Reddit links to hardcore pornography (and mirrors it in thumbnail form)
I guess that's true, because Reddit accepts and mirrors thumbnails from any image link posted. But that doesn't make it a "porn site" either. Lots of folks like me go there to read stuff like /r/askscience, which is about as good a pop science hub as any in print or web form anywhere in the world. You're saying you'd want to be censoring that forum because of stuff people do elsewhere on the site? You're not alone, but I suspect you'll find very few supporters for that opinion here.
And I think your information might be a little spun. When on earth did Reddit carry child pornography? Doing so is a crime pretty much anywhere, and I don't remember any FBI raids.
>But that doesn't make it a "porn site" either. Lots of folks like me go there to read stuff like /r/askscience, which is about as good a pop science hub as any in print or web form anywhere in the world. You're saying you'd want to be censoring that forum because of stuff people do elsewhere on the site? //
Nice and strawy. I never said that reddit was a "porn site"; probably because it isn't primarily (though there's observer bias, that's not how I use it shall we say). However subreddits do promote hardcore porn.
I didn't at any time say I was going to deny anyone access to, nor label as adult material, /r/askscience.
>And I think your information might be a little spun. //
I visited a "bestof" thread that linked to what is almost certainly categorised as child pornography in my jurisdiction (and in the US AFAICT under the Dost test) and FWIW reported the content of that subreddit to the IWF based on the thumbnails+titles (IWF is a UK watchdog, see https://www.iwf.org.uk/hotline/assessment-levels). There was a previous incident involving subreddits created by violentcrez (sp?) where the subreddit was closed by reddit as users were making offers and requests explicitly for images of an under-age girl.
Yeah, that's pretty spun. Reporting something to the IWF doesn't mean they took action (the IWF publishes a block list of banned URLs, I'm pretty sure reddit.com isn't on it). "Making offers and requests" for content that apparently didn't exist isn't child pornography. Nor is "pedophilic imagery" child pornography. You are using what in most contexts is a legal term (c.f. "murder", "larceny") incorrectly. Were there any actual children expoited on/through/via Reddit? That's usually the test for criminal misconduct.
And the strawman bit is I think missing the point. There's a real moral question about where to put the boundary between "protection from unwanted content" and inappropriate censorship ("friendly fire") of good content. Pointing out that reddit has lots of the latter is, I think, important and relevant to that discussion. Most sane people I know are more liberally tolerant if the relative benefit is higher.
So you're saying that Dost isn't a test used in US law to determine whether images are child pornography or not.
My point in referring to my report to IWF was that under their summary recapitulation of the Sentencing Guidelines Council's Definitive Guidelines of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 WRT such images I was convinced that this material was child pornography.
Are you saying that crotch shots of pre-teen girls entitled "juicy" or making reference to them as sexual objects is not child pornography or are you defending child pornography as something that should be allowed?
Were there actual children exploited on/through reddit. Yes.
>Most sane people I know are more liberally tolerant if the relative benefit is higher. //
Ah gotcha: So I'm insane because you feel that a few sexually exploited children should be perfectly fine as long as you get your fix of askscience in a ready Android app?
Why are you bringing up the creepy comments attached to the images? Those thumbnails seem to be of clothed children not engaged in explicitly sexual behavior. Cropping and making inappropriate lewd comments is exploitative but it's not pornographic.
Someone raised that very point in the linked reddit thread (paraphrasing) "you can see pics like these in the Sears catalogue". Presentation and intent make it pornography.
One of those images as a picture in a family album (assuming they've not been posed sexually) - not pornographic. Same image with sexualising content and presented alongside similar images in a forum intend to pander to the salacious nature of those who get aroused by sexualised images of children - pornographic.
Or do you think that there is no such thing as pornographic image of a human because you could see those same parts of the body in an anatomy book? If you do go that far, then presumably you'd also not find anything to be erotic? Would you also say that intent is not important?
I believe that the intentions of the subject and photographer matter. I do not believe that the intent of any distributor matters. A photograph is a moment of time set in stone, and cannot be changed by appendices.
So if someone posts your picture on the front page of your local paper with a headline "rapist at large" then you're fine with that because it's just an image and context doesn't matter?
I guess that's true, because Reddit accepts and mirrors thumbnails from any image link posted. But that doesn't make it a "porn site" either. Lots of folks like me go there to read stuff like /r/askscience, which is about as good a pop science hub as any in print or web form anywhere in the world. You're saying you'd want to be censoring that forum because of stuff people do elsewhere on the site? You're not alone, but I suspect you'll find very few supporters for that opinion here.
And I think your information might be a little spun. When on earth did Reddit carry child pornography? Doing so is a crime pretty much anywhere, and I don't remember any FBI raids.