Facebook Asks Users: Should We Allow Men To Ask Children For Sexual Images? (theguardian.com) 386
Alex Hern, writing for The Guardian: Facebook has admitted it was a "mistake" to ask users whether paedophiles requesting sexual pictures from children should be allowed on its website. On Sunday, the social network ran a survey for some users asking how they thought the company should handle grooming behaviour. "There are a wide range of topics and behaviours that appear on Facebook," one question began. "In thinking about an ideal world where you could set Facebook's policies, how would you handle the following: a private message in which an adult man asks a 14-year-old girl for sexual pictures." The options available to respondents ranged from "this content should not be allowed on Facebook, and no one should be able to see it" to "this content should be allowed on Facebook, and I would not mind seeing it." A second question asked who should decide the rules around whether or not the adult man should be allowed to ask for such pictures on Facebook. Options available included "Facebook users decide the rules by voting and tell Facebook" and "Facebook decides the rules on its own."
It's a trap! (Score:2)
Re:It's a trap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not flamebait! Just look at all the Female Teacher Sleeps With Student articles that are out there.... And it isn't just women sleeping with highschool boys; there have been incidents where women have been sleeping with highschool girls as well.
Re:It's a trap! (Score:4, Funny)
Geez, WHERE were all these teachers back when "I" was in school?!?!
I mean, the ones we're seeing on TV are *HOT* too!!!
Frankly, I dunno how they're getting caught....I mean, what boy in his right mind would be turning in his hot chick teacher that he's banging???
Man, if that has been me back in JH or HS....I'd been a hero amongst my peers....
Man...kids don't know how good they have it today....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, none of my friends back in the day would have snitched me out either....
REmember, friends help you move..
.REAL friends help you move bodies....
Re:It's a trap! (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't seem to find stats on the percentage of female pedophiles. But I'd argue that the number is likely under reported because the boys don't care/complain.
As for the age, I'd agree that 17 isn't it, but then what age is? I don't think we're discussing statutory rape cases here, but the ages vary from state to state in the US in regards to how old you need to be to legally consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is: "It varies" and so as a matter of setting public policy picking a number like 16 being the age of consent, makes all kinds of sense. Some people develop much sooner other puberty onset might not be much before 16, but by 16 barring really abnormal otherwise obvious health conditions pretty much everyone will be physically speaking ready for sex.
Now as far as mental and social maturity that varies a lot too. There are plenty of 16 year olds who are capable of navigating most adult situations
Re: (Score:2)
"No I am big states rights guy - so I loath to say this but these *might* be one of those things where we ought to have a federal law."
Agreed. I generally like the fact that we've got 50 unique labs to experiment in, but this shouldn't be one of those things to tinker with. I do look forward to the results of the ongoing changes to pot laws...that's gonna be interesting over time.
Re:It's a trap! (Score:5, Informative)
Incoming rant:
Until someone is able to negotiate and establish the boundaries of consent before sexual congress occurs, and is enthusiastic in maintaining those boundaries for all partners, they are mentally and socially unprepared for sex. I think 18 represents an age where a young person is both able to endure the devastating effects of a poorly informed and structured sexual life, and also is able to sign contracts for loans and take financial responsibility for a child if one were to occur. Not that either of these outcomes are optimal, it's just the most convenient age to put the responsibility and consequences strictly on the individual. Before that it is the parent's responsibility. Sadly many children do not achieve sexual escape velocity by that age and repeat the same mistakes, or interrelated aftereffects of their parent's mistakes, until they either learn better (negative reinforcement) or transform themselves.
You cannot maintain a child's innocence though ignorance. Teach the basics, like consent discussion, as early as possible. Of course this means you need to be speaking to someone with near encyclopedic knowledge of sexual anatomy, practices, and sexual health. These are the precursors to the basics of sex education. If your child does not know all about these things from you, backed up by authoritative and 100% factual knowledge, and they are of the age where this is relevant to their experience of life, you are failing your child as their parent and opening the door for them to experience abuse.
In short, if you are not having frank, open, structured, and cogent discussions about human sexuality with your children you are failing them. You will be the reason they get an STD, get raped, or cause a pregnancy. You will be the reason they are confused, shamed, and conflicted. You will be the reason they cannot express themselves sexually, why they are passive and submissive rather than self assured (being passive and submissive AND self assured is a very different thing), and you will open them up to manipulation and subversion.
Be advised, due to many social influences your child will receive a full sex education by the age of 7-9 years old, whether you want them to or not. If you do not provide the proper information, someone else will provide improper information. First in last out rules apply, so be prepared to spend an inordinate amount of time correcting assumptions based on incorrect information that gets there first. Delay is your enemy. Your conflicted thoughts are also dangerous. Your squeamishness and inability to act and deal with the reality of your child's sexual health can have lifelong consequences that are not only physical but emotional and psychological as well.
For your child's sake, and for the sake of the rest of us who have to live in a world with your child, do your goddamned job as a parent. Thanks! /rant
Re: (Score:2)
I can't seem to find stats on the percentage of female pedophiles. But I'd argue that the number is likely under reported because the boys don't care/complain.
They may not complain, but they do boast.
Re: (Score:3)
In Scandinavia, the rules seem to be 12-14 year olds can do what they like, consensually, with each other, that 15 is the age of consent. France has similar rules, I think. Britain, the age of consent is 16. So she was legal when her first softcore pics came out. Far as I know, the rules haven't changed there.
In America, child brides are reportedly a major problem. Virginia only changed its rules last year so that marrying the victim of an assault doesn't mean the assault didn't happen. (There was nothing i
Re: (Score:3)
Britain: The age of consent is sixteen, but with two exceptions.
- If a position of trust or influence exists between the parties (eg, teacher/student) then the age goes up to eighteen.
