Merged Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[WilliamAB]

Maybe this has been discussed, but I haven't read every page here:

How vigorous is the pursuit of the creators or CP as opposed to the pursuit of people who view and/or possess it? I see tons of cop vids, body cam stuff, and hardly ever see anything about busts of people who create and participate in CP, but I see a huge number of vids concerning busts of people caught downloading and possessing it.

I would think putting more attention on the creation of CP would be a stronger focus.

Also, I think these various platforms need to be held more to account for hosting CP, and not just be able to waive responsibility and wash their hands of any material that appears on their site, and especially stuff that is there for long periods of time, even years, as some in this thread have mentioned.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe this has been discussed, but I haven't read every page here:

How vigorous is the pursuit of the creators or CP as opposed to the pursuit of people who view and/or possess it? I see tons of cop vids, body cam stuff, and hardly ever see anything about busts of people who create and participate in CP, but I see a huge number of vids concerning busts of people caught downloading and possessing it.

I would think putting more attention on the creation of CP would be a stronger focus.

Also, I think these various platforms need to be held more to account for hosting CP, and not just be able to waive responsibility and wash their hands of any material that appears on their site, and especially stuff that is there for long periods of time, even years, as some in this thread have mentioned.

You're looking in the wrong place. Creation of CP is usually associated with the apprehension of someone who's engaged in CSAM themselves. I see plenty of reports about people busted for CSAM, who also turn out to be recording and disseminating their CSAM activities.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How vigorous is the pursuit of the creators or CP as opposed to the pursuit of people who view and/or possess it? I see tons of cop vids, body cam stuff, and hardly ever see anything about busts of people who create and participate in CP, but I see a huge number of vids concerning busts of people caught downloading and possessing it.

I would think putting more attention on the creation of CP would be a stronger focus.

I think that happens on a higher level than local police departments. Interpol, the FBI (well, before you-know-who, god knows what they do these days), etc. Like with the drug trade they go after the big fish and whole networks, not just individual offenders.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would think putting more attention on the creation of CP would be a stronger focus.

It probably is. But the number of people who create CP is probably a lot smaller than the number of people who consume CP. So just in terms of numbers, you're going to see more of the former than the latter.

Also, I think these various platforms need to be held more to account for hosting CP, and not just be able to waive responsibility and wash their hands of any material that appears on their site, and especially stuff that is there for long periods of time, even years, as some in this thread have mentioned.

You really can't assign liability to platforms just for hosting stuff. They cannot review everything people post, there's just too much content. Manual review doesn't scale, automatic review produces too many false positives, and it's a privacy nightmare anyways. The only way to even have online platforms with any privacy at all is to only assign liability when they knowingly host CP (ie, when they don't take it down even after being informed).

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's an example of a recent child porn case: George Zinn. Who is George Zinn? He's the guy who falsely claimed he was the Charlie Kirk assassin, in order to help the real assassin escape. No connection to child porn, right? Correct, in the sense that police weren't looking to bust him for child porn. But when they went through his cell phone in the course of their investigation into the Charlie Kirk assassination, they found child porn. So now he's going to get charged with that, along with felony obstruction of justice.

They weren't looking for child porn consumption, but they found it, so they will prosecute it.

 

[Poem]

You really can't assign liability to platforms just for hosting stuff. They cannot review everything people post, there's just too much content. Manual review doesn't scale, automatic review produces too many false positives, and it's a privacy nightmare anyways. The only way to even have online platforms with any privacy at all is to only assign liability when they knowingly host CP (ie, when they don't take it down even after being informed).

There is nothing whatsoever preventing us from holding these platforms accountable in such a way. You are just underlining and echoing current societal mores. Every country bar one has ratified that children have a right to access the internet - and those countries are legally bound to that convention.

A lot has been said about the possible bias of child experts, children's charities, the police and others I have quoted here regarding the harms that porn is causing - so I'll just restate that the bias of porn consumers is on another level....turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

 

[Poem]

You're looking in the wrong place. Creation of CP is usually associated with the apprehension of someone who's engaged in CSAM themselves. I see plenty of reports about people busted for CSAM, who also turn out to be recording and disseminating their CSAM activities.

You do know that CSAM is another way of describing CP don't you? 'CSAM' is preferred by many commentators because it is more accurate in describing what is actually taking place.

 

[sinnikal]

Before I emigrated I had a friend who worked for the NCA investigating CSAM in the UK. I can assure William AB that the creators of CSAM are pursued vigorously. As someone else said, this work goes on at a level above normal police work, it often crosses borders and involves similar or equivalent agencies worldwide. It is very difficult work that takes a toll on those who investigate this sort of material.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is nothing whatsoever preventing us from holding these platforms accountable in such a way.

Sure, if you want to destroy them completely.

A lot has been said about the possible bias of child experts, children's charities, the police and others I have quoted here regarding the harms that porn is causing - so I'll just restate that the bias of porn consumers is on another level....turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

You talk a lot for someone who can't even define porn.

 

[arthwollipot]

...I have quoted here regarding the harms that porn is causing...

