UK Trial: Pornhub's Chatbot Halts Millions from Accessing Child Abuse Content
(www.wired.com)
from Squire1039@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 2024 06:40
https://lemm.ee/post/25818283
from Squire1039@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 2024 06:40
https://lemm.ee/post/25818283
A trial program conducted by Pornhub in collaboration with UK-based child protection organizations aimed to deter users from searching for child abuse material (CSAM) on its website. Whenever CSAM-related terms were searched, a warning message and a chatbot appeared, directing users to support services. The trial reported a significant reduction in CSAM searches and an increase in users seeking help. Despite some limitations in data and complexity, the chatbot showed promise in deterring illegal behavior online. While the trial has ended, the chatbot and warnings remain active on Pornhub’s UK site, with hopes for similar measures across other platforms to create a safer internet environment.
threaded - newest
That kinda sounds reasonable. Especially if it can prevent someone going down that rabbithole? Good job PH.
Sounds like a good feature. Anything that stops people from doing that is great.
But I do have to wonder… were people really expecting to find that content on PornHub? That site certainly seems legit enough that I doubt they’d have that stuff on there. I’d imagine most actual content would be on the dark web and specialty groups, not on PH.
I think it’s an early prevention type of thing.
It had all sorts of illegal things before they purged everyone unverified due to legal pressure
PH had a pretty big problem with CSAM a few years ago, they ended up wiping ~2/3rds of their user submitted content to try fix it. (Note, they wiped all non-verified user submitted videos, not all of it was CSAM).
And im guessing they are trying to catch users who are trending towards questionable material. "College"✅ -> "Teen"⚠️ -> "Young Teen"⚠️⚠️⚠️ -> "CSAM"🚔 etc.
That explains why it’s all commercial stuff now… So I heard.
Sure sure, whatever you say Big Dick :D
Big head, rather
No, no, it’s French. Macro ce phallique. It means “macro this phallic.” Obviously.
Wow, that bad? I was aware they purged a lot of ‘amateur’ content over concerns regarding consent to upload/revenge porn, but I didn’t know it was that much.
Yeah, unverified user content had a lot of problems. Also piracy and gore etc.
arstechnica.com/…/pornhub-purges-all-unverified-u…
Eeeeeeeh. There’s nuance.
IIRC there were only a handful of verified CSAM videos on the entire website. It’s inevitable, it happens everywhere with UGC, including on here. Anecdotally, in the years leading up to the purge PH had already cleaned up its act and from what I saw pirated content was rather well moderated. However this time the media made a huge stink about the alleged CSAM, payment processors threatened to pull out (they are notoriously very puritan, it’s caused a lot of trouble to lemmynsfw’s admins for instance) and so regardless of the validity of the initial claims PH had to do something to gain back the trust of payment processors, so they basically nuked every video that did not have a government ID attached.
Now if I may speculate a little, one of the reasons it happened this way is probably that due to its industry position PH is way better moderated than most (if not all) websites of their size and already had verified a bunch of its creators. At the same time the rise of OnlyFans and similar websites means that real amateur content has all but disappeared so there was less and less reason to allow random UGC anyway. So the high moderation costs probably didn’t make much sense anymore anyway.
Yeah, there was a lot of reasons. CSAM was just the loud reason.
Spot on. The availability of CSAM was overblown by a well funded special interest group (Exodus Cry). The articles about it were pretty much ghost written by them.
When you’re the biggest company in porn you’ve got a target on your back. In my opinion they removed all user content to avoid even the appearance of supporting CSAM, not because they were guilty of anything.
PornHub has been very open about normalizing healthy sexuality for years, while also providing interesting data access for both scientists and the general public.
“Exodus Cry is an American Christian non-profit advocacy organization seeking the abolition of the legal commercial sex industry, including pornography, strip clubs, and sex work, as well as illegal sex trafficking.[2] It has been described by the New York Daily News,[3] TheWrap,[4] and others as anti-LGBT, with ties to the anti-abortion movement.[5]”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry
They’re the fuckers who almost turned OF into Pinterest as well? Not surprising in retrospect. The crazy thing is how all news outlets ran with the narrative and payment processors are so flaky with adult content. De-platforming sex work shouldn’t be this easy.
Welcome to the internet 😂 where people constantly disappoint/surprise you (what word is that? Dissurprise? Disurprint?
So...pornhub has actually had problems with CSAM. It used to be much more of a Youtube-like platform where anyone can upload.
Even without that aspect, there are a looot of producers that don't do their checks well and a lot of underage actresses that fall through the cracks
I was wondering what sort of phrases get that notification but mentioning that mind be a bit counterproductive
The MLs have been shown to be extraordinarily good at statistically guessing your words. The words covered are probably comprehensive.
I think the other article talks about it being a manually curated list because while ML can get correct words it also gets random stuff, so you need to check it isn’t making spurious connections. It’s pretty interesting how it all works
I’m not sure if it’s related but as a life-long miniskirt lover I’ve noticed that many sites no longer return results for the term “schoolgirl” and instead you need to search for a “student”
“Young” and “playful” probably.
Id be very curious what these terms are, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “pizza guy” or “school uniform” would trigger a response.
Obviously don't google this, but IRC one of the terms used was lemon party.
