A trial program conducted by Pornhub in collaboration with UK-based child protection organizations aimed to deter users from searching for child abuse material (CSAM) on its website. Whenever CSAM-related terms were searched, a warning message and a chatbot appeared, directing users to support services. The trial reported a significant reduction in CSAM searches and an increase in users seeking help. Despite some limitations in data and complexity, the chatbot showed promise in deterring illegal behavior online. While the trial has ended, the chatbot and warnings remain active on Pornhub’s UK site, with hopes for similar measures across other platforms to create a safer internet environment.
That kinda sounds reasonable. Especially if it can prevent someone going down that rabbithole? Good job PH.
Imagine a porn site telling you to seek help because you’re a filthy pervert. Thats gotta push some to get some help I’d think.
Imagine how dumb, in addition to deranged, these people would have to be to look for child porn on a basically legitimate website. Misleading headline too, it didn’t stop anything, it just told them “Not here”
We have culturally drawn a line in the sand where one side is legal and the other side of the line is illegal.
Of course the real world isn’t like that - there’s a range of material available and a lot of it is pretty close to being abusive material, while still being perfectly legal because it falls on the right side of someone’s date of birth.
It sounds like this initiative by Pornhub’s chatbot successfully pushes people away from borderline content… I’m not sure I buy that… but if it’s directing some of those users to support services then that’s a good thing. I worry though some people might instead be pushed over to the dark web.
Yeah…I forgot that the UK classifies some activities between consenting adults as “abusive”, and it seems some people are now using that definition in the real world.
Facesitting porn (of adults) is illegal in UK for the reason that it’s potentially dangerous
Which led to some amazing protests.
Weirdly, watching facesitting porn in the UK of perfectly fine, as long as it wasn’t filmed in the UK.
I can just imagine trying to defend that in court. “Your honour, it’s clear to me that the muffled moans of the face-sittee are those of a Frenchman”
I mean, is it dumb?
Didnt pornhub face a massive lawsuit or something because of the amount of unmoderated child porn that was hidden in its bowels by uploaders (in addition to rape victims, revenge porn, etc etc…), to the point that they apparently only allow verified uploaders now and purged a huge swath of their videos?
“I’m just asking questions”
Until a few years ago, when they finally stopped allowing unmoderated, user uploaded content they had a ton a very problematic videos. And they were roasted about it in public for years. Including by many who were the unconsenting, sometimes underage subjects of these videos, and they did nothing. Good that they finally did, but they trained users for years that it was a place to find that content.
yeah I believe everything the government says through the media too.
You know you could easily say some dumb shit like that to somebody whose daughter wound up fighting a long time to remove herself from the site. ¯\(ツ)/¯
Removed by mod
Pornhub left up underage child rape videos until they were very publicly called out for it.
Porn is also a method of bourgeois oppression. The corporate elites want you to be an easily controlled consoomer.
What did I say that was dumb? I said “until a few years ago”, and that is true. And I have firsthand experience with the trouble they wouldn’t go through to deal with it. To imply that I’m just choking down what the government is selling is simply not reasonable.
Removed by mod
You’re wasting your time, they’re posting on lemmy where it’s not even possible up remove a picture you posted let alone one of you posted by someone else - the fact they’re still mad pornhub had a similar problem and solved it effectively makes it pretty obvious they’re looking for an excuse for an ideological crusade against people they’ve already decided to hate.
deleted by creator
Pornhub also knowingly hosted child porn. Ready or Not put them on blast for it when you raid a company called “Mindjot” for distributing child porn.
filthy pervert is down playing it but yea definitely hope to see more of this
IIRC Xhamster started doing this a few years ago, minus the AI chatbot.
Didn’t they just block certain search terms (which actually made the site somewhat difficult to use for legitimate/legal content)?
The ol’ Scunthorpe problem.
Lol
Sounds like a good feature. Anything that stops people from doing that is great.
But I do have to wonder… were people really expecting to find that content on PornHub? That site certainly seems legit enough that I doubt they’d have that stuff on there. I’d imagine most actual content would be on the dark web and specialty groups, not on PH.
PH had a pretty big problem with CSAM a few years ago, they ended up wiping ~2/3rds of their user submitted content to try fix it. (Note, they wiped all non-verified user submitted videos, not all of it was CSAM).
And im guessing they are trying to catch users who are trending towards questionable material. “College”✅ -> “Teen”⚠️ -> “Young Teen”⚠️⚠️⚠️ -> "CSAM"🚔 etc.
That explains why it’s all commercial stuff now… So I heard.
Sure sure, whatever you say Big Dick :D
Big head, rather
No, no, it’s French. Macro ce phallique. It means “macro this phallic.” Obviously.
Wow, that bad? I was aware they purged a lot of ‘amateur’ content over concerns regarding consent to upload/revenge porn, but I didn’t know it was that much.
Yeah, unverified user content had a lot of problems. Also piracy and gore etc.
The purge appears to have hit almost 9 million of the 13.5 million videos on Pornhub as of Sunday, or nearly two-thirds of all the content hosted on the site.
Eeeeeeeh. There’s nuance.
IIRC there were only a handful of verified CSAM videos on the entire website. It’s inevitable, it happens everywhere with UGC, including on here. Anecdotally, in the years leading up to the purge PH had already cleaned up its act and from what I saw pirated content was rather well moderated. However this time the media made a huge stink about the alleged CSAM, payment processors threatened to pull out (they are notoriously very puritan, it’s caused a lot of trouble to lemmynsfw’s admins for instance) and so regardless of the validity of the initial claims PH had to do something to gain back the trust of payment processors, so they basically nuked every video that did not have a government ID attached.
Now if I may speculate a little, one of the reasons it happened this way is probably that due to its industry position PH is way better moderated than most (if not all) websites of their size and already had verified a bunch of its creators. At the same time the rise of OnlyFans and similar websites means that real amateur content has all but disappeared so there was less and less reason to allow random UGC anyway. So the high moderation costs probably didn’t make much sense anymore anyway.
