11–19 of 19 posts
Seems like a recipe for getting arrested.
EDIT: The article says a lot of the accounts are supposed to be run by kids themselves so maybe that has something to do with it?
>In many cases, Instagram has permitted users to search for terms that its own algorithms know may be associated with illegal material. In such cases, a pop-up screen for users warned that “These results may contain images of child sexual abuse,” and noted that production and consumption of such material causes “extreme harm” to children. The screen offered two options for users: “Get resources” and “See results anyw…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're actually an active pedophile then I'm sure you're already well aware of any tactics for accessing illicit content by the time they're showing up in the WSJ. For everyone else, the only way to understand the full depth of the problem and how pervasive it is, is to understand and examine the methods these people are using to connect and distribute that illicit content.
>For everyone else, the only way to understand the full depth of the problem and how pervasive it is, is to understand and examine the methods these people are using to connect and distribute that illicit content. Doesn't that basically serve as advertising for them though? How many people with Instagram accounts are going to try testing some of these keywords, just to see if they are real? How many aren't going to s…
It seems like any concrete examples used in the article are likely to be the first ones removed by Meta (if they haven't already done so). Also if you try typing in weird keywords to see illegal content because you don't trust journalists Idk how you can effectively accuse those same journalists as advertising them. As an analogy, I don't think anyone would accuse someone of advertising drugs just because the information they spread about the dangers of fentanyl could hypothetically be used by someone to distinguish real fentanyl from other substances.
I'm just going to say it. Aspects of the article resemble practically a HOWTO guide. The comments from sites and the resulting lack of true changes when reported on make it clear the green light is lit and everyone is being told full speed ahead. ...is this an advertisement for perverts?
>In many cases, Instagram has permitted users to search for terms that its own algorithms know may be associated with illegal material. In such cases, a pop-up screen for users warned that “These results may contain images of child sexual abuse,” and noted that production and consumption of such material causes “extreme harm” to children. The screen offered two options for users: “Get resources” and “See results anyw…
Minor examples: I tagged something saying only a #sissy would use it, but the only other content posted under that tag is feminization psyops porn.
#lolita should be explicitly outrageous, but it seems we use it to describe fashion style for both prepubescent children and the creepy adults who dress like them.
#FKK is some German acronym about nudism and families or something. I don't know if that's even allowed on Instagram but it comes up a lot on other platforms, usually adjacent to child porn.
The notorious Children of God cult used to deliberately conflate names of acts of sexual abuse with innocuous terms like "Bible study" so children reporting to outsiders would sound like idiots. "Please help, they make me do Bible study..."
This sort of induced confusion is how you get away with operating in plain sight.
Twitter is has an even bigger problem. I haven't seem pedo stuff, but there is far more explicit imagery. Unlike Insta, Twitter allows nudity and pornography, and it seems to be a haven for anything and everything. I've seen blue checks posting long form pornography, and it's not all great.
I'm surprised and confused somebody would use a public-facing website like Instagram to do something so illegal and taboo. Wouldn't they use Tor or at least a private Telegram chat? What, do they just paypal the money? Seems like a recipe for getting arrested. EDIT: The article says a lot of the accounts are supposed to be run by kids themselves so maybe that has something to do with it?