Can you very loosely tell me what that is so I don't have to google it?
Lemon party was a bunch of old naked dudes sat in a group i think.. Mightve been involving themselves with each other? It's been a fucking loooong ass time since I got shown that and meatspin at school lol
Really?
hahaha... it saddens me that only those >30yrs old may get this.
Hey now, I understood that reference and I’m.. only.. 27.
30 years draws ever nearer.
Old school
This is one of the more horrifying features of the future of generative AI.
There is literally no stopping it at this stage: AI generated CSAM will be possible soon thanks to systems like SORA.
This is disgusting and awful. But one part of me hopes it can end the black market of real CSAM content forever. By flooding it with infinite fakes, users with that sickness can look at something that didn’t come from a real child’s suffering. It’s the darkest of silver linings I think, but I spoke with many sexual abuse survivors who feel the same about the loli hentai in Japan, in that it could be an outlet for these individuals instead of them finding their own.
Dark topics. But I hope to see more actions like this in the future. If pedos can self isolate from IRL interactions and curb their ways with content that harms no one, then everyone wins.
You’re hitting that “protest too much” shtick pretty hard
So your takeaway is I’m… Against AI generative images and thus I “protest too much”
I can’t tell if you’re pro AI and dislike me, or pro loli hentai and thus dislike.
Dude, AI images and AI video are inevitable. To pretend that does have huge effects on society is stupid. It’s going to reshape all news media, very quickly. If reddit is 99% AI generated bot spam garbage with no verification of what is authentic, reddit is functionally dead, and we are on a train with no brakes in that direction for most public forums.
Nope, not my takes.
But go off
You should probably research the phrase “protest too much” and the word “schtick” then.
I’m not trying to clutch pearls here, as another poster here commented this isn’t a theoretical concern.
You aren’t trying to clutch pearls, but your pearls were just so available you felt you had to jump on the bandwagon to reply to a two-day old comment?
Nobody said this was a theoretical concern and it’s okay if you don’t understand the phrases " protest too much" and "shtick“, but you can ask for the definitions and relevance directly instead of fishing.
And you’re projecting pretty hard.
Ah, one of the “using words they don’t understand” crew.
And several hours late, too.
Swinging for the fences, aren’t you?
The question is if consuming AI cp is helping to regulate the pedophiles behavior or if it’s enabling a progression of the condition. As far as I know that is an unanswered question.
It’s very much been already answered:
psychologytoday.com/…/evidence-mounts-more-porn-l…
For porn in general, yes - I think the data is rather clear. But for cp or related substitute content it’s not that definitive (to my knowledge), be it just for the reason that it’s really difficult to collect data on that sensitive topic.
Why would it be any different? If it’s about sexual gratification by their chosen media then I’d imagine it wouldn’t matter what the subject was, but obviously it’s always necessary to get actual data to know for sure.
I think you’re making assumptions that aren’t fair but maybe aren’t obvious either. Honestly I’m only thinking about this because I just watched the contrapoints video on twilight, and so I’ll use her example, though she’s talking about a slightly different topic. Gonna paraphrase like a mofo:
Weird Power dynamics between partners in a fantasy, like twilight, or say porn since we are being obvious here, is normal because self image often requires women to present one way while hiding their desires for sex. It’s absolution of a sort, and is ostensibly healthy to explore in this way. That said… Some examples such as race play in fantasies may dehumanize the “other” in super not cool ways and reinforce negative racial stereotypes.
If we take that and extend it to pedophiles, normalization of the thought process leading to that sort of disfunction/disorder seems like a not great thing, but yeah, we’d need to study to learn more and that seems both difficult and likely undesirable for the researchers.
Because pedophiles display pathological deviation when it comes to sexual attraction.
Another question is, how will the authorities know the difference? An actual csam-haver can just claim it’s AI
It’d still be CSAM whether AI or not.
Don’t know why you’re down voted. You’re right, it’s CSAM, which encompasses any depiction of CP.
Because “CSAM” states abuse as the third word in the acronym. Machine learning could (in theory, I lack knowledge on the current implementations) be trained without any children being abused (in any traditional sense anyway) and used to produce the content without any real children being involved (ignoring training data).
The downvotes likely come from a difference in definition between abuse and CP, images of nonexistent people cannot realistically harm anyone.
Personally, I don’t think it’s arbitrary. A child in a sexual scenario is a depiction of abuse. Normal, healthy children don’t engage in such behaviors.
depiction yes, but if no person or animal is harmed is it abuse?
What do you mean soon, local models from civitai can generate CSAM for at least 2 years. I don’t think it’s possible to stop it unless the model creator does something to prevent it from generate naked people in general like the neutered SDXL.
True. For obvious reasons I haven’t looked too deeply down that rabbit hole because RIP my search history, but I kind of assumed it would be soon. I’m thinking more specifically about models like SORA though. Where you could feed it enough input, then type a sentence to get video content. That is going to be a different level of darkness.
Are... we looking at the same article? This isn't about AI generated CSAM, it's about redirecting those who are searching for CSAM to support services.