Spot on. The availability of CSAM was overblown by a well funded special interest group (Exodus Cry). The articles about it were pretty much ghost written by them.
When you’re the biggest company in porn you’ve got a target on your back. In my opinion they removed all user content to avoid even the appearance of supporting CSAM, not because they were guilty of anything.
PornHub has been very open about normalizing healthy sexuality for years, while also providing interesting data access for both scientists and the general public.
“Exodus Cry is an American Christian non-profit advocacy organization seeking the abolition of the legal commercial sex industry, including pornography, strip clubs, and sex work, as well as illegal sex trafficking.[2] It has been described by the New York Daily News,[3] TheWrap,[4] and others as anti-LGBT, with ties to the anti-abortion movement.[5]”
They’re the fuckers who almost turned OF into Pinterest as well? Not surprising in retrospect. The crazy thing is how all news outlets ran with the narrative and payment processors are so flaky with adult content. De-platforming sex work shouldn’t be this easy.
Yeah, there was a lot of reasons. CSAM was just the loud reason.
I think it’s an early prevention type of thing.
It had all sorts of illegal things before they purged everyone unverified due to legal pressure
wree people really expecting to find that content on PornHub?
Welcome to the internet 😂 where people constantly disappoint/surprise you (what word is that? Dissurprise? Disurprint?
The headline is slightly misleading. 2.8 million searches were halted, but according to the article they didn’t attempt to figure out how many of those searches came from the same users. So thankfully the number of secret pedophiles in the UK is probably much lower than the headline might suggest.
I suspect a lot of CSAM searches come from underage users themselves
I was one of them. I used to search “Naked girl X age”, where X was my age, from the time I was around 13.
Same thing for me when I was 13. I freaked the fuck out when I saw a wikipedia article on the right. I thought I was going to jail the next day lmfao
I’d think it’s probably not a majority, but I do wonder what percentage it actually is. I do have distinct memories of being like 12 and trying to find porn of people my own age instead of “gross old people” and being confused why I couldn’t find anything. Kids are stupid lol, that’s why laws protecting them need to exist.
Also good god when I become a parent I am going to do proper network monitoring; in hindsight I should not have been left unattended on the internet at 12.
I was the same back then. And have come across some stuff which is surprisingly easy to find. Later to realize how messed up that was.
I think monitoring is good but it has a fine line not to cross in your child privacy. If they suspect anything they sure know how to work around it and you loose any insight.
It’s not about laws, it’s about sexual education. Sexual education is a topic that can’t be left to the parents and should be explained in school, so as to give the kids a complete knowledge base.
Most parents know about sex as much as they know about medicines. They’ve had some, but that doesn’t give them a degree for teaching that stuff.
Sorry I know this is a serious subject and not a laughing matter but that’s a funny situation. I guess I was a MILF hunter at that age because even then I was perfectly happy to knock one out watching adult porn instead!
4.4 million sounds a bit excessive. Facebook marketplace intercepted my search for “unwanted gift” once and insisted I seek help. These things have a lot of false positives.
What is an “unwanted gift” though?
Probably just looking for deals on new stuff that people dont care about having been gifted.
I could definitely see “unwanted gift” being a code word for trafficking :(
Not necessarily trafficking, but could be trafficking-adjacent.
There used to be “child rehoming” ‘services’ on Facebook and the like, for people who regret adopting a kid, and pass them to others. Here’s a fairly in-depth article on the whole affair. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t go well.
EDIT: In hindsight, “unwanted gift” could also be about people getting unexpectedly pregnant, and putting the resulting child up for adoption, but not wanting to go through legal means for one reason or another, which seems a more likely answer.
Lol makes sense. Meta being really meta here, but if thats needed… better too much than too little
Do you really think human traffickers are listing people under secret codes on accounts obviously linked to their real identity with their real face? Remember the ikea thing where vendors who didn’t specify a price received an absurd default price for their goods eg 9999.99 and people that furniture that was listed at that price corresponded to kids being sold?
On Facebook marketplace just after Christmas? A potential bargain on unopened merch, of course!
Found one of the guys who spoke to the bot
Google does this too, my wife was searching for “slutty schoolgirl” costumes and Google was like “have a seat ma’am”
Google now gives you links to rehabs and addiction recovery centers when searching for harm reduction information about non-addictive drugs.
This has been going on for years. Enshittification.
It’s called rent seeking, there’s no need to coin a flashy new name.
Literally different things lol
it isn’t that misused buzzword but i don’t see how it’s rent seeking either
Big tech is teaching us about morality.
I do have to agree with them on that one. Fetishizing school uniforms worn by children gives some serious Steven Tyler vibes.
Sexuality is tightly connected to societal taboos, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult - it’s no-one else businesses. There is no need or benefit in moralizing peoples sexuality.
To be clear, I absolutely agree. I’m not saying that people are immoral for liking some plaid. Just a kind of fetish that seems less “natural” (like spanking or bdsm) and more amplified in popular media in a parallel to sexualization of children in response to feminism (see: Brooke Shields’ experience) and that makes it one that I’m not comfortable participating in. But for those that don’t find their brains making such associations that are being safe, sane, and consensual, I wish wonderful, freaky times.
I’m not saying that people are immoral for liking some plaid.
Fetishizing school uniforms worn by children gives some serious Steven Tyler vibes. fetish that seems less “natural”
Sure sounds like you are. And you sound also rather judgy about it. Maybe it’s just a language thing - but at least that’s my impression.
It may well be my communication. The first statement was something of a half-joke at the expense of the rock singer and the normalization of predatory behavior towards minors that he and others engaged in during the height of rock’s popularity, not at the expense of people who like to engage in age-play.
I am very accepting of others kinks and do not judge individuals for activities that are safe, sane, and consensual. Accepting the people and their ethically-sound activities does not mean that one cannot have preferences and perceptions on the activities themselves. Our preferences and perceptions are shaped to a degree (large or small) by our experiences. Mine are most definitely colored to a significant degree by my own early childhood trauma, which makes anything approaching age-play, power-play, and CNC, even just by indirect association in my own thought processes, uncomfortable and unsexy to me.
