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.
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.
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”
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.
Google does this too, my wife was searching for “slutty schoolgirl” costumes and Google was like “have a seat ma’am”
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
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.
I’m not saying that people are immoral for liking some plaid.
Fetishizing school uniforms worn by children gives some serious Steven Tyler vibes. fetish that seems less “natural”
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.
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.
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.
I also find scat-play pretty disgusting (tbf, that’s probably part of the kink for some)
We can agree on something here.
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.
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.
What is an “unwanted gift” though?
On Facebook marketplace just after Christmas? A potential bargain on unopened merch, of course!
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 :(
Found one of the guys who spoke to the bot
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.
Also, I’m curious about false positives
given the amount of extremely edgy content already on Pornhub, this is kinda sus
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.
I miss the days when you just didn’t see that shit around.
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.
Wtf? For real? Was cp not federal illegal when they did that.
That kinda sounds reasonable. Especially if it can prevent someone going down that rabbithole? Good job PH.
You can just encounter shit like that on phub?
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.
If you read the paragraph thats literally right there it says when certain terms were searched by the user.
Oh just like an experiment the headline made me think someone was suing over this.
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.
The panopticon is… a chatbot that suggests you get help if you search for CSAM? Those bastards! /s
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 was wondering what sort of phrases get that notification but mentioning that mind be a bit counterproductive
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The purge appears to have hit almost 9 million of the 13.5 million videos on Pornhub as of Sunday, or nearly two-thirds of all the content hosted on the site.
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.
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]”
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.
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?
I imagine high exposure (for individuals who are otherwise not explicitly searching for such material) could inadvertently normalize that behavior IRL.
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.
Like exposure to gay people and gay content makes you gay? (/s if it wasn’t obvious)
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
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.
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.
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.
I completely agree with that.
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, […]
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.
[…] or at least having your dick sucked by a cute femboy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The reverse isn’t really true […]
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.
[…] as repressing innate desire requires neurosis, […]
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.
[…] while learning to enjoy something you don’t instinctively enjoy very much doesn’t.
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.
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.
That’s too esoteric for me or I do not understand at all what you’re trying to say here
And even if it was true then conversion therapy would still be psychological torture:
Yes.
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.
I guess I agree? I don’t see how this relates to anything I said, though.
Or, differently put: Don’t shove something down someone’s throat that they don’t already enjoy inhaling. SCNR.
Exactly my point. Predisposition and discovery. SCNR ;-)
And then of course there’s the whole issue of why. Why change that stuff?
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.
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.
I fear you’ve lost me again. I really don’t know what you’re trying to convey here.
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.
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.
All I’m saying is that the plasticity is there, not that it’s particularly common that people use it.
I agree to some extent. Everybody has some basic sexual wiring (read orientation) whithin which one can take different routes to develop ones own sexuality. The end result could be very distinct but the way to it is not a conscious process. You can consciously choose to try something new, but you can’t choose whether you like it or not.
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.
Partly to mostly agree. I think we’re on the same page that criminalizing being pedophile helps noone, though. CSAM already is illegal. Long arc back to the beginning: I doubt the measures described in the article have any meaningful impact.
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
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.
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.
Being attracted to an abusive sexual behavior is not the same as being attracted to a consenting behavior between adults.
And I did not even hint at anything even close to the contrary.
We would be having the same conversation if we were talking about rape porn between adults: […]
Which is exactly the comparison I made.
[…] it’s the normalization of the abusive behavior that we’re primarily concerned with, not the ethics of watching simulated abuse in general.
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).
While I don’t believe that banning simulated material would be helpful, […]
Another topic which we could discuss, but which - again - you just injected.
[…]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.
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.
Especially considering Pornhub is only placing cautions around that material and isn’t removing that content generally.
The point to our discussion being what?
It’s hard to read your objections as anything other than pedophilia apologia.
You seem to have major trouble with text comprehension and staying on track with discussions.
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?
as to condemning of pedophiles, i dont condemn them unless they act on they’re urges.
Up until this point everything you said read exactly like you would. Seems we’re finally on the same page?
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.
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.
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: https://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.
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.
Why target the consumer and not the source?
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.
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:
The chatbot was displayed 2.8 million times between March 2022 and August 2023, resulting in 1,656 requests for more information and Stop It Now services; and 490 click-throughs to the Stop It Now website.
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.
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.”
Thanks. I looked for it but was too stupid to find it.
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.
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.
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?
It’s very much been already answered:
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.
Why would it be any different?
Because pedophiles display pathological deviation when it comes to sexual attraction.
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.
And you’re projecting pretty hard.
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
deleted by creator
