusses in a podcast [2] how many paedophiles are gradually indoctrinated by communities; they are made, not born. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-... Warning: extremely distressing descriptions. [2] https://samharris.org/podcasts/213-worst-epidemic/ https://samharris.org/podcasts/213-worst-epidemic/ Warning: ditto, though not as bad.

CuriouslyC 5y ago
I don't doubt online pedophile communities support pedophiles, but I don't think they create them. Also, just because we're documenting it now doesn't mean it didn't happen before - sexual abuse of young girls has been endemic since forever, and people go through all sorts of contortions not to acknowledge it.
- versteegen 5y ago
  Gabriel Dance makes the argument much better than I could; I won't attempt it. He spent years investigating, actually doing things such as interviewing paedophiles, asking them 'why'. I don't have reason to doubt his conclusions. But what is clearly new is that now people are encouraged to abuse children because they can take a video, share it, sell it, gloat about it, trade it to get access to more material. Additionally, sharing imagery of abuse further harms the victims. For example, in that podcast it was mentioned that some victims receive a notification every time images of their abuse come up in a court case!
  - CuriouslyC 5y ago
    Blocking child abuse literature and fake child porn isn't going to stop predators from doing the stuff you mention though. That stuff is still going to be teased on social media and shared on the darkweb.
versteegen 5y ago
Oh, hmm, I actually meant to link to [3] for rising stats on abuse imagery. [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-ab... No warning needed, no descriptions of abuse. (Sorry, paywall. Disable JS.)
vharuck 5y ago
>We have seen historically massive upticks in child abuse material [1], caused by two inventions: the internet and smartphones with cameras, and there's a strong case made that it reflects an actual, large, increase in child sexual abuse. I would like to hear that strong case. I cannot find the data right now, but I have heard the rate of child sexual abuse cases has fallen since the internet's debut. A possible reason (if the rate has fallen) being that pedophiles, who know they will be severely punished if caught abusing a child, now have easy access to existing material. They don't have to exploit or abuse children around them. We don't have a guaranteed way to keep somebody from developing pedophilia, so we shouldn't ban fictional material that isn't related to actual exploitation or abuse. Images, videos, or even writing based on real events need to be caught (with the usual caveat of non-pornographic use, like a victim's memoire or a therapist's training materials). Again, I'm still looking for hard data on the rates of child sexual abuse.
- vharuck 5y ago
  Here's one PDF report I've found from the US Department of Justice: <https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fpcseo06.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fpcseo06.pdf> According to it, US federal attorneys dealt with 568 suspects of child sex abuse in 1994, and 601 in 2006. The chart shows the count remained steady-ish between those years. If we keep in mind that the US population was increasing, that means the rate of child sexual abusers being investigated has gone down. Over that time period, the rate of people investigated for child pornography drastically increased. This evidence does not support a casual relationship.
ggggtez 5y ago
I don't think it's right to argue that the internet creates pedophiles. After all, that largest known organization tied to sexual exploitation of children is.... the catholic church. And the abuse scandal goes back much farther than even the invention of the internet itself. So we can't heap the blame on the internet. If anything, the internet is bringing these issues to light, when before they were shrouded in secrecy. Consider the alternative interpretation of the NYT report. If only 3000 images were reported in 1998, but there were still thousands of cases in the US alone, then the internet has actually made it easier to investigate and find the criminals.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > After all, that largest known organization tied to sexual exploitation of children is.... the catholic church. If you think that's evidence against the theory, you're committing a common statistical error. The internet could spawn a million new pedophiles that all have multiple victims, and the catholic church would still retain the title, because even though it may be the largest offender, that doesn't necessarily mean anything with regard to total offenders, or where they come from.
  - ggggtez 5y ago
    It's not evidence of absence. It's anecdotal that pedophiles existed before the internet had any photos of children. Increase of photos of children on the internet just means that more people are using the internet. You actually want to look at actual crime statistics. > between 1993 and 2005, the number of sexually abused children dropped 38 percent, while number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and those who were emotionally abused declined by 27 percent. [1] People want to blame pornography and the internet for problems that existed before the internet even existed. And the numbers and facts show the exact opposite: crimes are going down. [1] https://www.livescience.com/17285-child-sexual-abuse-numbers.html https://www.livescience.com/17285-child-sexual-abuse-numbers...
    - kbenson 5y ago
      The catholic church is not evidence that the internet doesn't create pedophiles. It's evidence that the internet is not the solve source of pedophiles. If pedophiles are created and not only born that way (I suspect there's strong evidence from abuse studies that indicates this is true), then it's possible they can be created from multiple sources. Long-standing sexual abuse of children by the catholic church is not by nature of it's existence evidence the internet does or does not create pedophiles if you believe they can be created from other sources (is the catholic church responsible for every single pedophile?) > Increase of photos of children on the internet just means that more people are using the internet. That's too strong an assertion. It doesn't "just" mean anything, it indicates some relationship, not necessarily a complete explanation. Personally, I don't know whether I think one way or the other on this, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as people are presenting it. As I understand it, sexual behavior does not always follow the same patterns as other behavior, and people rushing to immediately assume it is or isn't related should probably step back and think a bit more critically, and gather a bit more verified information that directly applies. To me, the fact that so many people are rushing in with arguments that I see as tenuous, if not outright fallacious, points towards an emotional response by people rather than a rational response. Given the subject matter, and that if the theory presented is true it's purely negative for all involved, as both the pedophiles created (or made worse) by exposure as well as their potential victims are worse off, it deserves some respect in how it is responded to. If it's false, it deserves to be clearly and obviously indicated as such with evidence, and if it's NOT, then we should really examine what that means.

