3 ms·

"As explained in the article." Was it explained? I saw plenty of discussion of the harm done to children, and the lasting emotional problems carried into adul

"As explained in the article." Was it explained? I saw plenty of discussion of the harm done to children, and the lasting emotional problems carried into adulthood, on the part of the people who abuse children. Then there were a few words from one of those victims who said that it is upsetting to know that images of his abuse are still circulated and consumed. It seems like a stretch to say that the existence of those images causes harm; at most it would seem that the possibility that such images exist complicates things for victims, but that the actual harm was and has always been caused by the actual abuse that occurred. The fact is that nobody can ever know with certainty that child abuse imagery has been thoroughly deleted from ever storage medium on the planet; there are just too many computers in the world, too many ways for the imagery to be stored, transmitted, and shared. Victims will always have the possibility that someone out there is viewing such images hanging over there head no matter how many forums are taken down and no matter how many file sharing services remove files. It is one of the darker realities of the Internet age.

vanusa 5y ago
It seems like a stretch to say that the existence of those images causes harm; Not a stretch at all; I'd recommend you so some reading into the stories of the many, many people whose lives have been permanently upended (or worse - there have been many suicides) after finding leaked images of their abuse (or simply revenge-dumped images of consensual relations) posted in easily searchable websites. As to the rest of what you're saying -- "There are too many, computers, we'll never really be able to completely stop this" -- look, it's a matter of degree and ease of access. Just because we can't bring the effective visibility of these archives down to zero -- doesn't mean we can't reduce it very substantially, down 90 percent or more from the current level.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  My point is that victims will never actually have the peace of mind to know that imagery of their abuse is inaccessible. Once the pictures/videos have been taken the harm has already occurred and the victims will live out their lives knowing that "somewhere" "someone" is consuming those images -- even if they never see evidence of it. The harm is caused by the possibility of such sharing.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    My point is that a 90+ percent solution is better than doing nothing.

vanusa 5y ago

It seems like a stretch to say that the existence of those images causes harm; Not a stretch at all; I'd recommend you so some reading into the stories of the many, many people whose lives have been permanently upended (or worse - there have been many suicides) after finding leaked images of their abuse (or simply revenge-dumped images of consensual relations) posted in easily searchable websites. As to the rest of what you're saying -- "There are too many, computers, we'll never really be able to completely stop this" -- look, it's a matter of degree and ease of access. Just because we can't bring the effective visibility of these archives down to zero -- doesn't mean we can't reduce it very substantially, down 90 percent or more from the current level.

betterunix2 5y ago
My point is that victims will never actually have the peace of mind to know that imagery of their abuse is inaccessible. Once the pictures/videos have been taken the harm has already occurred and the victims will live out their lives knowing that "somewhere" "someone" is consuming those images -- even if they never see evidence of it. The harm is caused by the possibility of such sharing.
- vanusa 5y ago
  My point is that a 90+ percent solution is better than doing nothing.