Yes, but this is more about mitigating the spread of CSAM. And my feeling was it’s going to become somewhat impossible soon. AI generated porn is starting to flood the market and this chat it is also one of those “smart” attempts to mitigate this behavior. I’m saying that very soon, it will be something users don’t have to go anywhere to get if the model can just fabricate it out of thin air, so the chat it mitigation is only temporary, and the dark web of actual CSAM material will become overwhelmed and swamped in artificially generating new tidal waves of artificial CP. So it’s an alarming ethical dilemma we are on the horizon of that we need to think about.
Porn hub is wholesome ?
Always been
I thought porn industry was one of the worst to work at ? Or is this a holesome joke ?
Assembly line work sound more soul crushing.
Yes, please! fuck me in the ass instead, where do I sign ? At least my back and knees will still work afterwards.
How about you work at the assembly line while being paid and treated so poorly it’ll feel like you’re being fucked in the ass? Win-win!
Not like this :crying emoji:
Is pornhub in the porn industry? They are just a tech company.
Who said it was “The porn industry”
You did?..
No i didn’t i said “I thought porn industry was one of the worst to work at ?”
Yes, and I asked “is pornbhub in the porn industry”. Are you high?
I guess they are . And no
Unless you’re the one toiling away in the porn mines.
Yeah i agree i made another comment about it in this thread . But still they are helping people with mental issue so atleast a little more wholesome than before.
Incredibly stupid and obviously false “think of the children” propaganda. And you all lap it up. They’re building aroubd you a version of the panopticon so extrene and disgusting that even people in the 1800s would have been outraged to use it against prisoners. Yet you applaud. I think this means you do deserve your coming enslavement.
And, why? I mean it’s nice of you to make these claims, but what the hell does reducing csam searches have to do with the panopticon and us becoming enslaved?
I keep asking myself why I haven’t blocked lemmy.ml
I keep telling myself I’ll lose ideas or comments from the good users there…
At this point, I’ll have just blocked all their users individually
I held off instance filtering lemmy.ml for months for all the reasons you mentioned but I finally gave up I did it 6 weeks ago. It made a marked improvement in my Lemmy experience so I’d advise to just do it.
I strongly encourage you to block with abandon
The panopticon is… a chatbot that suggests you get help if you search for CSAM? Those bastards! /s
Classic slow boiling frog response. Enjoy the stew
How is this building that?
Like I’m a privacy but and very against surveillance, but this doesn’t seem to be that. It is a model that seems like could even be deployed to more privacy friendly sites (PH is not that).
In context, each paver in the road to hell seems just and good intentionned
But after all we’ve been through, falling for this trick again, it’s a choice. Maybe they think, this time, they’ll be the ones wearing the boots.
But how does this at all enable anything to worry about?
Normalizes using AI to profile user’s search history in a non-anonimous way. People used to say, if I die delete my browser history. Now they’re glad caretaker AI are keeping an eye on everyone’s search. Soon we won’t be able to take a shit with AI knowing what we had for diner. But hey, THINK OF THE FUCKING CHILDREN
They already have this data, they already used AI over it, they already sell it. Thats their business model.
I agree that’s an issue, but its not specific to this nor is this dependent on this.
Yes, this is not new, it is just about normalization and testing the waters for backlash before they do something, less whiteknightey with it and they don’t manage to keep it out of the news.
The headline is slightly misleading. 2.8 million searches were halted, but according to the article they didn’t attempt to figure out how many of those searches came from the same users. So thankfully the number of secret pedophiles in the UK is probably much lower than the headline might suggest.
I suspect a lot of CSAM searches come from underage users themselves
I’d think it’s probably not a majority, but I do wonder what percentage it actually is. I do have distinct memories of being like 12 and trying to find porn of people my own age instead of “gross old people” and being confused why I couldn’t find anything. Kids are stupid lol, that’s why laws protecting them need to exist.
Also good god when I become a parent I am going to do proper network monitoring; in hindsight I should not have been left unattended on the internet at 12.
I was the same back then. And have come across some stuff which is surprisingly easy to find. Later to realize how messed up that was.
I think monitoring is good but it has a fine line not to cross in your child privacy. If they suspect anything they sure know how to work around it and you loose any insight.
Sorry I know this is a serious subject and not a laughing matter but that’s a funny situation. I guess I was a MILF hunter at that age because even then I was perfectly happy to knock one out watching adult porn instead!
It’s not about laws, it’s about sexual education. Sexual education is a topic that can’t be left to the parents and should be explained in school, so as to give the kids a complete knowledge base.
Most parents know about sex as much as they know about medicines. They’ve had some, but that doesn’t give them a degree for teaching that stuff.
.
Same thing for me when I was 13. I freaked the fuck out when I saw a wikipedia article on the right. I thought I was going to jail the next day lmfao
Non-paywall link: web.archive.org/web/…/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.
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.
Then maybe you could benefit from being alerted when you’re about to make a potentially harmful decision.
Fuck off with your insinuations.
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.
But having that tracking shown to you has a very powerful psychological effect.
It’s pretty well established that increasing penalties for crimes does next to nothing to prevent those crimes. But what does reduce crime rates is showing how people were caught for crimes, making people believe that they are less likely to ‘get away with it’.
Being confronted with your own searches is an immediate reminder that the searcher is doing something illegal, and that they are not doing so unnoticed. That’s wildly different than abstractly knowing that you’re probably being tracked somewhere by somebody among billions of other people.
