Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 2
Awhile back we were talking about how advertisers were bailing on X because Reasons (usually lame ones meant to cover over their disdain of Elon Musk). I had mentioned that Instagram was the true home of child predation...and what do you know.
Not only was I right, but Instagram and parent company Meta knew about it. And did...nothing.
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/02/26/instagra...Meta/Facebook/Instagram has knowingly been facilitating child predators purchasing sexualized content from children and they decided to do nothing to stop it.
After all, there is real money to be made selling sexualized images to kids. Money for the kids, their moms, and for Instagram.More:
https://www.wsj.com/tech/meta-staff-found-instagra...Meta Platforms META 0.08%increase; green up pointing triangle safety staff warned last year that new paid subscription tools on Facebook and Instagram were being misused by adults seeking to profit from exploiting their own children.
Two teams inside Meta raised alarms in internal reports, after finding that hundreds of what the company calls “parent-managed minor accounts” were using the subscription feature to sell exclusive content not available to nonpaying followers. The content, often featuring young girls in bikinis and leotards, was sold to an audience that was overwhelmingly male and often overt about sexual interest in the children in comments on posts or when they communicated with the parents, according to people familiar with the investigations, which determined that the payments feature was launched without basic child-safety protections.But what did Meta do about it?
Meta didn’t pursue those proposals, the people said, and instead chose to build an automated system to prevent suspected pedophiles from being given the option to subscribe to parent-run accounts. The technology didn’t always work, and the subscription ban could be evaded by setting up a new account.
While it was still building the automated system, Meta expanded the subscriptions program as well as the tipping feature, called “gifts,” to new markets. A Wall Street Journal examination also found instances of misuse involving the gifts tool.Eww. Instead of shutting this down or being aggressive at policing it...they kind of went the other direction.
Nothing will come of this since the advertiser boycott of X is a political reaction to Musk's takeover and subsequent revelation of widespread censorship. You won't see Disney, for example, reduce its ad buys on Insta.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I, for one, never defended those platforms, either. Musk is a trainwreck, and he's taken an already-questionable platform (Twitter) and made it worse. But I am also not a fan of Instagram or FB. I actually deleted my FB account, and I will not ever click on an FB link again. Zuckerberg is not getting any profit from my activities.
So, am I surprised? No. There is very little policing on those sites, and the stream of effluent is copious. I would not be sad if all of them ceased to exist today. They were a cool idea, in principle, but...people. People suck, and they dragged those platforms down with them.
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 4
“parent-managed minor accounts”
DeSantis' Surgeon General for the great state of Florida says parents are the ultimate deciders of their childrens well-being. MAGA screams bloody murder when social media companies curtail the blatant lies published by MAGA.
MAGA says child rape victims must man-up and bear the product of rape.
MAGA religionists support Trump the rapist, a who gloated on radio about invading the dressing rooms of his teen beauty pageants.
MAGA ain't getting any gold star for consistency in its child-advocacy efforts.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Interesting. Your TDS runs *that* deep.
Anyway, back to the content of the thread.
Here's the NYT.
Thousands of accounts examined by The Times offer disturbing insights into how social media is reshaping childhood, especially for girls, with direct parental encouragement and involvement. Some parents are the driving force behind the sale of photos, exclusive chat sessions and even the girls' worn leotards and cheer outfits to mostly unknown followers. The most devoted customers spend thousands of dollars nurturing the underage relationships.
I'm glad you typed the images of the girls didn’t involve nudity or other illegal content, Meta’s staffers found evidence that some parents understood they were producing content for other adults’ sexual gratification as your way to wave your hands past what Meta is doing here. It says a lot.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yes, Trump's derangement runs very deep. Even deeper than Taylor-Greene or Lake (and those two are about as BSC as anyone can be).
No. of Recommendations: 4
Meta’s staffers found evidence that some parents understood they were producing content for other adults’ sexual gratification as your way to wave your hands past what Meta is doing here.