Except that you haven't. I've asked repeatedly for you to specifically enumerate what harm is caused to underaged people by them seeing porn, and you have consistently ignored me.

So let's have it. Let's outline specifically the harm that comes to children from seeing porn. In your own words, please.

 

[Poem]

Sure, if you want to destroy them completely.

Destroy platforms that show porn to kids you mean?

You talk a lot for someone who can't even define porn.

Since I did define it (and I'm not he only one)...........

 

[Ziggurat]

Destroy platforms that show porn to kids you mean?

No. That's not what we were discussing.

Since I did define it (and I'm not he only one)...........

Not that I've ever seen.

 

[Poem]

Except that you haven't. I've asked repeatedly for you to specifically enumerate what harm is caused to underaged people by them seeing porn, and you have consistently ignored me.

So let's have it. Let's outline specifically the harm that comes to children from seeing porn. In your own words, please.

I have done so repeatedly - and you have just rubbished it without providing any substantive reasoning (apart from their 'bias').

If there is no harm, then let's just openly show kids porn.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have done so repeatedly - and you have just rubbished it without providing any substantive reasoning (apart from their 'bias').

No, you've only referred to vague "harms" without actually describing precisely what these "harms" entail. Be specific, in your own words, please.

 

[Poem]

No, you've only referred to vague "harms" without actually describing precisely what these "harms" entail. Be specific, in your own words, please.

Your position appears to be that, in the absence of such precisely identified harms (at least those you would accept as sufficiently proven), we continue as we are and let children access adult material.

Is that correct? Innocent until proven guilty? Porn is innocent in this respect until proven otherwise?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You are suggesting we prove a negative.
You know better.

 

[theprestige]

You do know that CSAM is another way of describing CP don't you? 'CSAM' is preferred by many commentators because it is more accurate in describing what is actually taking place.

Yeah, my bad. I should have said "CSA". Child pornography (child sexual assault material) is pornography that depicts the sexual assault of a child. You can't produce CP (CSAM) without committing CSA. When police apprehend someone who has committed CSA, they often find CSAM in the person's possession, and evidence that the person has been disseminating the CSAM they created of their CSA.

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

[arthwollipot]

Your position appears to be that, in the absence of such precisely identified harms (at least those you would accept as sufficiently proven), we continue as we are and let children access adult material.

You should point out even one instance where I have said that we should let children access adult material, or withdraw that statement.

But your position appears to be that we should accept that vague and ill-defined "harms" are sufficient reason to ban adults from accessing adult material.

Is that correct? Innocent until proven guilty? Porn is innocent in this respect until proven otherwise?

I thought innocent until proven guilty was the default standard in law.

 

[Poem]

I'm really not sure what your point is. Do you think that it is not the duty of a parent to protect their children from that which they view as harmful? That seems pretty dangerous to me.

If governments fail to comply with what they have legally bound themselves to, then of course parents will do that.

You also must realise that it is possible to disagree with an 'expert'. I understand the point of the UNCRC quote, but their goals are not my goals. I disagree with them. I have stated why. They have a singular goal and want to pressure governments into action, presumably in the absence of action by parents (parents who are clearly failing in their responsibilities).

This is just another way of saying that the pornographers have won - the internet isn't safe for kids and so parents should not let them on it.

You disagree with the UNCRC's goal that children should have access to mass media? That is disagreeing that children should have access to education.

Just because someone with an impressive title says something, it does not make it true. Indeed, people in niche areas like this will frequently have biased views of circumstances because they spend their days steeped in information that leads them to believe that:

i) The thing they deal with is the most important thing in the world (Otherwise, why would they be seeing it all around them)

and

ii) The thing they deal with is everywhere, all the time (because it is for them, why would it not be so for everyone else)


Please understand, opinion, no matter how 'expert', is not fact.

Experts from 196 countries who all agreed that children should have safe access to mass media. You seem to have a problem with that.

Porn consumers are biased are they not? Why would they accept any reasons, moral or legal, that might lead to restrictions on their access to a dopamine hit?

 

[Poem]

I could direct you to the site's terms and conditions - which is linked on the very first page you encounter, and on which you are required to assert that you are over 18 years of age (this may vary according to your jurisdiction) - but I'm pretty certain that on this forum I will absolutely not be permitted to link to it. I'm reasonably sure that I can screenshot this completely safe for work excerpt from that page, though (and I have reported this post just in case it's not allowed).

View attachment 63457

But I doubt this would convince you of anything. As an aggregator, PornHub relies on uploads, and not all uploads are immediately vetted - just like moderators here cannot read every thread. So it is possible that someone might upload CSAM or NCC content in flagrant violation of these terms and conditions, but I would not expect that it would last for very long.

Incidentally, the "fraudulent content" clause can and has been used to ban AI-produced porn and deepfakes. But that's beside the point.

You cite Pornhub's T&Cs as evidence that they are reputable and law-abiding? What are you suggesting - that back in 2020, when Kristof made us aware that their content was infested with rape and CSAM that their T&Cs were materially different?

I'll you again to back up your claim that PH is reputable and law-abiding.