And where is the quantification and qualification for that? Spoiler: it’s not in the article(s) and not one google search away. Does Nintendo succeed in stopping piracy with its show trials? If you have a look around here, it more looks like people are doubling down.
I mean, I know Google has been shitty lately, but Wikipedia isn’t hard to find: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)
I’d wager Nintendo has put some fear into a few folks considering developing emulators, but that’s the only comparison to be made here. The lack of any real consequences for individuals downloading roms is why so many are happy to publicly proclaim their piracy.
Now, I bet if megaupload added an AI that checked users uploads for copyrighted titles and gave everyone trying to upload them a warning about possible jail time, we’d see a hell of a lot less roms and movies on mega.
It would simply obsolete megaupload. Sharing platforms come and go. If one distribution channel stops working, people will use (or create) another.
Obviously, most of Mega’s traffic is piracy, they have no interest in doing that. The point is it’s an actual comparison instead of the nonsense you brought up.
Of course no individual site is going to singlehandedly stop criminal acts. Glad you agree it would be exactly as effective as I suggested.
Btw, you might want to read that wiki page in full yourselves.
One will never exceed the bandwidth of a semi loaded with hard drives
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?
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
>If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. 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
>Which is exactly the comparison I made 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. >And again: I’m asking for qualitative and quantitative proof of that. There are plenty of examples of proactive messaging impacting behaviors, take your pick. >It is the one and only thing I was and am questioning about the article. While casting careless comparisons and writing CSAM apologia. >The point to our discussion being what? That the potential benefit of preventative messaging is largely harmless, and you haven’t justified your objection just yet. >You seem to have major trouble with text comprehension and staying on track with discussions. “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.
This is the part that i’m objecting to. It’s amazing to me that this needs to be spelled out so explicitly: sexual attraction to children is as acceptable as being attracted to rape and other sexually abusive behaviors, not men being attracted to other men. Sexual relationships with children are definitionally abusive, and its depiction in media is as acceptable as depictions of rape (e.g., not particularly). If you disagree with that claim, then fucking say so, but don’t whine about me misinterpreting you when I’m direct-fucking quoting you.
The sexual preference you’re comparing with homosexuality is not the same as homosexuality. I don’t know how many times I need to say that before you either acknowledge it or amend your comparison.
That equation is plain wrong unless you equate thoughts to actions. First of all, not even imagined rape is actual rape. And your premise of being attracted to children being similar to being attracted to rape is also false. There likely are people for whom that is true, but it is not a prerequisite. The problem with pedophilia is, that it cannot be fulfilled in real life without abuse/rape.
Yes. Where did I say anything else?
Yes. Where did I say anything else?
You direct quoting me is evidently not the same as you understanding what I am saying.
It’s also not the same as heteosexuality. It would be pretty moot to use different words if they all were identical. What they all have in common is their sexual nature and that nobody chooses them. I’m consistently pretty clear about the distinction of sexual desire and its application in the real world; you keep conflating them. Saying sexual desire A is better or worse than sexual desire B is hypocritical. Fill in A and B arbitrarily - don’t forget pedophilia. I think we agree that there can’t be a consenting relationship between a child an an adult. And there can’t be acceptable pornographic material with actual children.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat and clarify what I said. You keep on ranting against things I didn’t say or even hinted at.
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.
And I’ll largely say that you’re right with that, however
That is part of the problem, in my view. It is actually the least we could be doing, as in barely more than nothing at all. Hell, it took PH a scandal for them to wipe illegal content from their servers (and as a result nuked quite a few perfectly legal and legitimate creators in the aftermath).
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.
pedophilia is usually caused by a neurological disorder or a power fantasy, would you call rape a sexual orientation? its a preference at best and its not a sexual orientation as that is tide to gender and not age.
as to condemning of pedophiles, i dont condemn them unless they act on they’re urges. i however fully support seeking help
Would you call rape that isn’t happening rape?
Up until this point everything you said read exactly like you would. Seems we’re finally on the same page?
that is cnc (consent non consent), and no i wouldn’t call it rape but i also wouldn’t class it as a healthy outlet, and practicing cnc or viewing cnc normalizes rape. most people practicing cnc have been through abuse themselves and others again are seeking a power fantasy.
same page in one sense although i disagree with some of your previous post. I will not call an attraction to children acceptable, like i wouldn’t say pedophilia is a sexual orientation, these terms and ideologies normalize something that isn’t normal i am however aware of the nuance and blaming someone with trauma or neurological deficiency is not helpful, they need to seek guidance like anyone with an urge to inflict suffering on another.
I almost completely agree with that. Though I want emphasize, that I referred to pedophilia as a sexual orientation/preference. Call it whatever you like; if there wasn’t a sexual component to it, we wouldn’t have to talk about it (at least not in the context of pornography). Even if we do not completely agree on every point, I think we’re finally on the same page.
well to bring this full cycle comparing pedophilia with homosexuality is harmful and again is normalizing abuse or demoralizing homosexuality
The point being, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation/preference (call it whatever you want, denying it is a sexual thing is plain stupid). The comparison could just as well have been to heterosexuality. Abuse of children is as wrong as rape between heterosexuals. Being heterosexual doesn’t make you a rapist and neither does pedophilia. Again, the qualitative difference being that pedophile sex cannot have consent. I deliberately made the comparison with homosexuality because it widely has been, and sadly still is, demonized. If it wasn’t clear until now (it should be), I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality.
