3 ms·
This article is worthless without links-- you're supposed to take the authors word for it that what they're writing about is reprehensible but you're carefully
by nullc 3y ago
This article is worthless without links-- you're supposed to take the authors word for it that what they're writing about is reprehensible but you're carefully sheltered from seeing it yourself. It's reasonable to wonder if this is because the author is overplaying their hand.
I attempted to google and immediately found a footage matching their description, but not from tiktokers but from television news.
- FireBeyond 3y agoI'm somewhat okay with this - it doesn't mean the barrier of proof should be zero, but in that many of these "influencers" are openly chasing follower and view counts (dare I say some are addicted to it?) then I'm okay with not enabling that. You don't need to link to CSAM sites to talk about issues like that. Similar to not needing to link to the worst of rotten.com or whatever just to make observations on it. > I attempted to google and immediately found a footage matching their description, but not from tiktokers but from television news. My perception has been that tiktok isn't particularly well indexed by Google.
- nullc 3y agoYuck example, but it's a point. We aren't talking about something as extreme here, however. Given that hyperbole in journalism is common, I think we ought to hope for enough information to validate where it wouldn't be reprehensible or unlawful to provide it. I was guilty of hyperbole myself with the worthless comment, thanks for the reality check. :) (and fortunately you could see the article and judge that I'd overstated it!)