I also find scat-play pretty disgusting (tbf, that’s probably part of the kink for some) but, I’m not going to turn someone away, unless they’ve not showered since their last session.
Our preferences and perceptions are shaped to a degree (large or small) by our experiences. Mine are most definitely colored to a significant degree by my own early childhood trauma, which makes anything approaching age-play, power-play, and CNC, even just by indirect association in my own thought processes, uncomfortable and unsexy to me.
Even if it means nothing from an internet stranger, sorry to hear you had traumatic childhood experiences. Makes sense that you are uncomfortable with said practices.
I also find scat-play pretty disgusting (tbf, that’s probably part of the kink for some)
We can agree on something here.
It’s still weird to sexualize children. It’s less weird when it’s teenagers and everyone is of age but it’s a weird thing to engage in constantly.
It’s sexualizing children in the same way as daddy porn sexualizes incest, you are taking fantasies at their literal face value without looking into what’s going on.
Non-paywall link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240305000347/https://www.wired.com/story/pornhub-chatbot-csam-help/
There’s this lingering implication that there is CSAM at Pornhub. Why bother with “searches for CSAM” if it does not return CSAM results? And what exactly constitutes a “search for CSAM”? The article and the linked one are incredibly opaque about that. Why target the consumer and not the source? This feels kind of backwards and like language policing without really addressing the problem. What do they expect to happen if they prohibit specific words/language? That people searching for CSAM will just give up? Do they expect anything beyond them changing the used language and go for a permanent cat and mouse game? I guess I share the sentiments that motivated them to do this, but it feels so incredibly pointless.
Lolicon is not illegal, and neither is giving your video a title that implies CSAM.
That begs the question, what about pedophiles who intentionally seek out simulated CP to avoid hurting children?
Simulated CP is legally considered the same as ‘actual’ CP in the UK
Which is, imo, pretty dumb. If it gives these people an outlet that literally hurts no one, I say they should be allowed to use it. Without it they’ll just go to more extreme lengths to get what they need, and as such may go to places where actual real life children are being abused or worse.
So while it’s still disgusting and I’d rather not think about it, if nobody’s being hurt then it’s none of my business. Let them get out their urges in a safe way that doesn’t affect anybody else.
I imagine the concern is that it would look identical to the real thing. Which blurs the lines. Kinda like how governments really hate when toy makers make toy guns look too real and why I have to tell airport security that I would like my bag searched now since there are homemade looking electronic devices in it.
I guess in theory some government could make a certification system. Where legal simulated cp has like some digital watermark or something but you know that would involve a government paying someone to review child porn for a living. Kinda hard to sell that to the taxpayers or fill that role. Maybe the private sector would be willing to do it but that is a big ask.
I am not sure I agree with you or disagree with you. Maybe all of us would be better off if there is a legal and harmless way for pedos to get what they want. Or maybe it is bad to encourage it at all even in a safe way, like if they consume that stuff it will make them more likely to seek out real children.
Definitely isn’t a great situation be great if the condition is cured some day.
This covered a lot of my concerns and thoughts on the topic. I want these people to be able to seek help and possibly even have a legal outlet that is not harming anyone, i.e. not even someone who has to view that shit for a living, so maybe we get AI to do it? IDK. It’s complicated but I believe that it’s similar to having an addiction in some ways and should be treated as a health issue, assuming they haven’t hurt anyone and want help. This is coming from someone with health issues including addiction and also someone who is very empathetic and sympathetic to any and all struggles of folks who are just trying to live better.
I can’t even imagine the amount of money it would cost for someone to pay me to watch and critique child porn for a living. I have literally been paid money in my life to fish a dead squirrel that was making the whole place stink, from underneath a trailer in July and would pick doing that professionally over watching that filth.
Depends on the jurisdiction. Indecent illustrations and ‘pseudo photographs’ depicting minors are definitely illegal in the UK (Coroners and Justice Act 2009.) Several US states are also updating their laws to clamp down on this too.
I’m also aware that it’s illegal in Switzerland because a certain infamous rule 34 artist fled his home country to evade justice for that very reason.
I imagine high exposure (for individuals who are otherwise not explicitly searching for such material) could inadvertently normalize that behavior IRL.
Like how video games supposedly normalize violence? Are you going to go shoot a bunch of people because GTA exists?
Ffs guys what year is this? Thought we were past this silly mindset.
Deciding that you’re going to pull someone out of their car and clap them with a rocket launcher has a significantly higher situational barrier than finding yourself in a close relationship with a child who trusts you enough that you can abuse it in a moment of impulse.
You think abusing a child is easier than, say, punching someone in the face as you would do in video games?
Dude if you genuinely think that I’d recommend reaching out to someone…
In all seriousness tho, way to take the most extreme video game example possible to dismiss my point. Video game violence can have an extremely low “situational barrier”, but that doesn’t mean that video games will make you do those things.
Nobody is saying that porn ‘makes you’ do or become anything. But the stories told in video games are clearly fiction in form and content - you’re a soldier in the future fighting aliens, you’re a member of an elite group of time-traveling assassin’s, you’re an aspiring ex-convic with unlimited lives and pockets to carry an entire arsenal of weapons in a tanktop and shorts - whereas porn is written to make the fantasy seem just plausible enough so you can place yourself in as the subject (which is why the situations are always so contrived in pornography)
The situations wherein you might plausibly choose to sexually exploit a child aren’t nearly as implausible as one where you could violently assault someone without immediate risk and consequence. Just look at how often porn dialogue waves away the likely objections; “we’re not actual siblings, you’re just my STEP brother”, “I won’t tell anybody”, “I just turned 18, I don’t want to be the only virgin in college”, ect.