It isn’t a sexual orientation like I mentioned before, preference is some what correct.
Never denied pedophailia being sexual, its obviously sexual, in some cases its even fetishised.
I am a heterosexual man now if someone were to compare heterosexuality to zoophilia as a means to justify watching animated animal abuse I’d find it distasteful, I might even use the same expression of painfully ignorant and insulting.
If you can’t comprehend my stance then that’s fine and we should just leave it at that as I doubt we have much more to say than is already said. Have a good <insert time of day>
You see, that’s the trouble with our conversation: I did nothing to that effect. Not analogously, not figuratively, not between the lines, not at all.
You keep arguing against things I’m not saying.
Yes, have a good one.
How so? If CP and things adjacent to it (drawn stuff, “teen” porn, catholic schoolgirl outfits, etc) content is going to
make peoplepromote 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.
this is an entirely different discussion. My point and issue is with the comparison being in poor taste, like I said previously I’d be equally annoyed if someone made a comparison with heterosensuality and beastiality one is normal and the other is morally wrong.
Edit: my mistake I thought you replied to a different comment.
We are products of our environment. I do believe that we are effected by the things around us, I’d imagine we’d have a lot more pedophiles if cp was on TV. Look at any industry built on abuse, people don’t go in thinking they’ll be the bad guy and fuck up someone’s day, they themselves are introduced to it through environment.
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: sh.itjust.works/comment/9541949
Pedophilia is defined by it’s “inacceptable” (what a strange way of spelling ‘abusive’) behavior, homosexuality is not.
Like hydrophile, right? Those damned immoral water molecules *shakes fist at heaven*
You use some weird definitions.
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.
The reverse isn’t really true as repressing innate desire requires neurosis, while learning to enjoy something you don’t instinctively enjoy very much doesn’t. You can’t go down the road of neurosis open-eyed and that “setting your mind to it” bit requires insight into your own mind so the two are at odds with each other. If it happens then that’s ordinary repression, not a voluntary choice.
And even if it was true then conversion therapy would still be psychological torture: Nothing about conversion therapy is “setting one’s mind to it”, just like setting out to not dislike cleaning the toilet is not the same as someone flushing your head.
Or, differently put: Don’t shove something down someone’s throat that they don’t already enjoy inhaling. SCNR.
And then of course there’s the whole issue of why. Why change that stuff? Of course people might have individual reasons (which might be as simple as learning a psychological circus trick for the heck of it), but that doesn’t mean that a social norm to have a particular sexuality (short of consent issues) makes any amount of ethical sense.
You valued it negatively all those years and presumably never tried to do the opposite, it’s no wonder you continue to dislike it. And why would you, there’s no reason to.
All I’m saying is that the plasticity is there, not that it’s particularly common that people use it.
Nothing is 100% reliable, and the purely sexual can only be a part of the overall solution. Additional things include making affected recognise the impossibility of consent, the amount of damage their behaviour would cause, and if that alone doesn’t convince them that they should gladly distract themselves there’s some ways to get a bit of a handle on dark triad traits though TBH the bigger bully argument works most reliably: Criminalisation. OTOH it would be naive to only crack the whip of criminal law without offering people aid in how to avoid it.
If heterosexual people could learn to enjoy homosexual stuff why shouldn’t homosexual people be able to learn to enjoy heterosexual stuff? In your words: they only have to put their mind to it.
There’s solid evidence that homo-/heterosexuality in men strongly correlates with androgen hormone levels of the mother during pregnancy. Of course that is not binary. But if you are on either end of the spectrum you will not learn to enjoy the other. For women homosexuality is not as well (medically/biolgically) understood. But all research I know points to there being a deciding predisposition just like in men. Now, if of course you’re on one side but not an end of the spectrum and have not had exposure/opportunity to discover that you might enjoy something that runs contrary to your perceived sexuality, it might feel like you’re making an active effort to change/expand on your sexuality when the opportunity arrives and you decide to take it. The truth is, that for a substantial amount of men you can predict with 100% certainty that they will either be exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual simply by measturing their mothers androgen hormone levels during pregnancy. Again, you can discover, and also nurture and develop, your sexuality, but you cannot change it; only repress it.
I don’t think so. Somebody repressing or hiding his (for example) homosexuality doesn’t require neurosis. “Only” an environment that’s out to kill them for it, like parts of Africa.
I think our main issue might be language. You keep talking about learning and I keep talking about discovering. I never made a decision to like big tits. I didn’t “learn” to enjoy them. Thanks to the internet I was presented with a buffet of almost all the porn industry has to offer. I saw everything, but big tits particularly appealed to me, so then I saught out that content deliberately. No doubt reinforcing that taste of mine, but the wiring was already there, before I knew it. You might say that I learned to love big tits. And to that I’d say: wrong. I discovered that I like big tits! Learning requires intent, and there was no intent whatsoever in me realizing I like big tits.
