Wow, they really had a section called "/r/jailbait"? Really? In 2012?It's a very different site than most message boards. The whole idea is that users can create their own subreddits, and it doesn't matter if the content of the subreddit is interesting for people who don't use it.
This is not a matter of people complaining because they don't find something "interesting": I think finding something disgusting (and racist) might just be the issue.If people are honestly worked up because they think a subreddit is disgusting and racist, they need to chill out. I mean who cares.
owitzer86 37 points 2 hours ago (48|9)
lol, SA is the new Concerned Mothers of the internet.
posted by birdherder at 9:28 PM on February 12, 2012 [12 favorites]crusader86 1 point 9 minutes ago (1|0)
10 years ago I would have laughed at hearing that. Now it's just so weird and true. Now the day /btards get off their lazy asses and go make good on their threats to take down website... oh shit.
bluishred: flatluigi, So your proof is a conversation about finding foreign films with nude children? Are we seriously categorizing screenshots of non-sexualized depiction of naked children in foreign films as child pornography?Actually, I think that movie contains "acted" scenes of child abuse. That is, the child depiction in question is a sexualized depiction.
Ad hominem: Before we get ahead of ourselves about 4chan being awesome there is cp on /b all the fucking time, they are just quick to delete it. If you watch, you can see it appear, then disappear, like magic. There is some on the front page of /b/ right now. I don't even want to screen cap it.I'm not sure how much I can listen to the opinion in this thread of a guy who clearly has a suspiciously deep knowledge of where to find the best child pornography!!!
The Confessor: The unsettled question in my mind, interesting to me from purely a legal stance, is whether a photo taken with no prurient intent can be considered child pornography if it is displayed in a context promoting the sexualization of children... like r/jailbait and its relatives. I think that it can; furthermore, I think that it perhaps should. We are, after all, talking about real victims here, even if they might possibly be unaware of said violation.it definitely makes me uneasy about the slippery slope. Forget what fine hairs the law might split on this, I just can't believe that a picture that was taken innocently suddenly becomes contraband because someone else reacts to it with lasciviousness. This sounds like the internet version of a "ban the Sears catalog, with all those sexy, sexy photos of children in underwear!" mentality, and it makes me more uneasy than most of what I've gleaned happened at reddit (again, assuming actual child pornography was a real rarity, similar to what Ad hominem says happens at 4chan where the stuff might bubble up and then promptly disappear).
Here's the copine scale, again. Please note that, because of the context and organization of the subreddits (i.e. they were intentionally gathering and sharing images for sexual purposes), nothing in them was under level 4.I don't think you've read that correctly. Here's what level 4 is described as:
Posing Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organization suggests sexual interest).It's not saying that anything gathered due to sexual interest is level 4 or above. It's saying that "deliberately posed" photos which suggest sexual interest in various ways are level 4 or above.
What's your interpretation of the clause in parentheses, then?Didn't I just say it? Deliberately posted photos which fulfill the terms of the parenthetical content are level 4 or above.
I don't really see any promoting of the "product" that is SA from those responsible.
"Stand with us or with the child pornographers"Well it was fun while it lasted. Jesus Christ people as a group are fucking stupid. This is why we can't have nice things.
Expect to see a LOT more of that from now on.
If a bunch of nerds that want to bitch about how some crazy woman doesn't think games shouldn't actually be games and ME3 should be a $100m Twilight/Potter fanfic offends you so mortally you should probably nuke half the Internet from orbit.Except she doesn't think those things, the quotations were completely fabricated.
I hate London because I know a couple of streets where someone is pimping out children. The whole city is evil. Someone should bomb it.This is the equivalent of getting the city to cordon off those streets because they're full of people openly people paying to molest children.
Sometimes, seriously, you guys.... man, you depress me with your inattentive fits of selective moral hysteria. It's like you see a huge garden and go turning stones over until you find the biggest, grossest bug you can, and then you're all, "Eww! Eww! Gross! Look at the gross bug! This garden is gross, man! Let's all have a gross-out shitfit and feel good about how our tiny garden isn't gross! Actually, it's worse than that. It's like someone else does that, tells you about it, and then you have a second-hand shitfit.
The level of sheer ignorance about reddit and how it works is pathetic.
empath, SRS is so very far from being a constructive way to approach the actual real problems that I don't even know where to begin. And that's without the bait-and-switch stuff and the manufactured outrages they traffic in these days.Yes, sometimes SRS does something annoying, like defending girls who show their tits on youtube and do 'reviews' to get cheap clicks, which actually are annoying -- youtube should really not 'recommend' videos that have been heavily downvoted. Sometimes they'll complain about raunchy talk about a girl even when the girl is engaging with people and making the same types of comments.
« Older Within Minecraft’s blocky world, he has spent abou... | "We’re not going to say, 'Give... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dumbland at 8:52 PM on February 12, 2012 [7 favorites]