544
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
544 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
58998 readers
3228 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Non-paywall link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240305000347/https://www.wired.com/story/pornhub-chatbot-csam-help/
There's this lingering implication that there is CSAM at Pornhub. Why bother with "searches for CSAM" if it does not return CSAM results? And what exactly constitutes a "search for CSAM"? The article and the linked one are incredibly opaque about that. Why target the consumer and not the source? This feels kind of backwards and like language policing without really addressing the problem. What do they expect to happen if they prohibit specific words/language? That people searching for CSAM will just give up? Do they expect anything beyond them changing the used language and go for a permanent cat and mouse game? I guess I share the sentiments that motivated them to do this, but it feels so incredibly pointless.
Lolicon is not illegal, and neither is giving your video a title that implies CSAM.
That begs the question, what about pedophiles who intentionally seek out simulated CP to avoid hurting children?
Simulated CP is legally considered the same as 'actual' CP in the UK
Which is, imo, pretty dumb. If it gives these people an outlet that literally hurts no one, I say they should be allowed to use it. Without it they’ll just go to more extreme lengths to get what they need, and as such may go to places where actual real life children are being abused or worse.
So while it’s still disgusting and I’d rather not think about it, if nobody’s being hurt then it’s none of my business. Let them get out their urges in a safe way that doesn’t affect anybody else.
I imagine the concern is that it would look identical to the real thing. Which blurs the lines. Kinda like how governments really hate when toy makers make toy guns look too real and why I have to tell airport security that I would like my bag searched now since there are homemade looking electronic devices in it.
I guess in theory some government could make a certification system. Where legal simulated cp has like some digital watermark or something but you know that would involve a government paying someone to review child porn for a living. Kinda hard to sell that to the taxpayers or fill that role. Maybe the private sector would be willing to do it but that is a big ask.
I am not sure I agree with you or disagree with you. Maybe all of us would be better off if there is a legal and harmless way for pedos to get what they want. Or maybe it is bad to encourage it at all even in a safe way, like if they consume that stuff it will make them more likely to seek out real children.
Definitely isn't a great situation be great if the condition is cured some day.
This covered a lot of my concerns and thoughts on the topic. I want these people to be able to seek help and possibly even have a legal outlet that is not harming anyone, i.e. not even someone who has to view that shit for a living, so maybe we get AI to do it? IDK. It's complicated but I believe that it's similar to having an addiction in some ways and should be treated as a health issue, assuming they haven't hurt anyone and want help. This is coming from someone with health issues including addiction and also someone who is very empathetic and sympathetic to any and all struggles of folks who are just trying to live better.
I can't even imagine the amount of money it would cost for someone to pay me to watch and critique child porn for a living. I have literally been paid money in my life to fish a dead squirrel that was making the whole place stink, from underneath a trailer in July and would pick doing that professionally over watching that filth.
I imagine high exposure (for individuals who are otherwise not explicitly searching for such material) could inadvertently normalize that behavior IRL.
Like exposure to gay people and gay content makes you gay? (/s if it wasn't obvious)
no very different, but if someone hasn't come out then having gay media will normalize being gay and id assume they could come out with less stigma but this is a painfully ignorant and insulting comparison
Only if you condemn the disposition and not its inacceptable form of execution. From where I stand being attracted to children is as acceptable as men being attracted to men. Abusing children is as inacceptable as men raping men. If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. Don't get me wrong, I'm neither condoning nor encouraging the (sexual) abuse of children. Unlike you I'm just not a hypocrite about different sexual orientations/preferences that nobody chooses. The only qualitative difference is that in one case one side cannot consent and needs better protection by society. The only point I am (consistently) trying to make here, is that I find it highly dubious that the measures described in the article have any impact on said required protection, and that the article completely fails to provide any shred of evidence or even indication that it does.
TW: discussions about sexual abuse
spoiler
Fetishizing an abusive sexual behavior is not the same as same-sex attraction. We would be having the same conversation if we were talking about rape porn between adults: it's the normalization of the abusive behavior that we're primarily concerned with, not the ethics of watching simulated abuse in general.
While I don't believe that banning simulated material would be helpful, it is completely reasonable to suggest that cautioning individuals about the proximity of their search to material that is illegal - and the risks associated with consuming it - would be preventative against future consumption.