Like exposure to gay people and gay content makes you gay? (/s if it wasn’t obvious)
no very different, but if someone hasn’t come out then having gay media will normalize being gay and id assume they could come out with less stigma but this is a painfully ignorant and insulting comparison
but this is a painfully ignorant and insulting comparison
Only if you condemn the disposition and not its inacceptable form of execution. From where I stand being attracted to children is as acceptable as men being attracted to men. Abusing children is as inacceptable as men raping men. If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither condoning nor encouraging the (sexual) abuse of children. Unlike you I’m just not a hypocrite about different sexual orientations/preferences that nobody chooses. The only qualitative difference is that in one case one side cannot consent and needs better protection by society. The only point I am (consistently) trying to make here, is that I find it highly dubious that the measures described in the article have any impact on said required protection, and that the article completely fails to provide any shred of evidence or even indication that it does.
TW: discussions about sexual abuse
spoiler
If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual.
Fetishizing an abusive sexual behavior is not the same as same-sex attraction. We would be having the same conversation if we were talking about rape porn between adults: it’s the normalization of the abusive behavior that we’re primarily concerned with, not the ethics of watching simulated abuse in general.
While I don’t believe that banning simulated material would be helpful, it is completely reasonable to suggest that cautioning individuals about the proximity of their search to material that is illegal - and the risks associated with consuming it - would be preventative against future consumption.
Especially considering Pornhub is only placing cautions around that material and isn’t removing that content generally. It’s hard to read your objections as anything other than pedophilia apologia.
Being attracted to an abusive sexual behavior is not the same as being attracted to a consenting behavior between adults.
And I did not even hint at anything even close to the contrary.
We would be having the same conversation if we were talking about rape porn between adults: […]
Which is exactly the comparison I made.
[…] it’s the normalization of the abusive behavior that we’re primarily concerned with, not the ethics of watching simulated abuse in general.
I wasn’t talking about the normalization of anything anywhere. You inject a component, that wasn’t the subject in our conversation before, to defend a point I wasn’t questioning (red herring).
While I don’t believe that banning simulated material would be helpful, […]
Another topic which we could discuss, but which - again - you just injected.
[…]it is completely reasonable to suggest that cautioning individuals about the proximity of their search to material that is illegal - and the risks associated with consuming it - would be preventative against future consumption.
And again: I’m asking for qualitative and quantitative proof of that. It is the one and only thing I was and am questioning about the article.
Especially considering Pornhub is only placing cautions around that material and isn’t removing that content generally.
The point to our discussion being what?
It’s hard to read your objections as anything other than pedophilia apologia.
You seem to have major trouble with text comprehension and staying on track with discussions.
Minor complaint: try to get an empty paragraph between the spoiled text and the non-spoiled text whenever possible - makes it easier to read.
Regarding the discussion, you’re both right at the end of the day. Limiting exposure to illegal and immoral-adjacent material is obviously in society’s interest, but at the same time the implication that a glorified ad for a mental illness helpline is a good solution is ludicrous - it’s at the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to the kinds of issues we should be working on.
pedophilia is usually caused by a neurological disorder or a power fantasy, would you call rape a sexual orientation? its a preference at best and its not a sexual orientation as that is tide to gender and not age.
as to condemning of pedophiles, i dont condemn them unless they act on they’re urges. i however fully support seeking help
Would you call rape that isn’t happening rape?
as to condemning of pedophiles, i dont condemn them unless they act on they’re urges.
Up until this point everything you said read exactly like you would. Seems we’re finally on the same page?
How so? If CP and things adjacent to it (drawn stuff, “teen” porn, catholic schoolgirl outfits, etc) content is going to
make peoplepromote and encourage people to molest children, why wouldn’t gay porn promote and encourage homosexuality?Like this is one of those things that feels a lot like picking and choosing based on preference. I suspect violence in media being a historic right wing talking point is the only reason it’s not on the bad list like sexy women and loli stuff.
this is an entirely different discussion. My point and issue is with the comparison being in poor taste, like I said previously I’d be equally annoyed if someone made a comparison with heterosensuality and beastiality one is normal and the other is morally wrong.
Edit: my mistake I thought you replied to a different comment.
We are products of our environment. I do believe that we are effected by the things around us, I’d imagine we’d have a lot more pedophiles if cp was on TV. Look at any industry built on abuse, people don’t go in thinking they’ll be the bad guy and fuck up someone’s day, they themselves are introduced to it through environment.
Not exactly a fair analogy. First off it is willful exposure to cp not incidental. Secondly the concern isn’t that someone is oriented towards children the concern is the action. We can’t and should never ever attempt to police a person’s mind we can however as a society demand that adults don’t rape kids. Homosexuality is not the same, the vast majority of western society is fine with the action. So even if you could demonstrate a link between watching gay porn more and being more willing to have gay sex it doesn’t matter.
Nice rephrasing of what I said (mostly). Homosexuality - and heterosexuality, and any sexuality for that matter - are only acceptable as long as there is consent. The only difference is, as I’ve pointed out, that with pedophilia there is no scenario which can have consent. That doesn’t matter though, as long as it stays in somebody’s mind or the virtual realm.
If you strictly distinguish between desire and action, it is an absolutely fair comparison. I do, and I do so explicitly. Some people don’t, ignore that I do, and then get wound up about what they think I said.
I’m going to go ahead and treat this as if it’s an earnest comparison because there shouldn’t be any room for ambiguity:
Fuck right off with that analogy. Pedophilia and the sexual behaviors that result from it are immensely damaging to children - who cannot meaningfully consent to sexual relationships -, whereas the sexual behaviors between consenting adults are not.
I don’t really care if you were speaking in-jest. If you were, i’d recommend you delete that comment before someone takes it seriously.
