3 ms·

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 irre

by 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.
    - aes256 14y ago
      Okay, so you have no idea what you're talking about. I kind of suspected this from the start, but it's nice to have you finally admit it.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Not being a reader of either of this subreddits does not imply that I don't know anything about what was on them. Their contents have been reported by others for a long time. Nice try, though.
        aes256 14y ago
        Most of the reporting has been wildly inaccurate and misrepresentative. Go figure.
        tptacek 14y ago
        I feel capable of judging screenshots.
        aes256 14y ago
        Screenshots of tiny thumbnail images? Most of creepy captions were hyperbolic if you hadn't noticed. The Internet is not, after all, serious business.

by aes256 14y ago

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.
  - aes256 14y ago
    Okay, so you have no idea what you're talking about. I kind of suspected this from the start, but it's nice to have you finally admit it.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Not being a reader of either of this subreddits does not imply that I don't know anything about what was on them. Their contents have been reported by others for a long time. Nice try, though.
      - aes256 14y ago
        Most of the reporting has been wildly inaccurate and misrepresentative. Go figure.
        tptacek 14y ago
        I feel capable of judging screenshots.
        aes256 14y ago
        Screenshots of tiny thumbnail images? Most of creepy captions were hyperbolic if you hadn't noticed. The Internet is not, after all, serious business.