Especially considering Pornhub is only placing cautions around that material and isn't removing that content generally. It's hard to read your objections as anything other than pedophilia apologia.
And I did not even hint at anything even close to the contrary.
Which is exactly the comparison I made.
I wasn't talking about the normalization of anything anywhere. You inject a component, that wasn't the subject in our conversation before, to defend a point I wasn't questioning (red herring).
Another topic which we could discuss, but which - again - you just injected.
And again: I'm asking for qualitative and quantitative proof of that. It is the one and only thing I was and am questioning about the article.
The point to our discussion being what?
You seem to have major trouble with text comprehension and staying on track with discussions.
spoiler
No, you were comparing pedophilia with homosexuality. You attempted to distinguish between the attraction from the behavior, suggesting that pedophilia specifically was harmless, but could be abusive in certain contexts (i.e. sex is fine between consenting adults, but non-consensual sex is rape). I was pointing out that acts of pedophilia are definitionally coercive (a child cannot consent to something they do not understand, with someone who wields outsized influence over them). There is no room for an ethical sexual relationship with a child.
There are plenty of examples of proactive messaging impacting behaviors, take your pick.
While casting careless comparisons and writing CSAM apologia.
That the potential benefit of preventative messaging is largely harmless, and you haven't justified your objection just yet.
"Pedophilia is the same as (or similar to) homosexuality" - You, definitely not minimizing the harm caused by CSAM.
This discussion is pointless. All you do is throwing around accusations and arguing against things I didn't say.
You get hung up on one sentence and take it out of context completely ignoring what I said immediately after that talking about rape and consent. You are pretty much repeating what I said. You're not arguing against what I said, but what you think I said, which I did not. Work on your reading skills.
That's what I said. I emphasized the relevant passages to help you understand what I said.
They didn't argue otherwise - you're attempting to attack their position on something you both agree on. Their statement (much like the one I made to a different person) is that both forms of attraction aren't (necessarily) a choice by the individual. Their argument isn't that paedophilia is harmless (your words), but that a person's inherent brain chemistry and natural development can't be considered immoral, regardless of context - this would also apply to schizophrenia, sociopathy, various imbalances such as bipolarity, autism and, yes, homosexuality. It is, at worst, amoral, necessitating social help in the cases that do lead to harmful behavior (which don't apply to e.g. homosexuality/autism, but does to sociopathy or bipolarity).
They used a careless comparison, and I'm only trying to unambiguously explain why that comparison is extremely misleading and potentially harmful.
I made the comment that exposure to simulated CSAM or CSAM-adjacent material could later lead to a realization of those attractions due to the behavior being normalized and repeatedly modeled in sexualized content. cnt0 then made the comparison you are now making - that sexuality is not a choice, and normalization of a particular sexual expression is the same as any other -namely homosexuality. I unambiguously contest that comparison, because while a preference for a particular sexual expression isn't a choice, normalizing sexual relationships with children could lead to the false-assumption that it is ok in some circumstances to pursue it. Normalizing 'gay content' (their words) is definitively not the same as normalizing underage sexual relationships, since there are no healthy ways to express that attraction in real life with an actual child. Similar to having an attraction to rape or non-consensual bondage, having a sexual attraction to children is different from other forms of sexuality because the subject of that attraction cannot be ethically realized outside of simulated, consensual environments.
I happen to agree with the way you've phrased it here, and I knew there was a possibility that I had misplaced @_cnt0@sh.itjust.works's intent with their comment, but I think it's extremely important not to equate the realization of sexual preference for children to the realization of sexual preference for members of the same sex.
I understand that I've been quite abrasive, and the downvotes are probably justified here. But I don't think there should be any room left for ambiguity when dealing with the explicit sexualization of minors. I think cautioning against CSAM-adjacent material is justified, if only to clearly delineate the ethics of the relationships and acts portrayed in sexual content from the actual practice of those acts on minors.
It's a small, possibly the smallest, action against the abuse and trafficking of children, but one that I think is easily the least we could be doing.
I 99% agree with what you're saying here, so I'm not going to comment it line by line ;-)
Minor complaint: try to get an empty paragraph between the spoiled text and the non-spoiled text whenever possible - makes it easier to read.