Yah … I already answered that: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/9541949
but this is a painfully ignorant and insulting comparison
Only if you condemn the disposition and not its inacceptable form of execution. From where I stand being attracted to children is as acceptable as men being attracted to men. Abusing children is as inacceptable as men raping men. If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither condoning nor encouraging the (sexual) abuse of children. Unlike you I’m just not a hypocrite about different sexual orientations/preferences that nobody chooses. The only qualitative difference is that in one case one side cannot consent and needs better protection by society. The only point I am (consistently) trying to make here, is that I find it highly dubious that the measures described in the article have any impact on said required protection, and that the article completely fails to provide any shred of evidence or even indication that it does.
Pedophilia is defined by it’s “inacceptable” (what a strange way of spelling ‘abusive’) behavior, homosexuality is not.
Like hydrophile, right? Those damned immoral water molecules *shakes fist at heaven*
You use some weird definitions.
Only a very, very small percentage of paedophiles are exclusive paedophiles. This is more like a bi person becoming more gay (or straight) by exposing themselves to more gay (or straight) porn. People can focus in on particular aspects of their sexuality or ignore others, and that’s before fetishisation comes into play where the mind projects sexual meaning onto stuff that’s not primitively (as in instinctively) sexual.
Yes. Even if you’re a 110% straight dude, if you set your mind to it, with enough practice, you can learn to enjoy sucking dick, or at least having your dick sucked by a cute femboy. At the same time mere exposure to gay porn doesn’t do the same and that’s not a contradiction as your usual 110% straight dude has no interest whatsoever to setting their mind to learn how to enjoy sucking dick, there’s neither inclination nor reason to, the porn is just going to go straight past them. 90% straight? Much more likely. Neither is going to lose their original attraction to women, though, the most you get is nothing happening on that front because they’re occupied elsewhere. And that’s exactly where we want the sexuality of paedophiles to be: Occupied elsewhere.
EDIT: I’ll assume the downvotes come from people not realizing just how plastic our mind is and not random reactionaries. Not on my lemmy.
Only a very, very small percentage of paedophiles are exclusive paedophiles. This is more like a bi person becoming more gay (or straight) by exposing themselves to more gay (or straight) porn. People can focus in on particular aspects of their sexuality or ignore others, and that’s before fetishisation comes into play where the mind projects sexual meaning onto stuff that’s not primitively (as in instinctively) sexual.
I completely agree with that.
Yes. Even if you’re a 110% straight dude, if you set your mind to it, with enough practice, you can learn to enjoy sucking dick, […]
And I think that is complete nonsense. If it had any merit, the reverse would also be true and could be used as an argument for conversion therapy. I think we can’t proactively develop our sexuality, only discover it. Expressive nuance is happenstance that can be enforced, but is not a deliberate decision. If I see foot fetish stuff it is an instant turnoff and has been for 30 years. My dislike of foot fetish stuff is certainly not due to lack of exposure.
[…] or at least having your dick sucked by a cute femboy.
Possibly. When it comes to sex I’m pretty visually fixated. If a femboy satisfied all the visual cues I see no problem in getting going by a femboy’s blowjob. Though, I have a thing for really big natural tits, so I think that’s rather unlikely.
At the same time mere exposure to gay porn doesn’t do the same and that’s not a contradiction as your usual 110% straight dude has no interest whatsoever to setting their mind to learn how to enjoy sucking dick, there’s neither inclination nor reason to, the porn is just going to go straight past them.
Same as above. I don’t think you can consciously shift your sexuality. You can only force yourself to act against your sexual nature, but not change it. If you could, conversion therapy would have merit. If you had a heterosexual “life style” and then discovered that you enjoy some homosexual interaction, it would be just that: discovering the predisposition that was already there.
90% straight? Much more likely. Neither is going to lose their original attraction to women, though, the most you get is nothing happening on that front because they’re occupied elsewhere. And that’s exactly where we want the sexuality of paedophiles to be: Occupied elsewhere.
Almost agree. I think it’s naive to assume that you could reliably prevent people from exploring their sexuality by keeping them (pre-)occupied with something else. The mind wanders, and where it goes there are no barriers. What I wonder is if barriers in real life (like the ones described in the article) are the best way to handle pedophiles’ desires or if it wouldn’t be more effective to guide them on a prepared way that makes them steer clear of harming others. We’ve seen how well sexual supression works out with church celibacy. I’d say we should at least explore/research options for pedophiles to “express” their sexuality without harming others.
EDIT: I’ll assume the downvotes come from people not realizing just how plastic our mind is and not random reactionaries. Not on my lemmy.
For what it’s worth, you got my upvote, because I think this is one of the most coherent and reasonable comments in the discussion - even if I do not agree with every point.
And I think that is complete nonsense. If it had any merit, the reverse would also be true and could be used as an argument for conversion therapy. I
The reverse isn’t really true as repressing innate desire requires neurosis, while learning to enjoy something you don’t instinctively enjoy very much doesn’t. You can’t go down the road of neurosis open-eyed and that “setting your mind to it” bit requires insight into your own mind so the two are at odds with each other. If it happens then that’s ordinary repression, not a voluntary choice.
And even if it was true then conversion therapy would still be psychological torture: Nothing about conversion therapy is “setting one’s mind to it”, just like setting out to not dislike cleaning the toilet is not the same as someone flushing your head.
Or, differently put: Don’t shove something down someone’s throat that they don’t already enjoy inhaling. SCNR.
And then of course there’s the whole issue of why. Why change that stuff? Of course people might have individual reasons (which might be as simple as learning a psychological circus trick for the heck of it), but that doesn’t mean that a social norm to have a particular sexuality (short of consent issues) makes any amount of ethical sense.
If I see foot fetish stuff it is an instant turnoff and has been for 30 years. My dislike of foot fetish stuff is certainly not due to lack of exposure.
You valued it negatively all those years and presumably never tried to do the opposite, it’s no wonder you continue to dislike it. And why would you, there’s no reason to.
All I’m saying is that the plasticity is there, not that it’s particularly common that people use it.
I think it’s naive to assume that you could reliably prevent people from exploring their sexuality by keeping them (pre-)occupied with something else.