CuriouslyC 5y ago

I don't doubt online pedophile communities support pedophiles, but I don't think they create them. Also, just because we're documenting it now doesn't mean it didn't happen before - sexual abuse of young girls has been endemic since forever, and people go through all sorts of contortions not to acknowledge it.

versteegen 5y ago
Gabriel Dance makes the argument much better than I could; I won't attempt it. He spent years investigating, actually doing things such as interviewing paedophiles, asking them 'why'. I don't have reason to doubt his conclusions. But what is clearly new is that now people are encouraged to abuse children because they can take a video, share it, sell it, gloat about it, trade it to get access to more material. Additionally, sharing imagery of abuse further harms the victims. For example, in that podcast it was mentioned that some victims receive a notification every time images of their abuse come up in a court case!
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  Blocking child abuse literature and fake child porn isn't going to stop predators from doing the stuff you mention though. That stuff is still going to be teased on social media and shared on the darkweb.

versteegen 5y ago

Oh, hmm, I actually meant to link to [3] for rising stats on abuse imagery. [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-ab... No warning needed, no descriptions of abuse. (Sorry, paywall. Disable JS.)

vharuck 5y ago

>We have seen historically massive upticks in child abuse material [1], caused by two inventions: the internet and smartphones with cameras, and there's a strong case made that it reflects an actual, large, increase in child sexual abuse. I would like to hear that strong case. I cannot find the data right now, but I have heard the rate of child sexual abuse cases has fallen since the internet's debut. A possible reason (if the rate has fallen) being that pedophiles, who know they will be severely punished if caught abusing a child, now have easy access to existing material. They don't have to exploit or abuse children around them. We don't have a guaranteed way to keep somebody from developing pedophilia, so we shouldn't ban fictional material that isn't related to actual exploitation or abuse. Images, videos, or even writing based on real events need to be caught (with the usual caveat of non-pornographic use, like a victim's memoire or a therapist's training materials). Again, I'm still looking for hard data on the rates of child sexual abuse.

vharuck 5y ago
Here's one PDF report I've found from the US Department of Justice: <https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fpcseo06.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fpcseo06.pdf> According to it, US federal attorneys dealt with 568 suspects of child sex abuse in 1994, and 601 in 2006. The chart shows the count remained steady-ish between those years. If we keep in mind that the US population was increasing, that means the rate of child sexual abusers being investigated has gone down. Over that time period, the rate of people investigated for child pornography drastically increased. This evidence does not support a casual relationship.

ggggtez 5y ago

I don't think it's right to argue that the internet creates pedophiles. After all, that largest known organization tied to sexual exploitation of children is.... the catholic church. And the abuse scandal goes back much farther than even the invention of the internet itself. So we can't heap the blame on the internet. If anything, the internet is bringing these issues to light, when before they were shrouded in secrecy. Consider the alternative interpretation of the NYT report. If only 3000 images were reported in 1998, but there were still thousands of cases in the US alone, then the internet has actually made it easier to investigate and find the criminals.

kbenson 5y ago
> After all, that largest known organization tied to sexual exploitation of children is.... the catholic church. If you think that's evidence against the theory, you're committing a common statistical error. The internet could spawn a million new pedophiles that all have multiple victims, and the catholic church would still retain the title, because even though it may be the largest offender, that doesn't necessarily mean anything with regard to total offenders, or where they come from.
- ggggtez 5y ago
  It's not evidence of absence. It's anecdotal that pedophiles existed before the internet had any photos of children. Increase of photos of children on the internet just means that more people are using the internet. You actually want to look at actual crime statistics. > between 1993 and 2005, the number of sexually abused children dropped 38 percent, while number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and those who were emotionally abused declined by 27 percent. [1] People want to blame pornography and the internet for problems that existed before the internet even existed. And the numbers and facts show the exact opposite: crimes are going down. [1] https://www.livescience.com/17285-child-sexual-abuse-numbers.html https://www.livescience.com/17285-child-sexual-abuse-numbers...
  - kbenson 5y ago
    The catholic church is not evidence that the internet doesn't create pedophiles. It's evidence that the internet is not the solve source of pedophiles. If pedophiles are created and not only born that way (I suspect there's strong evidence from abuse studies that indicates this is true), then it's possible they can be created from multiple sources. Long-standing sexual abuse of children by the catholic church is not by nature of it's existence evidence the internet does or does not create pedophiles if you believe they can be created from other sources (is the catholic church responsible for every single pedophile?) > Increase of photos of children on the internet just means that more people are using the internet. That's too strong an assertion. It doesn't "just" mean anything, it indicates some relationship, not necessarily a complete explanation. Personally, I don't know whether I think one way or the other on this, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as people are presenting it. As I understand it, sexual behavior does not always follow the same patterns as other behavior, and people rushing to immediately assume it is or isn't related should probably step back and think a bit more critically, and gather a bit more verified information that directly applies. To me, the fact that so many people are rushing in with arguments that I see as tenuous, if not outright fallacious, points towards an emotional response by people rather than a rational response. Given the subject matter, and that if the theory presented is true it's purely negative for all involved, as both the pedophiles created (or made worse) by exposure as well as their potential victims are worse off, it deserves some respect in how it is responded to. If it's false, it deserves to be clearly and obviously indicated as such with evidence, and if it's NOT, then we should really examine what that means.