Dope - do you think Meta and Instagram should restrict the ability of parents to post this content? Do you think that such restrictions would be allowed under the Texas legislation that was before SCOTUS today?
This is exactly the content that causes the most arguments about online censorship. Not illegal, and which overlaps considerably with utterly innocuous content. It's the context of the content which creates the potential for harm, and it's exceptionally difficult to come up with a way to police that without exactly the type of Trust and Safety infrastructure that conservatives detest about social media companies.
So - what's your take? Is this something that we let parents decide for themselves and their children, even though that means that there's a non-trivial chance that some parent(s) may end up causing harm to their kids? Or is it something that we empower the Tech Giants to decide for themselves what they want to allow, even though much (most?) of the content they end up banning is not harmful?
No. of Recommendations: 2
The sexualizing of children has a long history. Remember Jon-Benet Ramsey (hope I spelled that right)? Child beauty pageant winner, ended up murdered. But there was a lot of fuss about the child beauty pageants after that story broke. As there should be. They made up those little girls to look like high-class hookers (make up, dresses, hair, heels). If you ask me, those pageants should be banned. There is no nudity, but it is blatant sexualizing of minors. In my book, that isn't cool.
News organizations usually blur-out the images of minors. Perhaps we could require the same thing for social media. Parental consent or not, you can't post pictures of your kids that aren't blurred. Normally I wouldn't say that is necessary, but if what apparently is happening on FB is true, then we should put a stop to the whole thing. Yes, it punishes some folks who aren't doing anything wrong, but it stops the questionable behavior in its tracks.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Parental consent or not, you can't post pictures of your kids that aren't blurred.
------------
My daughter posts a lot of pictures of the grandkids, school events, camping with scouts, boating with family on Tam[a Bay, pictures of them playing chess with their grandpa, etc.
Those picture would be worthless with blurred images.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Parental consent or not, you can't post pictures of your kids that aren't blurred. Normally I wouldn't say that is necessary, but if what apparently is happening on FB is true, then we should put a stop to the whole thing. Yes, it punishes some folks who aren't doing anything wrong, but it stops the questionable behavior in its tracks.
But that's not going to happen. Really? I can't post a picture of my kid on the internet for the grandparents to see, even though there are literally billions of pictures of kids on the internet - to say nothing of the millions (?) of kids that appear in films, television shows, advertisements, print photos...even just crowd shots on the street? If I think it's fine for my son's grandmother to post a picture of them having ice cream together on her FB account (I don't have one) or snapshots of all of us walking around Disney together, should FB overrule that?
That's why these issues are so complex. The category of content - non-indecent photos of minors - is not itself objectionable. And is massively engaged in by nearly every family in the country with any type of online presence. But in certain contexts, it can be extremely harmful.
Which.....what to do? That's why I put the question to Dope. The tech giant's approach to these thorny questions has been to have well-staffed Trust and Safety departments that are trying to make these fine distinctions, so that you don't inadvertently ban classical artworks that happen to have putti in the background while trying to enforce your rules. But conservatives are really, really upset at the idea that these companies aren't operating like common carriers, where anything not illegal should be allowed. How to thread that needle?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Dope1: Interesting. Your TDS runs *that* deep.
Hardly. Answer the question. How are Trump's photos with his scantily clad tween and teenage daughter in bed with him or on his lap not the exact kinds of photographs that are mentioned in your article?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Which.....what to do? That's why I put the question to Dope. The tech giant's approach to these thorny questions has been to have well-staffed Trust and Safety departments that are trying to make these fine distinctions, so that you don't inadvertently ban classical artworks that happen to have putti in the background while trying to enforce your rules. But conservatives are really, really upset at the idea that these companies aren't operating like common carriers, where anything not illegal should be allowed. How to thread that needle?My answer is this:
Meta knew that accounts of known pedos were having inappropriate chats with kids and they further knew that their models were promoting this stuff. They at any time could have applied any and all of the throttling techniques they have available to them to slow the spread. Or, demonetized it altogether. They made a conscious choice to profit off of shady parents exploiting their kids.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/us/instagram-ch...(Or use
https://archive.is/CFVlH)
Thousands of accounts examined by The Times offer disturbing insights into how social media is reshaping childhood, especially for girls, with direct parental encouragement and involvement. Some parents are the driving force behind the sale of photos, exclusive chat sessions and even the girls’ worn leotards and cheer outfits to mostly unknown followers. The most devoted customers spend thousands of dollars nurturing the underage relationships.If you're Meta, is this really what you want your platform used for?