Nothing is 100% reliable, and the purely sexual can only be a part of the overall solution. Additional things include making affected recognise the impossibility of consent, the amount of damage their behaviour would cause, and if that alone doesn’t convince them that they should gladly distract themselves there’s some ways to get a bit of a handle on dark triad traits though TBH the bigger bully argument works most reliably: Criminalisation. OTOH it would be naive to only crack the whip of criminal law without offering people aid in how to avoid it.
The reverse isn’t really true […]
If heterosexual people could learn to enjoy homosexual stuff why shouldn’t homosexual people be able to learn to enjoy heterosexual stuff? In your words: they only have to put their mind to it.
There’s solid evidence that homo-/heterosexuality in men strongly correlates with androgen hormone levels of the mother during pregnancy. Of course that is not binary. But if you are on either end of the spectrum you will not learn to enjoy the other. For women homosexuality is not as well (medically/biolgically) understood. But all research I know points to there being a deciding predisposition just like in men. Now, if of course you’re on one side but not an end of the spectrum and have not had exposure/opportunity to discover that you might enjoy something that runs contrary to your perceived sexuality, it might feel like you’re making an active effort to change/expand on your sexuality when the opportunity arrives and you decide to take it. The truth is, that for a substantial amount of men you can predict with 100% certainty that they will either be exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual simply by measturing their mothers androgen hormone levels during pregnancy. Again, you can discover, and also nurture and develop, your sexuality, but you cannot change it; only repress it.
[…] as repressing innate desire requires neurosis, […]
I don’t think so. Somebody repressing or hiding his (for example) homosexuality doesn’t require neurosis. “Only” an environment that’s out to kill them for it, like parts of Africa.
[…] while learning to enjoy something you don’t instinctively enjoy very much doesn’t.
I think our main issue might be language. You keep talking about learning and I keep talking about discovering. I never made a decision to like big tits. I didn’t “learn” to enjoy them. Thanks to the internet I was presented with a buffet of almost all the porn industry has to offer. I saw everything, but big tits particularly appealed to me, so then I saught out that content deliberately. No doubt reinforcing that taste of mine, but the wiring was already there, before I knew it. You might say that I learned to love big tits. And to that I’d say: wrong. I discovered that I like big tits! Learning requires intent, and there was no intent whatsoever in me realizing I like big tits.
You can’t go down the road of neurosis open-eyed and that “setting your mind to it” bit requires insight into your own mind so the two are at odds with each other. If it happens then that’s ordinary repression, not a voluntary choice.
That’s too esoteric for me or I do not understand at all what you’re trying to say here
And even if it was true then conversion therapy would still be psychological torture:
Yes.
Nothing about conversion therapy is “setting one’s mind to it”, just like setting out to not dislike cleaning the toilet is not the same as someone flushing your head.
I guess I agree? I don’t see how this relates to anything I said, though.
Or, differently put: Don’t shove something down someone’s throat that they don’t already enjoy inhaling. SCNR.
Exactly my point. Predisposition and discovery. SCNR ;-)
And then of course there’s the whole issue of why. Why change that stuff?
See, I’d say that’s the wrong question. At least to begin with. Is change possible? If the answer is no, there’s no point in asking why you would want that change.
Of course people might have individual reasons (which might be as simple as learning a psychological circus trick for the heck of it), but that doesn’t mean that a social norm to have a particular sexuality (short of consent issues) makes any amount of ethical sense.
I fear you’ve lost me again. I really don’t know what you’re trying to convey here.
You valued it negatively all those years and presumably never tried to do the opposite, it’s no wonder you continue to dislike it. And why would you, there’s no reason to.
You’re missing the point. Out of the wonderful bouqet of pornography I picked what I liked. That way I found out what I liked. I am absolutely sure that even if I tried to like foot fetish porn I would fail. The “set your mind to it part” is nonsense in this context. That’s not how sexuality works.
All I’m saying is that the plasticity is there, not that it’s particularly common that people use it.
I agree to some extent. Everybody has some basic sexual wiring (read orientation) whithin which one can take different routes to develop ones own sexuality. The end result could be very distinct but the way to it is not a conscious process. You can consciously choose to try something new, but you can’t choose whether you like it or not.
Nothing is 100% reliable, and the purely sexual can only be a part of the overall solution. Additional things include making affected recognise the impossibility of consent, the amount of damage their behaviour would cause, and if that alone doesn’t convince them that they should gladly distract themselves there’s some ways to get a bit of a handle on dark triad traits though TBH the bigger bully argument works most reliably: Criminalisation. OTOH it would be naive to only crack the whip of criminal law without offering people aid in how to avoid it.
Partly to mostly agree. I think we’re on the same page that criminalizing being pedophile helps noone, though. CSAM already is illegal. Long arc back to the beginning: I doubt the measures described in the article have any meaningful impact.
Also: “they actually track that I was searching for something illegal, let me rather not do it again”.
Like anything on the internet wasn’t tracked. If need be people will resort to physically exchanging storage media.
But having that tracking shown to you has a very powerful psychological effect.
It’s pretty well established that increasing penalties for crimes does next to nothing to prevent those crimes. But what does reduce crime rates is showing how people were caught for crimes, making people believe that they are less likely to ‘get away with it’.
Being confronted with your own searches is an immediate reminder that the searcher is doing something illegal, and that they are not doing so unnoticed. That’s wildly different than abstractly knowing that you’re probably being tracked somewhere by somebody among billions of other people.
And where is the quantification and qualification for that? Spoiler: it’s not in the article(s) and not one google search away. Does Nintendo succeed in stopping piracy with its show trials? If you have a look around here, it more looks like people are doubling down.
I mean, I know Google has been shitty lately, but Wikipedia isn’t hard to find: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)
I’d wager Nintendo has put some fear into a few folks considering developing emulators, but that’s the only comparison to be made here. The lack of any real consequences for individuals downloading roms is why so many are happy to publicly proclaim their piracy.
Now, I bet if megaupload added an AI that checked users uploads for copyrighted titles and gave everyone trying to upload them a warning about possible jail time, we’d see a hell of a lot less roms and movies on mega.
