Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

#41

Post by kypro »

ChatGTP wrote: post #22
ShowalkKama wrote: post #10

why did a 12yo child have unmonitored access to the internet?

Because we’ve made the Internet so accessible and such an integral part of a children’s lives ? Even just for entertainment purposes, I see kids just staring at screens all day everywhere I go. I mean, it’s a silly question no offence.

It's quite easy to restrict access to kid's devices. We use Google family and the kids all hate us because they have to ask our permission whenever they want to install anything. We also get to see activity reports and we talk to them often about bad people online and why they need to be careful.

I understand you can't monitor a child 24/7, but you can be careful with what devices children have access to and what they can and can't do on those devices.

It's also worth remembering that the criticisms of social networks and calls for more monitoring of private communication can be applied to any crime. Do we want Facebook reporting people who it suspects could be committing a "hate-crime" for example? What about drug users, is that Facebook's responsibility too?

At the end of the day parents have to accept some responsibility to protect their own children. Yes, it's hard to do perfectly, but allowing a 12 yo to use social media then meet up with a stranger they met online seems like a total failure on the parent's part here. It's like letting a 5 year old play outside then once the kid gets hit by a car complaining that the cars are the problem because car manufactures care more about selling transportation devices than protecting kids. If you let your children chat to strangers and meet up with people they don't know then bad stuff will likely happen no matter what form of communication they're using.

Re: How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

#42

Post by 0x53 »

aierou wrote: post #20
0x53 wrote: post #7

This is really hard to read. It fits in with what we know about meta’s content moderation in other instances though (see genocide in Myanmar). If you are an employee of Meta or even just a user of their products, I would ask you to take a step back and think about whether in totality this company is worth working for. - doesn’t care that one group of humans is using their platform to plan to kill another group (Myanm…

At an even higher level, Apple and Google devices are what allow hateful and abusive content to be created. Should they bear some responsibility and prevent us from creating such content?

I think this is a fair question. I guess the way I see the difference is that a google/Apple phone is more like a tool (say a hammer) where Meta is providing a public space (like a restaurant or public square). So I think that in real life we would say that a restaurant owner has some duty to prevent their restaurant from being used to kill people/encourage suicide/do sex trafficking, but we wouldn’t ask a hammer manufacturer to police how people use hammers (we still do require some basic things like that the product must be reasonably safe). So I guess the root difference is the difference between a tool and a platform. They both bear some responsibility, but we expect the platform/space to bear much more responsibility for what happens.

Re: How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

#43

Post by mc32 »

throwaway59601 wrote: post #38
mc32 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we know that adults who get addicted to deleterious drugs in adulthood didn't know the dangers of it, right? Sometimes availability and the wrong situation can land people in a lot of trouble. Finance is another area where despite knowing the severe drawbacks. People in the wrong circumstance may seek out loan sharks.

Not sure why you're bringing up drugs here. We're talking about webpages, not substances directly altering your neurochemistry. But yeah, indeed - usually it's a fault of parenting. Instead of properly teaching about the dangers and responsibility (in case of weed/alcohol, or finance) they made it a tabu.

Point is, grown adults who "know better" fall into these traps too. It's not only about inculcation or knowing better. If it's there, despite all you know, sometimes you fall for it. That's the point.

Re: How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

#44

Post by scarface74 »

throwaway59601 wrote: post #29
psychlops wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unusual if they didn't have unmonitored access to the internet. Helicopter parenting takes a lot of energy and technical parents can only do so much. A 12yo without a phone is a social pariah. What is odd to me in the story was the absence of a moral compass of the child and lack of knowledge of the internet as a potentially hostile place.

That's what happens when parents restrict kids instead of teaching them about the dangers.

Yes, just like the “Just Say No” campaign completely stopped children from using drugs and parents telling children to “save themselves until marriage” stop children from having sex.

Re: How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

#45

Post by waselighis »

hermannj314 wrote: post #32
postdb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Crimes are committed all the time using phones and yet, we do not allow phone companies to monitor, record and report the content of pur phone conversations. And they can't just add a line in a terms of service, they have no legal right to do it. (Ignore the issue of Metadata, I mean the audio portions of our calls) Are you sure about that? It is my understanding all telco traffic are monitored. Some countries may h…

Correct, I cant speak for all the world. In the United States, only a party to a phone conversation may record that call. Some states have stronger requirements than that, requiring all parties to consent. The phone company can't listen to your phone calls and there is definitely no public expectation or journalists demanding that AT&T and others do something about preventing crimes that used a phone by recording all…

Wire taps are a thing. I don't know the law around it, but it likely requires approval from a court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiretapping#United_States

Otherwise, telecom companies keep records of all calls that take place on their network - the phone numbers, time, duration, etc.

Re: How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

#46

Post by ihatepython »

slaw wrote: post #6
bheadmaster wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed! While we're at it, we should also put cameras and microphones in every street corner, every public place, every household, every toilet. Everyone who refuses to do so should be considered a terrorist for refusing to cooperate with the authorities who, we all know, are infallible, only have children's interest at heart, and would never abuse their power for their own gain. We should not stop until every inch o…

Agreed! The government should have access to all online accounts. Bank, email, Facebook,.. and at least once a day each citizen should give mandatory report what they were thinking.

> and at least once a day each citizen should give mandatory report what they were thinking.

So just like SCRUM?

Re: How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

#47

Post by scarface74 »

kypro wrote: post #41
ChatGTP wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we’ve made the Internet so accessible and such an integral part of a children’s lives ? Even just for entertainment purposes, I see kids just staring at screens all day everywhere I go. I mean, it’s a silly question no offence.

It's quite easy to restrict access to kid's devices. We use Google family and the kids all hate us because they have to ask our permission whenever they want to install anything. We also get to see activity reports and we talk to them often about bad people online and why they need to be careful. I understand you can't monitor a child 24/7, but you can be careful with what devices children have access to and what the…

Do your kids have friends? I can guarantee you that they are using their friends devices.

Re: How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

#49

Post by brucethemoose2 »

> But the vast majority of the content that Meta reports falls under child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) – which includes photos and videos of pornographic content – rather than sex trafficking. Unlike with child sexual abuse imagery, there is no legal requirement to report child sex trafficking, so NCMEC must rely on all social media companies to be proactive in searching for and reporting it. This legal inconsistency – the fact that child sexual abuse imagery must be reported, but reporting child sex trafficking is not legally required – is a major problem, says Staca Shehan, vice-president of the analytical services division at NCMEC.

That says it all. When legally required, Facebook is aggressive and expedient about enforcement. Otherwise, they are not.

Re: How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking

#50

Post by Nextgrid »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #37
Nextgrid wrote: post #36

Facebook has a history of letting crime groups operate even if they are obvious and don't even try to avoid detection: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/04/a-year-later-cybercrime-... Is it really surprising though? Criminals, including pimps and child rapists, still watch ads, "engage" with the platform and increase the user numbers, and even encourage their peers to also join/engage with the platform. For something…

This is nonsense. It is obvious to me that any bad PR is orders of magnitude worse for the business than the potential benefit of having even hundreds of thousands of criminals "engaging" on the platform.

If bad PR was a problem surely you can start by actually actioning reports on obvious cybercrime pages instead of saying that they "reviewed my reports but that none of the groups were found to have violated its standards".

I stand by my argument. That disgusting company doesn't care about crime and malicious activity because it's cheaper to let it happen and simply clean up the few PR incidents with some lies which people (such as you) will happily believe.

Post reply on HN