Account owners who report explicit images or potential predators to Instagram are typically met with silence or indifference, and those who block many abusers have seen their own accounts’ ability to use certain features limited, according to the interviews and documents. In the course of eight months, The Times made over 50 reports of its own about questionable material and received only one response.So to your point, Meta isn't doing much of any policing on this.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hardly.
Yes, it does. Your question is spurious, given that Instagram wasn't even a thing whenever that photo was taken.
Get some help, you need it.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Meta knew that accounts of known pedos were having inappropriate chats with kids and they further knew that their models were promoting this stuff. They at any time could have applied any and all of the throttling techniques they have available to them to slow the spread. Or, demonetized it altogether. They made a conscious choice to profit off of shady parents exploiting their kids.
Do you think they should have the power to censor those parents, though? The arguments being made in support of the Texas law (and to a lesser extent the Florida law) are to the effect that the big social media companies are common carriers - that they should not be allowed to pick and choose their content. Should Meta or Instagram have the right to banish content just because they feel it's harmful, even though it's perfectly legal?
No. of Recommendations: 0
Do you think they should have the power to censor those parents, though?
If a parent is knowingly trafficking their child? Absolutely. The question to ask is why isn't that a prominent part of their Terms of Service?
The arguments being made in support of the Texas law (and to a lesser extent the Florida law) are to the effect that the big social media companies are common carriers - that they should not be allowed to pick and choose their content. Should Meta or Instagram have the right to banish content just because they feel it's harmful, even though it's perfectly legal?
They're already doing this and have been for years, often at the behest of the federal government. How much reach did you get if you posted in 2021 that COVID-19 started in a lab?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Those picture would be worthless with blurred images.
I agree. But if the allegations are true, then it's a case of "some people spoil it for everyone". Like I said, people suck.
No. of Recommendations: 5
If a parent is knowingly trafficking their child? Absolutely. The question to ask is why isn't that a prominent part of their Terms of Service?
It is part of their TOS. The issue is that the behavior described in the Times article isn't "knowingly trafficking their child." Parents posting pictures of their kids is permissible under the ToS - in fact, I suspect that literally millions of parents do that all the time. What's squicky about the instances described in the Times article are the interactions and discussions and transactions surrounding that content - but again, nothing illegal or "trafficking" about them, and probably nothing that violates the ToS.
I suspect the main reason these accounts aren't a violation of ToS is because they aren't actually the accounts of minors - they're nominally the accounts of the parents. And many of the most sickening quotes from the Times piece weren't on IG or FB, but on Telegram and other less monitored sites. If the creeps aren't doing the creepy stuff on IG or FB, it's not a violation of their ToS - and if they're interacting only with adults, and not the minors themselves, then there's probably very little that's a violation of their ToS.
They're already doing this and have been for years, often at the behest of the federal government. How much reach did you get if you posted in 2021 that COVID-19 started in a lab?
Right - and conservatives have been complaining that they shouldn't be doing this for years.
Do you agree with that position? That the tech companies shouldn't get to decide for themselves what they want on their site, and ban/demonetize the things they determine they want to get rid of?
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is part of their TOS. The issue is that the behavior described in the Times article isn't "knowingly trafficking their child." Parents posting pictures of their kids is permissible under the ToS - in fact, I suspect that literally millions of parents do that all the time. What's squicky about the instances described in the Times article are the interactions and discussions and transactions surrounding that content - but again, nothing illegal or "trafficking" about them, and probably nothing that violates the ToS.