Regarding the discussion, you're both right at the end of the day. Limiting exposure to illegal and immoral-adjacent material is obviously in society's interest, but at the same time the implication that a glorified ad for a mental illness helpline is a good solution is ludicrous - it's at the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to the kinds of issues we should be working on.
I'm actually not sure how to get another linebreak in there, I tried adding multiple but the markdown kept collapsing it.
And I happen to agree that a 'surgeon general's warning for CSAM' isn't doing much to solve the problem, but I do think alerting users to the adjacency is a good idea. OP seemed to be complaining about censorship, but this practice didn't even amount to that. The article is mostly just marketing slop.
How so? If CP and things adjacent to it (drawn stuff, "teen" porn, catholic schoolgirl outfits, etc) content is going to ~~make people~~ promote and encourage people to molest children, why wouldn't gay porn promote and encourage homosexuality?
Like this is one of those things that feels a lot like picking and choosing based on preference. I suspect violence in media being a historic right wing talking point is the only reason it's not on the bad list like sexy women and loli stuff.
I'm going to go ahead and treat this as if it's an earnest comparison because there shouldn't be any room for ambiguity:
Fuck right off with that analogy. Pedophilia and the sexual behaviors that result from it are immensely damaging to children - who cannot meaningfully consent to sexual relationships -, whereas the sexual behaviors between consenting adults are not.
I don't really care if you were speaking in-jest. If you were, i'd recommend you delete that comment before someone takes it seriously.
Yah ... I already answered that: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/9541949
Not exactly a fair analogy. First off it is willful exposure to cp not incidental. Secondly the concern isn't that someone is oriented towards children the concern is the action. We can't and should never ever attempt to police a person's mind we can however as a society demand that adults don't rape kids. Homosexuality is not the same, the vast majority of western society is fine with the action. So even if you could demonstrate a link between watching gay porn more and being more willing to have gay sex it doesn't matter.
Nice rephrasing of what I said (mostly). Homosexuality - and heterosexuality, and any sexuality for that matter - are only acceptable as long as there is consent. The only difference is, as I've pointed out, that with pedophilia there is no scenario which can have consent. That doesn't matter though, as long as it stays in somebody's mind or the virtual realm.
If you strictly distinguish between desire and action, it is an absolutely fair comparison. I do, and I do so explicitly. Some people don't, ignore that I do, and then get wound up about what they think I said.
Only a very, very small percentage of paedophiles are exclusive paedophiles. This is more like a bi person becoming more gay (or straight) by exposing themselves to more gay (or straight) porn. People can focus in on particular aspects of their sexuality or ignore others, and that's before fetishisation comes into play where the mind projects sexual meaning onto stuff that's not primitively (as in instinctively) sexual.
Yes. Even if you're a 110% straight dude, if you set your mind to it, with enough practice, you can learn to enjoy sucking dick, or at least having your dick sucked by a cute femboy. At the same time mere exposure to gay porn doesn't do the same and that's not a contradiction as your usual 110% straight dude has no interest whatsoever to setting their mind to learn how to enjoy sucking dick, there's neither inclination nor reason to, the porn is just going to go straight past them. 90% straight? Much more likely. Neither is going to lose their original attraction to women, though, the most you get is nothing happening on that front because they're occupied elsewhere. And that's exactly where we want the sexuality of paedophiles to be: Occupied elsewhere.
EDIT: I'll assume the downvotes come from people not realizing just how plastic our mind is and not random reactionaries. Not on my lemmy.
I completely agree with that.
And I think that is complete nonsense. If it had any merit, the reverse would also be true and could be used as an argument for conversion therapy. I think we can't proactively develop our sexuality, only discover it. Expressive nuance is happenstance that can be enforced, but is not a deliberate decision. If I see foot fetish stuff it is an instant turnoff and has been for 30 years. My dislike of foot fetish stuff is certainly not due to lack of exposure.
Possibly. When it comes to sex I'm pretty visually fixated. If a femboy satisfied all the visual cues I see no problem in getting going by a femboy's blowjob. Though, I have a thing for really big natural tits, so I think that's rather unlikely.
Same as above. I don't think you can consciously shift your sexuality. You can only force yourself to act against your sexual nature, but not change it. If you could, conversion therapy would have merit. If you had a heterosexual "life style" and then discovered that you enjoy some homosexual interaction, it would be just that: discovering the predisposition that was already there.
