ibay770 #fundie

ibay770 #fundie reddit.com

(In the topic "YouTube reviewing less than 3% of reports of child predators")

If people would shut down the adult sites the child sites would get shut down too. One thing leads to another. Both are entirely wrong. An 18 year old nakes is just a creepy as an 8 year old. Consent does not make it appropriate or right

@reddog2442

Lolwut

Basically people are complaining about videos about naked children Im saying that shutting down those videos starts eith shutting down vids of naked adults.

@reddog2442

Naked, consenting adults is nowhere near the same as naked children and it's pretty sickening that you would even try to compare the two.

Nonsense this moniker of consent doesnt make it appropriate or right and its sickening that you think that being 18 makes everything ok. It doesnt. Its creepy either way and its even creepier because adults should know better and their body parts are bigger hence the increased creepiness. Calling it 'expression' is like calling a bank robbery 'alternative financing' Its sad when strangers care more about kids then do their parents with them justifying every kind of crime and immorality.

@reddog2442

Man, I am entirely through with this conversation. Neither of us will see the other person's side and it's pointless to continue. Have a good day.

Correct its pointless to post naked stuff of oneself in public.

@Almerac

If you are a consenting adult you can put yourself naked on adult websites. Adults can consent, children can't. Huge difference between the two

As stated consent doesnt make it right. Based on that logic naked children can go on kids websites.

15 comments

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Perhaps because - like someone in a very recent addition to a certain franchise - there are those who have discovered the 'Predator Killer' armour that is not unlike Tony Stark's Mark L Iron Man Suit...:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/eight-men-unmasked-online-paedophile-hunters-killed-investigation-finds-084303835.html

...and the Predators have now become the Prey.

The above in Britain have pioneered this process. I trust others follow them.

The fact that the GCHQ-supported Scotland Yard aren't doing anything against these tech-wielding Robin Hoods of the 21st Century therefore makes it right. Perhaps they're being given info by GCHQ...?!

old comment by K'Zad Bhat

Well, while what I have to say may not cover the 97% that isn't reviewed, I can think of one reason why it's not 100%. Well, two, really.

The first is, a number of videos reported for child sexual abuse is videos about child care, dealing with bathing, diaper changes, and skin care. They actually have been reviewed, some banned at times, and many listed as appropriate, instructional videos.

The second, kind of alluded to already . . . how many of those that are not reviewed are really considered unreviewed simply because they were not removed? You know, by someone who sees a kid getting a diaper change and automatically thinks "horrible pedophile, you should be ashamed and murdered!"? I'd also like to know, how many in that 97% are videos that have been reported multiple times, so YouTube figures since they already resolved the issue, there's no need for a second review, but whoever is doing the stats chose to list each report as a separate video to make their statistics say what they want.

old comment by Token Atheist

I understand that puberty and maturity are a process, not an event, while consent is pretty instant. I will entertain arguments that age 18 is arbitrary and that we should consider maybe 16 but also 21 as the proper determinates for who can be filmed doing what and for what purpose. What I will not do is make the leap that the lower bound can extend into pre-puberty or that an 8 and an 18-year-old are equivalent in their understanding of the ramifications of doing something like this. I say this as a parent of four kids in their late teens and early 20s. One would be hard pressed to sort them in birth order just to see them.They're all "about the same age), but legally, two are not, they are different people. It doesn't take much time with any of them to realize that they all have a far greater understanding of many issues than many give them credit for, but also an incomplete grasp of the full ramifications of others.

I have little doubt that the median age to give "adult-like" consent is somewhere between 15 and 25, depending greatly on the person doing it, and those sets have outliers. I went to a college with a 16-year freshman, for example, and she had all of the accommodations, expectations, and responsibilities of the rest of us who were 18-22. Her high school and our particular small college both felt she displayed the necessary maturity and rigor to handle college life a couple of years early, but of course none of those of legal age could have a relationship with her in that particular state. I've likewise watched college seniors and grad students get drunk and riot and or around university sporting events, much like is expected of incoming freshmen and pledges but not so much for those with career-defining job interviews just around the corner. Point being, from a sheerly practical standpoint, you can't evaluate every single person to see if he or she is fully prepared when the measures are all subjective anyway. You're just asking for abuse.

I have great suspicion that many more have been exposed to what is legally child porn without knowing that the model had somehow faked her age or documentation in order to be involved. What do you even do if you have bought a magazine or movie or camgirl session and find out long after having it that the model lied about her age and passed for easily 25? Are you now a sex offender? Is that better or worse than the 25-year-old going out of her way to appear to be plausibly underage? In the former, the audience wanted and expected an adult and were deceived, while the latter is deliberately ambiguous, but certainly plays to a market that many would like to see snuffed out.

I enjoy the human form. I try to stick to reputable sites that do tasteful if somewhat erotic nudes of both sexes and all genders. I hope to god they have their own paperwork in order because if anything is behind that paywall that shouldn't be, many, many, of us are in for a very distressing time.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Me

The fact that the GCHQ-supported Scotland Yard aren't doing anything against these tech-wielding Robin Hoods of the 21st Century therefore makes it right

Methinks some... thing is more scared of said tech-wielding Robin Hoods of the 21st Century spreading the word to those in other countries than I am of a knock on the door by Humberside Police.

I wonder why I continue to sleep securely, fear-free at night? Especially as Scotland Yard supplies all other forces with said GCHQ-supported data intercepts: as well as relevant info to the FBI.

And who's to stop anyone in the latter secretly supplying said data to those in their country inspired by those Paedophile Hunters in mine...?!

Nothing done about said Hunters: least of all to yours truly. Don't fall asleep as you're by your window 24/7/365: looking for that partyv&, o nonces & your enablers.

No flies on me.