That’s too esoteric for me or I do not understand at all what you’re trying to say here
Yes.
I guess I agree? I don’t see how this relates to anything I said, though.
Exactly my point. Predisposition and discovery. SCNR ;-)
See, I’d say that’s the wrong question. At least to begin with. Is change possible? If the answer is no, there’s no point in asking why you would want that change.
I fear you’ve lost me again. I really don’t know what you’re trying to convey here.
You’re missing the point. Out of the wonderful bouqet of pornography I picked what I liked. That way I found out what I liked. I am absolutely sure that even if I tried to like foot fetish porn I would fail. The “set your mind to it part” is nonsense in this context. That’s not how sexuality works.
I agree to some extent. Everybody has some basic sexual wiring (read orie
That’s not what I meant by “reverse”, I meant in in the learn to enjoy vs. learn to not enjoy sense.
That sets a baseline instinct, it’s not the end-all be-all of sexual attraction. It sets an attraction, not a repulsion, and just as you don’t need to be genetically attracted to carpentry, as long as you’re not repulsed by it to a degree that can’t be humanely overcome you can learn to enjoy it.
But the answer to whether it’s possible or not is not dependent on whether we want to use that possibility, or whether evangelicals could use it as an excuse to torture people.
Basically that it’s not society’s business who you choose (or not) to be attracted to, as long as it’s all consensual. If you have a Yogi and they want to be aroused by eating spaghetti then that’s their business.
Choosing whether we should like things or not is our largest degree of freedom. The ancient Stoics knew it, and modern psychology picked up on it (CBT is directly influenced by Epictetus). The capacity to do that is, for most people, buried under layers and layers of conditioning because learned helplessness is great if you want to rule people but that doesn’t mean that it’s not there.
And, of course, don’t get me wrong, the capacity is not limitless, things like gender dysphoria are on a deeper level than the mechanisms of pursuit and avoidance. But if you agree that it’s possible to learn to enjoy cleaning the bathroom for someone who really dreaded it before: What makes sucking dick so different that it becomes an impossibility?
Even if the impact is small, even if it’s basically zero, it’s still worth doing because there’s no harm in it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Imagine a porn site telling you to seek help because you’re a filthy pervert. Thats gotta push some to get some help I’d think.
filthy pervert is down playing it but yea definitely hope to see more of this
IIRC Xhamster started doing this a few years ago, minus the AI chatbot.
Didn’t they just block certain search terms (which actually made the site somewhat difficult to use for legitimate/legal content)?
The ol’ Scunthorpe problem.
Imagine how dumb, in addition to deranged, these people would have to be to look for child porn on a basically legitimate website. Misleading headline too, it didn’t stop anything, it just told them “Not here”
We have culturally drawn a line in the sand where one side is legal and the other side of the line is illegal.
Of course the real world isn’t like that - there’s a range of material available and a lot of it is pretty close to being abusive material, while still being perfectly legal because it falls on the right side of someone’s date of birth.
It sounds like this initiative by Pornhub’s chatbot successfully pushes people away from borderline content… I’m not sure I buy that… but if it’s directing some of those users to support services then that’s a good thing. I worry though some people might instead be pushed over to the dark web.
Yeah…I forgot that the UK classifies some activities between consenting adults as “abusive”, and it seems some people are now using that definition in the real world.
Facesitting porn (of adults) is illegal in UK for the reason that it’s potentially dangerous
Which led to some amazing protests.
Weirdly, watching facesitting porn in the UK is perfectly fine, as long as it wasn’t filmed in the UK.
I can just imagine trying to defend that in court. “Your honour, it’s clear to me that the muffled moans of the face-sittee are those of a Frenchman”
Until a few years ago, when they finally stopped allowing unmoderated, user uploaded content they had a ton a very problematic videos. And they were roasted about it in public for years. Including by many who were the unconsenting, sometimes underage subjects of these videos, and they did nothing. Good that they finally did, but they trained users for years that it was a place to find that content.
yeah I believe everything the government says through the media too.
You know you could easily say some dumb shit like that to somebody whose daughter wound up fighting a long time to remove herself from the site. ¯\(ツ)/¯
.
.
What did I say that was dumb? I said “until a few years ago”, and that is true. And I have firsthand experience with the trouble they wouldn’t go through to deal with it. To imply that I’m just choking down what the government is selling is simply not reasonable.
.
The person to which I was responding said:
I’m not saying you accused me of the same. I don’t know what credibility I need, nor do I fully understand how I lost it. I am happy to hear the person you know had a good experience, truly, and I hope that is the case for most.
You’re answer is so full of shit, i think my left eye rolled to far back and now iys stuck
Which part?
Naw homie, thats not how things work. You dont get to say shit then ask 'wut i say?"
Right? So can’t identify the statement that wasn’t true? Got it.
You can defelct all you wamnt.
I don’t what I’m defelcting from. I’m here trying to identify with which part of my comments you disagree, and you don’t seem to be able to identify it now that you’ve been asked to say something specific rather that just schoolyard bullshit, “rolling my eyes” and such. I have also been, I believe, nice and clear. I’m happy to have a discussion about something specific, if you’re able to say something of value.
You can read back what was said. I dont need to paraphrase our comments that are still there.