Almost agree. I think it's naive to assume that you could reliably prevent people from exploring their sexuality by keeping them (pre-)occupied with something else. The mind wanders, and where it goes there are no barriers. What I wonder is if barriers in real life (like the ones described in the article) are the best way to handle pedophiles' desires or if it wouldn't be more effective to guide them on a prepared way that makes them steer clear of harming others. We've seen how well sexual supression works out with church celibacy. I'd say we should at least explore/research options for pedophiles to "express" their sexuality without harming others.
For what it's worth, you got my upvote, because I think this is one of the most coherent and reasonable comments in the discussion - even if I do not agree with every point.
Like how video games supposedly normalize violence? Are you going to go shoot a bunch of people because GTA exists?
Ffs guys what year is this? Thought we were past this silly mindset.
Deciding that you're going to pull someone out of their car and clap them with a rocket launcher has a significantly higher situational barrier than finding yourself in a close relationship with a child who trusts you enough that you can abuse it in a moment of impulse.
You think abusing a child is easier than, say, punching someone in the face as you would do in video games?
Dude if you genuinely think that I’d recommend reaching out to someone…
In all seriousness tho, way to take the most extreme video game example possible to dismiss my point. Video game violence can have an extremely low “situational barrier”, but that doesn’t mean that video games will make you do those things.
Nobody is saying that porn 'makes you' do or become anything. But the stories told in video games are clearly fiction in form and content - you're a soldier in the future fighting aliens, you're a member of an elite group of time-traveling assassin's, you're an aspiring ex-convic with unlimited lives and pockets to carry an entire arsenal of weapons in a tanktop and shorts - whereas porn is written to make the fantasy seem just plausible enough so you can place yourself in as the subject (which is why the situations are always so contrived in pornography)
The situations wherein you might plausibly choose to sexually exploit a child aren't nearly as implausible as one where you could violently assault someone without immediate risk and consequence. Just look at how often porn dialogue waves away the likely objections; "we're not actual siblings, you're just my STEP brother", "I won't tell anybody", "I just turned 18, I don't want to be the only virgin in college", ect.
Depends on the jurisdiction. Indecent illustrations and 'pseudo photographs' depicting minors are definitely illegal in the UK (Coroners and Justice Act 2009.) Several US states are also updating their laws to clamp down on this too.
I'm also aware that it's illegal in Switzerland because a certain infamous rule 34 artist fled his home country to evade justice for that very reason.
If for no other reason than it doesn't have to be either/or. If you can meaningfully reduce demand for a "product" as noxious as CSAM, you should expect the rate of production to slow. There are certainly efforts in place to prevent that production from ever being done, and to prevent it from being shared/hosted once it is, but I don't think attempting to reduce demand in this way is going to hurt.
Does it reduce the demand though? Where are the measurements attesting to that? If history has shown one thing, it is that criminalizing things creates criminals. Did the prohibition stop people from making, trading, or consuming alcohol? How does this have any meaningful impact on the abuse of children? The article(s) completely fail to elaborate on that end. I'm missing the statistics/science here. What are the measuring instruments to assess any form of success? Just that searches were blocked and people were shown some links? ... TL;DR: is this something with an actual positive impact or just an exercise in virtue signaling and waste of time and money? Blind "fixes" are rarely useful.
It might not reduce demand in individuals already seaking out that material, but it would certainly reduce introduction to it and demand in the long-run.
I wonder where you take that certainty from. I'd like to have that in my life.
Also: "they actually track that I was searching for something illegal, let me rather not do it again".
Like anything on the internet wasn't tracked. If need be people will resort to physically exchanging storage media.
One will never exceed the bandwidth of a semi loaded with hard drives
Maybe liability or pretending to help? That way they can claim later on "we care about people struggling with this issue which is why when they search for terms related to it we offer the help they need". Kinda how if you search for certain terms on Google it pops up suicide hotline on top.
Ok Google just because I looked up some stuff on being sad in winter doesn't mean I am planning to put a gun in my mouth.
Yah, this feels more like a legal protection measure and virtue signaling. There's absolutely no assessment of efficiency or even efficacy of the measures. At least not in the article or the ones it links to and I couldn't find anything substantial on it.