Now, I bet if megaupload added an AI that checked users uploads for copyrighted titles and gave everyone trying to upload them a warning about possible jail time, we’d see a hell of a lot less roms and movies on mega.
It would simply obsolete megaupload. Sharing platforms come and go. If one distribution channel stops working, people will use (or create) another.
Obviously, most of Mega’s traffic is piracy, they have no interest in doing that. The point is it’s an actual comparison instead of the nonsense you brought up.
Of course no individual site is going to singlehandedly stop criminal acts. Glad you agree it would be exactly as effective as I suggested.
Btw, you might want to read that wiki page in full yourselves.
One will never exceed the bandwidth of a semi loaded with hard drives
Why target the consumer and not the source?
If for no other reason than it doesn’t have to be either/or. If you can meaningfully reduce demand for a “product” as noxious as CSAM, you should expect the rate of production to slow. There are certainly efforts in place to prevent that production from ever being done, and to prevent it from being shared/hosted once it is, but I don’t think attempting to reduce demand in this way is going to hurt.
Does it reduce the demand though? Where are the measurements attesting to that? If history has shown one thing, it is that criminalizing things creates criminals. Did the prohibition stop people from making, trading, or consuming alcohol? How does this have any meaningful impact on the abuse of children? The article(s) completely fail to elaborate on that end. I’m missing the statistics/science here. What are the measuring instruments to assess any form of success? Just that searches were blocked and people were shown some links? … TL;DR: is this something with an actual positive impact or just an exercise in virtue signaling and waste of time and money? Blind “fixes” are rarely useful.
It might not reduce demand in individuals already seaking out that material, but it would certainly reduce introduction to it and demand in the long-run.
I wonder where you take that certainty from. I’d like to have that in my life.
Then maybe you could benefit from being alerted when you’re about to make a potentially harmful decision.
Fuck off with your insinuations.
Maybe liability or pretending to help? That way they can claim later on “we care about people struggling with this issue which is why when they search for terms related to it we offer the help they need”. Kinda how if you search for certain terms on Google it pops up suicide hotline on top.
Ok Google just because I looked up some stuff on being sad in winter doesn’t mean I am planning to put a gun in my mouth.
Yah, this feels more like a legal protection measure and virtue signaling. There’s absolutely no assessment of efficiency or even efficacy of the measures. At least not in the article or the ones it links to and I couldn’t find anything substantial on it.
Did it? Or did it make them look elsewhere?
The amount of school uniform, braces, pigtails and step-sister porn on Pornhub makes me think they want the nonces to watch.
I miss the days when you just didn’t see that shit around.
And what days were those? Cuz you pretty much need to go all the way back to pre-internet days. Hell, even that isn’t far enough, cuz Playboy’s youngest model was like 12 at one point.
Reasonable adults sites don’t return obviously sketchy things for reasonable queries. EG you don’t search boobs and get 12 year olds.
Also, I’m curious about false positives
I kind of want to trigger it to see what searches it reacts to, but at the same time I don’t want my IP address on a watchlist.
Tor mabe useful if its not clowdflare blocked
given the amount of extremely edgy content already on Pornhub, this is kinda sus
Yeah…i am honestly curious what these search terms were, how many of those were ACTUALLY looking for CP. And of those…how many are now flagged somewhow?
This is one of the more horrifying features of the future of generative AI.
There is literally no stopping it at this stage: AI generated CSAM will be possible soon thanks to systems like SORA.
This is disgusting and awful. But one part of me hopes it can end the black market of real CSAM content forever. By flooding it with infinite fakes, users with that sickness can look at something that didn’t come from a real child’s suffering. It’s the darkest of silver linings I think, but I spoke with many sexual abuse survivors who feel the same about the loli hentai in Japan, in that it could be an outlet for these individuals instead of them finding their own.
Dark topics. But I hope to see more actions like this in the future. If pedos can self isolate from IRL interactions and curb their ways with content that harms no one, then everyone wins.
The question is if consuming AI cp is helping to regulate the pedophiles behavior or if it’s enabling a progression of the condition. As far as I know that is an unanswered question.
It’s very much been already answered:
For porn in general, yes - I think the data is rather clear. But for cp or related substitute content it’s not that definitive (to my knowledge), be it just for the reason that it’s really difficult to collect data on that sensitive topic.
Why would it be any different? If it’s about sexual gratification by their chosen media then I’d imagine it wouldn’t matter what the subject was, but obviously it’s always necessary to get actual data to know for sure.
I think you’re making assumptions that aren’t fair but maybe aren’t obvious either. Honestly I’m only thinking about this because I just watched the contrapoints video on twilight, and so I’ll use her example, though she’s talking about a slightly different topic. Gonna paraphrase like a mofo:
Weird Power dynamics between partners in a fantasy, like twilight, or say porn since we are being obvious here, is normal because self image often requires women to present one way while hiding their desires for sex. It’s absolution of a sort, and is ostensibly healthy to explore in this way. That said… Some examples such as race play in fantasies may dehumanize the “other” in super not cool ways and reinforce negative racial stereotypes.
If we take that and extend it to pedophiles, normalization of the thought process leading to that sort of disfunction/disorder seems like a not great thing, but yeah, we’d need to study to learn more and that seems both difficult and likely undesirable for the researchers.
Why would it be any different?
Because pedophiles display pathological deviation when it comes to sexual attraction.
Another question is, how will the authorities know the difference? An actual csam-haver can just claim it’s AI
It’d still be CSAM whether AI or not.
Don’t know why you’re down voted. You’re right, it’s CSAM, which encompasses any depiction of CP.
Because “CSAM” states abuse as the third word in the acronym. Machine learning could (in theory, I lack knowledge on the current implementations) be trained without any children being abused (in any traditional sense anyway) and used to produce the content without any real children being involved (ignoring training data).
The downvotes likely come from a difference in definition between abuse and CP, images of nonexistent people cannot realistically harm anyone.
