Paul Krugman claims someone downloaded kiddy-porn via his IP

Fawlty said:
There's no getting around the fact that punishment of people for viewing images is crossing a line that we never intended to cross according to our principles, and that we're crossing that line because the harm is unique. There isn't a good analogy, except maybe if snuff films were a huge thing that got as big as illegal pornography, but that doesn't seem like it would happen so it's hypothetical. The cases with people who collaborate directly with "content producers" is cut-and-dry criminal conspiracy, but the rest is not. I think we have to just acknowledge that it's an exception to the rule because of the measurable consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. My point about content collaboration is that in the realm of internet pedo socialization it’s a very blurry line in many cases. Guy joins a site that encourages members to contribute and grants special privileges. Contributors and consumers are now part of the exact same ecosystem and where that becomes abuse on order seems possibly blurry and to me at least, entirely irrelevant. The pedo internet phenomenon is more than simple consumption of material, it’s sled sustaining support system for pedos.
 
Gandhi said:
I agree with that. My point about content collaboration is that in the realm of internet pedo socialization it’s a very blurry line in many cases. Guy joins a site that encourages members to contribute and grants special privileges. Contributors and consumers are now part of the exact same ecosystem and where that becomes abuse on order seems possibly blurry and to me at least, entirely irrelevant. The pedo internet phenomenon is more than simple consumption of material, it’s sled sustaining support system for pedos.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, good point on the membership stuff (even if no money is involved), I can see how that could be blurry. Like if somebody trades files they didn't make themselves or even purchase, they're getting to a level of complicity very close to a producer.
 
Fawlty said:
Gotcha, good point on the membership stuff (even if no money is involved), I can see how that could be blurry. Like if somebody trades files they didn't make themselves or even purchase, they're getting to a level of complicity very close to a producer.
Click to expand...

I found this article informative / horrifying

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html

Is starts

“Online predators create and share illegal material which is increasingly cloaked by technology”
 
Fawlty said:
Holy shit. I didn't know how bad it had gotten in the last couple of years. Like a 50 times bigger problem than I thought.
Click to expand...

It’s kinda had a formative impact on my opinion, anyone in this thread commenting, should give it a read.
 
Gandhi said:
It’s kinda had a formative impact on my opinion, anyone in this thread commenting, should give it a read.
Click to expand...
For sure. If you haven't read up in say 5 years, what you know about the scale of the problem is totally out of date.
 
I suppose it possible if someone is has hacked his internet but they would have to be near his house, at least as far as I know.
 
What happens if you watch some porn, thinking it is young 20 somethings but then get Epsteined and find out they are 14 or something? Is the onus on the site for not disclosing and promoting said content or you for watching? I am assuming most of these cases must be content that was obviously under age. It's scary tho, as Im sure all of us have probably unknowingly watched some teens that were under 18.

Also, what exactly constitutes porn? Just naked bodies? I also found it weird many school show kids peen and poon up the wazoo from the Holocaust, including dead naked kids. Lots of gray area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,712
Messages
55,436,460
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top