Ok, fair enough. I do think it’s possible to do both, or to spend time on youtube and escalate to seeking out victims.
1 Like
Seems like YouTube’s solution to the problem now is to demonetize any video with a kid in it no matter how wholesome it is or how well the comment section is moderated.
Ah YouTube.
2 Likes
That is a losing battle, AT&T. At no point will you ever have a platform, anywhere, that is 100% safe from “offensive content of any kind”. As long as your profits come from advertising, you’re gambling with the public forum.
3 Likes
Tell me you used a vpn or something before putting that in.
6 Likes
Oh, I absolutely agree. I’ve seen good comments there (and, IMHO, even left some). And I have a feeling that the people who make comments like that would have no problem associating them with a single, permanent account associated with verifiable, irreproduceable personal data.
Wouldn’t that make good-commenting on a wide variety of legitimate but controversial matters rather perilous for the commenter?
There’s plenty of daylight between people who might prefer to weigh in on fun stuff like mental illness without a real name policy and people who treat comments as an attrition exercise to be won with robotic assistance and unlimited sockpuppets.
If your use case is narrowed to ‘what people with respectable jobs would talk about at the office when HR might be watching’, sure, enforcing identification won’t have any real downsides and will improve the SNR; but that’s a bit of a narrow use case.
3 Likes
This is in fact the key reason why your modest proposal is a stunningly sane and excellent one. But it stands no chance - which I say with deep sadness. Cutting off the oxygen of publicity from these people - via moderation - must at the end of the day be the way forward. But the oxygen makes big bucks, even as it fans the flames, so no chance of it being cut off.
Technically, there are rules about creeps harassing women and other adults, but unfortunately it seems that these rules are rarely enforced.
Starting off with targeting pedophiles, then moving on to enforce similar rules regarding abusive behavior for other “groups” is probably not a bad tactic.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t YouTube Kids be the same problem, intensified?
while true, you shouldn’t underestimate what consuming child pornography means. that somewhere, someone is abusing children, and being encouraged - often monetarily - to do so.
likely somewhere someone is telling themselves, i don’t hurt children - im only looking. but those images came from somewhere, and the demand for those images by definition creates situations where children are harmed
2 Likes
In this thread we are talking about youtube and videos showing children doing normal children activities, sports, play, etc…
This is an excellent concern, but it would be pretty easily dealt with by the entity that allows commenting: Allowing alts between threads (i.e. a user could be known as “Aeroplane” in one thread and “fuzzyfungus” in another). This wouldn’t be a big issue as long as all “alt” accounts are referenced (opaquely, by the admin) back to an original, verified account.
So far, this stuff has been way outside my experience. It’s like there’s ‘my’ YT, then there’s ‘that’ YT, and the two rarely meet. But then, I stick to my subscribed channels, for the most part.
Twitter? Same story.
2 Likes
fair enough.
i don’t think that there’s a one to one overlap of people who watch these videos, “trollies” who mark them up, child porn, and pedophilia.
to me it seems similar to incel, “pick up” videos, and abuse of women. or maybe self-harm videos and suicide. where a toxic community forms, normalizing abusive behavior.
and it can do a harm to kids who may see those comments on their videos, who may later realize their actions were being sexualized, or who become targets for online stalking it harassment because of a video.
interest can create a “pressure” that becomes harmful. that was the thought behind what i wrote
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