They're enabling chats with minors and selling their clothes, plus facilitating other transactions on what sounds like a gross version of Only Fans. Plus there's what the adults are saying to the kids, which is actionable in and of itself...
Right - and conservatives have been complaining that they shouldn't be doing this for years.
Censoring valid political commentary, yes. Trafficking kids? Heck no.
Do you agree with that position?
I would rather they not censor valid speech. However, as we've seen, the tech companies are very willing to put their thumbs on the scales so as to advance a particular political worldview.
A few years ago I would have said, "Fine, go make another platform". But Apple and others conspired to kill Parlor* so there needs to be some action taken.
(some will jump in here with irrelevant factoids about it, and in so doing miss the point completely).
No. of Recommendations: 2
Which.....what to do?
What about requiring a poster of photos of minors to approve every potential viewer?
If Mom wants Jeffrey Epstein to view her child, she has to positively grant Epstein access.
No. of Recommendations: 6
They're enabling chats with minors and selling their clothes, plus facilitating other transactions on what sounds like a gross version of Only Fans. Plus there's what the adults are saying to the kids, which is actionable in and of itself...
They're not enabling chats with the minors. The minors aren't the account holders. If adults are selling their kids' used clothing, that's certainly gross but almost certainly not a violation of the ToS. Most of the grossest discussion from the NYT article is between the creeps on Telegram, not creeps saying creepy things to actual minors on FB.
I think the behavior described in the Times piece is disgusting (especially the Telegram conversations), and I think the parents are most definitely not protecting their kids. But it's hard to see how any of that is a violation of FB/IG TOS....or even how you would draft a TOS that could address this. If an account draws a gross "fan base," that's not a justification to ban the account; and if the gross "fan base" isn't doing anything that itself violates the TOS on the site, you can't ban the fan base just because they're saying gross things on another site.
I would rather they not censor valid speech. However, as we've seen, the tech companies are very willing to put their thumbs on the scales so as to advance a particular political worldview.
Then why this post? If you don't think FB/IG ought to censor, why are you pointing out that they're not censoring these adults - or the adults they communicate with? And if you think they ought to censor, why don't they get to choose what they want to censor or not? After all, it's their site....
No. of Recommendations: 4
What about requiring a poster of photos of minors to approve every potential viewer?
Does that apply to, say, NBC posting a Young Sheldon clip? GapKids posting their online catalog? ESPN posting stills or video from the Little League World Series? Must we hide away every single child from the public square - absent an express (and certainly unworkably burdensome) "opt-in" process that has to be done individually?
Tying this in (tangentially) to "Atheist" shrewds, this is the path that leads to the burqa and other "modesty" requirements and taboos. In order to avoid the risk that someone might be the object of inappropriate lust from another person, the response is to hide the innocent person - conceal them from everyone and society at large, lest they be the cause of some untoward urges. If there's nothing wrong with a picture of a kid, and the parents want to post the picture of the kid, who are third parties to come in and veto that because somewhere out in the world there are creepy people?
No. of Recommendations: 1
What about requiring a poster of photos of minors to approve every potential viewer?
If Mom wants Jeffrey Epstein to view her child, she has to positively grant Epstein access. - sano
----------------
I like that idea. But doesn't Facebook have that feature in the sense you can mark photos as private and only available to people you have friended.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not only was I right, but Instagram and parent company Meta knew about it. And did...nothing.
The entire right wing knew about 'grab 'em by the pussy' and did... nothing.
Drip drip clap
No. of Recommendations: 4
"....who are third parties to come in and veto that because somewhere out in the world there are creepy people? .."
Especially when they elected Mr.'grab'em by the pussy,' and continue to support him despite a jury finding him liable for sexually assaulting a woman... and then defaming her for revealing that he did it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
...doesn't Facebook have...
Quien sabe? I'm not that familiar with the FB system.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Quien sabe? I'm not that familiar with the FB system.
You have 7 choices and you can create custom lists and choose for each post. I always exclude the general public (default). If you aren't a friend, you cannot see my posts.
