3 ms·
>For what it is worth, people who are interested in animal rights are generally the only ones who watch animal abuse videos, which creates a demand for said vid
by aspensmonster 14y ago
>For what it is worth, people who are interested in animal rights are generally the only ones who watch animal abuse videos, which creates a demand for said videos. They, naturally, have little motive to see an end to the production of like content being the consumer.
I fail to see how it "naturally" follows that animal rights activists don't want to see an end to the production of "like content." They would be the ones most eager to end the conditions uncovered by these kinds of undercover investigations.
- randomdata 14y agoSorry if I was not exactly clear. Animal rights activists have an interest in stopping what is enacted in the videos, of course, but stopping the production of the content itself would be against their own interests. How can you see that the problem remains if there is nobody investigating and reporting?
- jiggy2011 14y agoI don't think that investigating and reporting is the problem here, after all we don't generally argue that news reporting about wars causes wars. Stopping the production of the content wouldn't be against their own interests unless they had some other motive to produce it. They would probably switch to shooting content about something else.
- randomdata 14y agoLuckily we figured out how to produce war scenes without actually having to go to war. We are definitely still producing the content to fill the demand though. Considerable amounts of it. Like I mentioned before, we do use this exact argument towards child porn, however. You cannot hurt a child by simply watching a video of child abuse. But we realized that watching the video gives incentive for people to create more, which in turn harms future children. That is a good enough reason to attempt to cease the incentive for production to prevent future occurrences. PETA has been accused of staging content in the past, so it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that it is happening.
- jiggy2011 14y agoI would liken it more to car crash/snuff type videos than child porn. People may get some shock value from them but it's doubtful that there are people deliberately setting up car accidents in order to get youtube hits. I imagine that the market of people willing to pay money to watch a cow be abused is significantly smaller than the market for child porn.
- Evbn 14y agoCounterpoint: the "bum fight" phenomenon, and also dog fighting (Michael Vick)
- jiggy2011 14y agoI don't think it's legal to distribute dog fighting videos (in the UK at least) though I'm not sure. I remember bum fights being controversial back in the day, not sure I would call it a phenomenon though. At least there the fighting was somewhat consensual such as with boxing etc.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- randomdata 14y ago> it's doubtful that there are people deliberately setting up car accidents in order to get youtube hits. I hope the number of people filming crashes against random strangers on the highway are low, but crashes in a controlled environment are definitely happening to fill the market void. Heck, the demolition derby is a long standing American tradition. > I imagine that the market of people willing to pay money to watch a cow be abused is significantly smaller than the market for child porn. PETA makes money, and given their reach I expect significant amounts of money, from distributing such videos and similar content. Though I would suggest that money is not the only motivator. Like I mentioned in another post, people will create content just to know people are tuning in. Likewise, in software we create and distribute free and/or open source projects just for the satisfaction of knowing others are using what we have created. Money doesn't necessarily matter.