I’m not looking for paraphrasing. I’m looking for specificity. What did I say that you are taking issue with? Do you believe the site never had any issues with troubling content in the past, because even according to them they did. It seems to me you are arguing they have done a good job dealing with that more recently, which is not in dispute by me.
Pornhub left up underage child rape videos until they were very publicly called out for it.
Porn is also a method of bourgeois oppression. The corporate elites want you to be an easily controlled consoomer.
I mean, is it dumb?
Didnt pornhub face a massive lawsuit or something because of the amount of unmoderated child porn that was hidden in its bowels by uploaders (in addition to rape victims, revenge porn, etc etc…), to the point that they apparently only allow verified uploaders now and purged a huge swath of their videos?
“I’m just asking questions”
Pornhub also knowingly hosted child porn. Ready or Not put them on blast for it when you raid a company called “Mindjot” for distributing child porn.
Lol
You can just encounter shit like that on phub?
If you read the paragraph thats literally right there it says when certain terms were searched by the user.
I did misread that, thanks
…That paragraph doesn’t say anything about whether or not the material is on the site though. I had the same reaction as the other person, and I didn’t misread the paragraph that’s literally right there.
Not since the wipe, AFAIK. Still, at the bottom of the page you can (or at least could, haven’t used their services in a while) see a list of recent searches from all users, and you’d often find some disturbing shit.
Probably not, but you can still use related search terms.
You used to, until the sites content got nuked
It’s surprising to see Aylo (formerly Mindgeek) coming out with the most ethical use of AI chatbots, especially when Google Gemini cannot even condemn pedophilia.
In the link you shared, Gemini gave a nuanced answer. What would you rather it say?
Are you defending pedophilia? This is a honest question because you are saying it gave a nuanced answer when we all, should, know that it’s horribly wrong and awful.
What you are thinking about is child abuse. A pedophile is not bound to bcome an abuser.
Abusing a child is wrong. Feeling the urge to do so doesn’t make someone evil, so long as they recognize it’s wrong to do so. The best way to stop kids from being abused is to teach why it is wrong and help those with the urges to manage them. Calling people evil detracts from that goal.
This assumes two things:
† This is not an implication that homosexuality is in any way, or should in any way, be classified as a mental illness. It’s an example of a primary individual characteristic not derived from choice.
.
I think one of the main issues is the matter of fact usage of the term Minor Attracted Person. It’s a controversial term that phrases pedophiles like an identity, like saying Person Of Color.
I understand wanting a not as judgemental term for those who did no wrong and are seeking help. But it should be phrased as anything else of that nature, a disorder.
If I was making a term that fit that description I’d probably say Minor Attraction Disorder heavily implying that the person is not ok as is and needs professional help.
In a more general sense, it feels like the similar apologetic arguments that the dark side of reddit would make. And that’s probably because Google’s officially using Reddit as training data.
Google does this too, my wife was searching for “slutty schoolgirl” costumes and Google was like “have a seat ma’am”
Big tech is teaching us about morality.
I do have to agree with them on that one. Fetishizing school uniforms worn by children gives some serious Steven Tyler vibes.
Sexuality is tightly connected to societal taboos, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult - it’s no-one else businesses. There is no need or benefit in moralizing peoples sexuality.
To be clear, I absolutely agree. I’m not saying that people are immoral for liking some plaid. Just a kind of fetish that seems less “natural” (like spanking or bdsm) and more amplified in popular media in a parallel to sexualization of children in response to feminism (see: Brooke Shields’ experience) and that makes it one that I’m not comfortable participating in. But for those that don’t find their brains making such associations that are being safe, sane, and consensual, I wish wonderful, freaky times.
Sure sounds like you are. And you sound also rather judgy about it. Maybe it’s just a language thing - but at least that’s my impression.
It may well be my communication. The first statement was something of a half-joke at the expense of the rock singer and the normalization of predatory behavior towards minors that he and others engaged in during the height of rock’s popularity, not at the expense of people who like to engage in age-play.
I am very accepting of others kinks and do not judge individuals for activities that are safe, sane, and consensual. Accepting the people and their ethically-sound activities does not mean that one cannot have preferences and perceptions on the activities themselves. Our preferences and perceptions are shaped to a degree (large or small) by our experiences. Mine are most definitely colored to a significant degree by my own early childhood trauma, which makes anything approaching age-play, power-play, and CNC, even just by indirect association in my own thought processes, uncomfortable and unsexy to me.
I also find scat-play pretty disgusting (tbf, that’s probably part of the kink for some) but, I’m not going to turn someone away, unless they’ve not showered since their last session.
Even if it means nothing from an internet stranger, sorry to hear you had traumatic childhood experiences. Makes sense that you are uncomfortable with said practices.
We can agree on something here.
It absolutely does mean something and thank you. To be clear, my intent in stating it is not to plead for sympathy but to try to give context and further understanding. It wasn’t until well into adulthood that I even realized that experiences that I fortunately can’t even remember had such a profound impact on my on my preferences and interactions with others. Add in diagnosed neurodivergence and I’ve got extra fun to boot :).