Personally, I don’t think it’s arbitrary. A child in a sexual scenario is a depiction of abuse. Normal, healthy children don’t engage in such behaviors.
What do you mean soon, local models from civitai can generate CSAM for at least 2 years. I don’t think it’s possible to stop it unless the model creator does something to prevent it from generate naked people in general like the neutered SDXL.
True. For obvious reasons I haven’t looked too deeply down that rabbit hole because RIP my search history, but I kind of assumed it would be soon. I’m thinking more specifically about models like SORA though. Where you could feed it enough input, then type a sentence to get video content. That is going to be a different level of darkness.
You’re hitting that “protest too much” shtick pretty hard
So your takeaway is I’m… Against AI generative images and thus I “protest too much”
I can’t tell if you’re pro AI and dislike me, or pro loli hentai and thus dislike.
Dude, AI images and AI video are inevitable. To pretend that does have huge effects on society is stupid. It’s going to reshape all news media, very quickly. If reddit is 99% AI generated bot spam garbage with no verification of what is authentic, reddit is functionally dead, and we are on a train with no brakes in that direction for most public forums.
Nope, not my takes.
But go off
You should probably research the phrase “protest too much” and the word “schtick” then.
I’m not trying to clutch pearls here, as another poster here commented this isn’t a theoretical concern.
You aren’t trying to clutch pearls, but your pearls were just so available you felt you had to jump on the bandwagon to reply to a two-day old comment?
Nobody said this was a theoretical concern and it’s okay if you don’t understand the phrases " protest too much" and "shtick“, but you can ask for the definitions and relevance directly instead of fishing.
And you’re projecting pretty hard.
Ah, one of the “using words they don’t understand” crew.
And several hours late, too.
Swinging for the fences, aren’t you?
Oh just like an experiment the headline made me think someone was suing over this.
You can just encounter shit like that on phub?
Not since the wipe, AFAIK. Still, at the bottom of the page you can (or at least could, haven’t used their services in a while) see a list of recent searches from all users, and you’d often find some disturbing shit.
If you read the paragraph thats literally right there it says when certain terms were searched by the user.
…That paragraph doesn’t say anything about whether or not the material is on the site though. I had the same reaction as the other person, and I didn’t misread the paragraph that’s literally right there.
I did misread that, thanks
Probably not, but you can still use related search terms.
You used to, until the sites content got nuked
I was wondering what sort of phrases get that notification but mentioning that mind be a bit counterproductive
I’m not sure if it’s related but as a life-long miniskirt lover I’ve noticed that many sites no longer return results for the term “schoolgirl” and instead you need to search for a “student”
The MLs have been shown to be extraordinarily good at statistically guessing your words. The words covered are probably comprehensive.
I think the other article talks about it being a manually curated list because while ML can get correct words it also gets random stuff, so you need to check it isn’t making spurious connections. It’s pretty interesting how it all works
Aylo maintains a list of more than 28,000 banned terms in multiple languages, which is constantly being updated.
Id be very curious what these terms are, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “pizza guy” or “school uniform” would trigger a response.
“Young” and “playful” probably.
Obviously don’t google this, but IRC one of the terms used was lemon party.
Really?
Can you very loosely tell me what that is so I don’t have to google it?
The original report from the researchers can be found here: https://www.iwf.org.uk/about-us/why-we-exist/our-research/rethink-chatbot-evaluation/ Researchers said:
The chatbot was displayed 2.8 million times between March 2022 and August 2023, resulting in 1,656 requests for more information and Stop It Now services; and 490 click-throughs to the Stop It Now website.
So from 4.4 million banned queries, only 2.8 million (between the date interval in the quote above) and only 490 clicks to seek help. Ngl, kinda underwhelming. And I also think, given the amount of extremely edgy content already on Pornhub, this is kinda sus.
Thanks. I looked for it but was too stupid to find it.
It’s surprising to see Aylo (formerly Mindgeek) coming out with the most ethical use of AI chatbots, especially when Google Gemini cannot even condemn pedophilia.
In the link you shared, Gemini gave a nuanced answer. What would you rather it say?
I think one of the main issues is the matter of fact usage of the term Minor Attracted Person. It’s a controversial term that phrases pedophiles like an identity, like saying Person Of Color.
I understand wanting a not as judgemental term for those who did no wrong and are seeking help. But it should be phrased as anything else of that nature, a disorder.
If I was making a term that fit that description I’d probably say Minor Attraction Disorder heavily implying that the person is not ok as is and needs professional help.
In a more general sense, it feels like the similar apologetic arguments that the dark side of reddit would make. And that’s probably because Google’s officially using Reddit as training data.
deleted by creator
Are you defending pedophilia? This is a honest question because you are saying it gave a nuanced answer when we all, should, know that it’s horribly wrong and awful.
What you are thinking about is child abuse. A pedophile is not bound to bcome an abuser.
Abusing a child is wrong. Feeling the urge to do so doesn’t make someone evil, so long as they recognize it’s wrong to do so. The best way to stop kids from being abused is to teach why it is wrong and help those with the urges to manage them. Calling people evil detracts from that goal.
when we all, should, know that it’s horribly wrong and awful. [sic, the word “should” shouldn’t be between commas]
This assumes two things:
- Some kind of universal, inherent and self evident morality; None of these things are true, as evidence by the fact most people do believe murder is wrong, yet there are wars, events entirely dedicated to murdering people. People do need to be told something wrong is wrong in order to know so. Maybe some of these people were never exposed to the moral consensus or, worse yet, were victims themselves and as a result developed a distorted sense of morality;
- Not necessarily all, but some of these divergents are actually mentally ill - their “inclination” isn’t a choice any more than being schizofrenic or homosexual† would be. That isn’t a defense to their actions, but a recognition that without social backing and help, they could probably never overcome their nature.
† This is not an implication that homosexuality is in any way, or should in any way, be classified as a mental illness. It’s an example of a primary individual characteristic not derived from choice.
