3 ms·

Well that's great and all, but sexually suggestive photos of minors are already banned on reddit (and are prohibited by law in a bunch of places) This thread i

• tptacek 14y ago
  There were compromising photos of minors on creepshots in addition to jailbait, which is another subreddit that prompted the outing of "violentacrez".
  • aes256 14y ago
    There were very few on /r/creepshots from what I saw. Making the discussion about creepshots one about "compromising photos of minors" is disingenuous and grossly misleading. I don't see how /r/jailbait is relevant to this discussion. violentacrez's involvement in that subreddit does not somehow justify his doxxing. Besides, there was nothing wrong with most of the content on /r/jailbait either. Almost all of it was legal, rarely were any photos sexually suggestive, and actual child pornography was strictly prohibited. Reddit only shut it down because the media furore over it was threatening to damage the reddit community as a whole.
    • tptacek 14y ago
      I strongly disagree that there is anything misleading about discussing compromising- but- ostensibly- lawful photos of teenagers posted to Reddit by trolls, and submit as evidence the fact that you can't even write a comment about whether such photos were present without proceeding to justify those photos, as you did here ("Besides, there was nothing wrong with most of the content on /r/jailbait either"). Unfortunately, I do agree with you that the only reason anything actually happened on Reddit is that it hit the media, and the admins just want to avoid the wrong kind of media attention. It's unfortunate because there is a more important reason to ban subreddits like that: they exist in order to milk amusement from harm.
      • aes256 14y ago
        I don't quite follow you here. You're dragging /r/jailbait into the discussion because you think it adds weight to your argument. I'm saying it is no only irrelevant to the current discussion, but even if it were relevant, there was nothing 'wrong' with /r/jailbait. /r/creepshots and /r/jailbait are completely different animals.
        • tptacek 14y ago
          (a) There were photos of underage subjects on creepshots. (b) The controversy we're discussing is the outing of the person responsible both for creepshots and for jailbait. (c) The root comment in this thread isn't specifically about either subreddit, but rather "photos of minors". The distinction you're trying to draw between the subreddits isn't relevant to my point. (d) It is nevertheless disingenuous to try at this point to back away from defending photos of minors after you've specifically attempted to justify them. The subtext in this little branch of the thread is that you do in fact think it's wrong to "censor" photos of underage children, so it's not productive for you to fall back on "creepshots wasn't about that". If, by switching back to "creepshots isn't about underage subjects", you mean to concede the argument about the legitimacy of posting photos of underage subjects, just say that. Don't pretend that you're formulating a convincing argument by repeatedly moving the goalposts. It's not like I'm suddenly going to forget that you stuck up for "jailbait", or that there were in fact underage photos on "creepshots".
          • aes256 14y ago
            I'm not backing away from anything. I think the content on both /r/jailbait and /r/creepshots was, with only a few exceptions, legal and harmless. Neither subreddit was shut down because it was illegal or harmful. The former was shut down as a result of media hysteria, and the latter as the result of blackmail. I don't think you know much about either subreddit, to be honest.
            • tptacek 14y ago
              You are right. I am happy to say that I'm not intimately acquainted with either subreddit. I'm not sure that damages my credibility too much.