Overall though, even if I’m overly sensitive about some kinks and might well suspect associations that could possibly not factually be there, I do very much hope that anyone who gets (consensually) ambushed by their lover in a skimpy school girl outfit has the time of their lives. I’m much more comfortable with fetishizing lacey archaic garments.
That’s how I got it. Without knowing you, your comments sounded judgy and moralizing to me. But with context I can see that it’s not how they were meant.
lacey - learned a new word today.
I actually apparently misspelled. It should be “lacy”.
It’s still weird to sexualize children. It’s less weird when it’s teenagers and everyone is of age but it’s a weird thing to engage in constantly.
It’s sexualizing children in the same way as daddy porn sexualizes incest, you are taking fantasies at their literal face value without looking into what’s going on.
Google now gives you links to rehabs and addiction recovery centers when searching for harm reduction information about non-addictive drugs.
This has been going on for years. Enshittification.
It’s called rent seeking, there’s no need to coin a flashy new name.
Literally different things lol
it isn’t that misused buzzword but i don’t see how it’s rent seeking either
Oh just like an experiment the headline made me think someone was suing over this.
4.4 million sounds a bit excessive. Facebook marketplace intercepted my search for “unwanted gift” once and insisted I seek help. These things have a lot of false positives.
Found one of the guys who spoke to the bot
What is an “unwanted gift” though?
Probably just looking for deals on new stuff that people dont care about having been gifted.
I could definitely see “unwanted gift” being a code word for trafficking :(
Lol makes sense. Meta being really meta here, but if thats needed… better too much than too little
Not necessarily trafficking, but could be trafficking-adjacent.
There used to be “child rehoming” ‘services’ on Facebook and the like, for people who regret adopting a kid, and pass them to others. Here’s a fairly in-depth article on the whole affair. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t go well.
EDIT: In hindsight, “unwanted gift” could also be about people getting unexpectedly pregnant, and putting the resulting child up for adoption, but not wanting to go through legal means for one reason or another, which seems a more likely answer.
Do you really think human traffickers are listing people under secret codes on accounts obviously linked to their real identity with their real face? Remember the ikea thing where vendors who didn’t specify a price received an absurd default price for their goods eg 9999.99 and people that furniture that was listed at that price corresponded to kids being sold?
On Facebook marketplace just after Christmas? A potential bargain on unopened merch, of course!
Did it? Or did it make them look elsewhere?
The amount of school uniform, braces, pigtails and step-sister porn on Pornhub makes me think they want the nonces to watch.
I miss the days when you just didn’t see that shit around.
Reasonable adults sites don’t return obviously sketchy things for reasonable queries. EG you don’t search boobs and get 12 year olds.
And what days were those? Cuz you pretty much need to go all the way back to pre-internet days. Hell, even that isn’t far enough, cuz Playboy’s youngest model was like 12 at one point.
Depressing, isn’t it? I was more talking about how prevalent “fauxcest” has become in porn more recently. I guess that’s just my cross to bear as an only child 💅
Wtf? For real? Was cp not federal illegal when they did that.
Lol!
Also, I’m curious about false positives
I kind of want to trigger it to see what searches it reacts to, but at the same time I don’t want my IP address on a watchlist.
Tor mabe useful if its not clowdflare blocked
Yeah…i am honestly curious what these search terms were, how many of those were ACTUALLY looking for CP. And of those…how many are now flagged somewhow?
I know I got the warning when I searched for young gymnast or something like that cuz I was trying to find a specific video I had seen before. False positives can be annoying, but that’s the only time I’ve ever encountered it.
lol and there we fucking go. I knew there would be bullshit like that there in the mix.
The original report from the researchers can be found here: https://www.iwf.org.uk/about-us/why-we-exist/our-research/rethink-chatbot-evaluation/ Researchers said:
So from 4.4 million banned queries, only 2.8 million (between the date interval in the quote above) and only 490 clicks to seek help. Ngl, kinda underwhelming. And I also think, given the amount of extremely edgy content already on Pornhub, this is kinda sus.
Thanks. I looked for it but was too stupid to find it.
It’s not really that underwhelming. Disclaimer: I don’t condone child abuse. I find it abhorrent, and I will never justify it.
People have fantasies, though. If a dude searches for “burglar breaks in and has sex with milf,” does that mean that he wants to do this in real life? Of course not (or god I hope not!) So, some people may have searched for “dad has sex with young babysitter” and bam! Bot! Some people have a fetish for diapers - there are tons of porn of adults wearing diapers and having sex. Not my thing, but who am I to judge? So again, someone searches “sex with diapers” and bam! Bot!
Let’s not forget that as much as pornhub displays a sign saying “Hey, are you 18?” a lot of people will lie. And those young folks will also search for stupid things.
So I don’t think that aaaaaall 1+ million searches were done by people with actual pedophilia.
The fact that 1,600 people decided to click and inform themselves, in the UK alone, well, that’s a lot, in my opinion, and it should be something to commend, not to just say “eh. Underwhelming.”
“Edgy” as in borderline CSAM?
<img alt="" src="https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/4e9d29bc-52a8-4b29-9c8e-d3d2d2cf51cc.webp">
if those services are actually helpful, then hell yeah
To be fair people are dumb as fuck, don’t search for illegal things on Google or any site that is well known cause that’s how you end up on some watch list.