5 ms·
A honeypot filled with potential victims if you miss one. The parents were right.
by Griffinsauce 4y ago
A honeypot filled with potential victims if you miss one. The parents were right.
- stormbrew 4y agoMaybe. That's a somewhat different issue though. The police had us implicitly make the site more attractive to predators, making it even more dangerous than it could have been at a baseline while still having us work hard to prevent it. On the issue of the baseline, though, I think this is a tricky thing. The alternatives teenagers used at the time were far more lax in their enforcement and moderation policies, but because they were made by bigger companies they got a pass from parents. The idea that we can keep teenagers completely away from dangerous things on social media feels a lot like abstinence education to me. The reality is complicated. But I don't think we were perfect - tbh I don't think we were at all well equipped to the responsibility. But I do think we tried.
- tpxl 4y agoWhy would you comply with a request to keep criminals on your website? I'm sure it made the police's job easier, but I would never comply with something like that for my own, and for my users sake.
- lozenge 4y agoIf you kick them off before they do criminal behaviour then the police can't do anything and you'll just wait to see them back with a new VPN/identity.
- stormbrew 4y agoTo be clear, we didn't leave individual predators on the site. We did whatever we could to remove them and helped the police catch them if there was enough evidence. It's the reputation we let stand.
- tpxl 4y agoDoesn't a reputation of allowing criminals bring in more criminals, putting your users at risk?
- stormbrew 4y agoThat is what I said a few posts up. It's a policy I felt uncomfortable with even then. I just wanted to clear up that we didn't leave individual bad actors on the site to my knowledge.