- We do not have a formal close-in-age exception enshrined in law like some other jurisdictions do, but in there is a published policy from the home office that in such cases prosecution would not generally be considered in the public interest. That is, if a sixteen year old has sex with a fifteen year old, the police will giv
Re: (Score:3)
VA resident here.
The law used to be that young pregnant girl's parents could consent. Now, you have to be 18, or emancipated and 16 (via court order) or older. According to a Washington Post article, ~4500 girls under 18 were married in VA between 2004 and 2013, and the rule was being abused for forced marriages, statutory rape, and human trafficking. Virginia wasn't the only one. At least four other states introduced similar bills.
Re: (Score:3)
Non-existent?
https://www.theguardian.com/so... [theguardian.com] disagrees with you, and that doesn't take into account the very high percentage of women that like to play with the penis of male babies when they change a nappy.
Just because the justice system is inherently and excessively sexist doesn't mean that women don't commit crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
How on earth do you know that a "very high percentage of women like to play with the penis of male babies when they change a nappy"??
I mean, I can't even see where you would get this idea, much less where you'd get the evidence from. And I sure as shit ain't searching for *that* online.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I only came to this entry to see if anyone else had made this same observation.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
And it's sexist. There are plenty of female pedophiles.
It doesn't matter.... statistics could probably tell them which kind of situation is likely to be a more common issue.
I think surveying users should be fine, BUT regardless of the survey results, this is illegal behavior, and Facebook needs to report it to law enforcement and attempt to mitigate the damage if it occurs.
Re:It's a trap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes really.
Re: (Score:2)
If only US megacorps had a sense of humour.
Re: (Score:2)
If only US megacorps had a sense of humour.
They are primitive organisms. They have developed a rapacious hunger, ferocious attack skills, excellent camouflage, and the best know their way around their primary feeding grounds - the court system. Even so, they haven't developed anything like social awareness, shame, or a conscience. They won't develop a sense of humor any time in the foreseeable future... if they don't go extinct. That's something else they lack - an awareness of the fragility of their environment.
Not Necessary To Ask (Score:3)
Apparently teen girls just post pics of themselves naked without even being asked.
My kid's school even had a whole initiative, if you will, to educate the middle schoolers why it's a bad idea to take pics of themselves naked. Usual reasons..."friends" redistributing, lost or stolen phones, hacked accounts. This was around the time of the Great Fappening.
Re: (Score:3)
32? It was actually 20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No Facebook (Score:4, Interesting)
Actual crimes should not be allowed on Facebook.
Is it that hard to get?
Re:No Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, this not just plain robbery or murder, this is a crime that has SEX in it!!! Don't you know it makes it much more severe?
Re: (Score:2)
Devils Advocate here. Why is it wrong to ask that? Is it wrong to ask "hey anyone on here want to rob a bank?" or "anyone on here want to commit tax fraud?" or "anyone on here want to kill someone?"? Assuming yes, well, at least you're consistent, but I would argue that it should never be wrong to ask a question, no matter the question.
The obvious thing you are missing is the underage status.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So all one has to do is to watch Jeopardy and frame solicitation for murder as a question. " Would you kill my wife for 1 million dollars? ".
Wrong. If you were following the jeopardy model, you would post "Yes, I would", and accept as correct the question "would you pay me $1 million to kill your wife?" That's how Jeopardy works: answer first, question second.
Re: (Score:2)
Automatically blocking both would once again prompt EU nations to complain. Some where asking for such imagery isn't a crime, and many others where even an automated word-pattern-block is a crime to perform on a private "direct" message.
So let them complain. There MIGHT be complaints, but complaining is as far as it'll go. FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Facebook requires kids to be 13 or older, unless they are in a jurisdiction that imposes additional restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:3)
I thought this would have already decided by federal law? It doesn't seem like it is even up to Facebook or its userbase.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought this would have already decided by federal law? It doesn't seem like it is even up to Facebook or its userbase.
Facebook's customers are international and, unfortunately, pedophilia is not universally banned.
What's not legal in the US may be perfectly allowed, and even considered normal, in other parts of the world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's not legal in the US may be perfectly allowed, and even considered normal, in other parts of the world.
I have no problem with enforcing US pedophilia standards on all FB users regardless of the laws where they're located. Just because it may be legal doesn't mean FB has to allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice sig! I don't know why I call him Gerold
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or universally defined.
Pedo Bear Bait (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, how do you plan to deal with that child when Mr. Perv offers to pay them, or give them something that mommy and daddy won't? Sure, teach your kids, but sheesh, don't give them access or you'll be asking for trouble.
How did this happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. How? How did anyone at any level of the company think this was a good idea for long enough that it made it out into public view?
Talk about being asleep at the wheel. How many in management are now going to claim ignorance when confronted with this?
Re:How did this happen? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's fair to label every Facebook user as dumb. I think a lot of people use it more or less reasonably and that the base concept (minus timeline manipulation, ads, fake news, personal information selling, etc) isn't unreasonable.
I think most people just don't realize how badly Facebook trolls/manipulates them, especially people who were relatively early adopters and may be biased by "early" Facebook memories when it was a much less manipulative platform.
My hope is that Facebook can't figure ou
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand the surprise. Do you think Facebook management goes to church on sundays and PTA meetings at their kids' school?
In the UK, families apparently let their daughters be passed around by groups of foreign men, with the knowledge and tolerance of the police. Facebook might not be that progressive yet, but maybe they're working on it.
When did Facebook ever actually do the right thing? If they started doing the right thing, wouldn't that be the surprise?
Re: How did this happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Law enforcement wanted to make sure that the community of "Asian immigrants" was not negatively viewed by the public.
As a result they knowingly buried the investigations, stopped prosecution and arrests, and let these "Asian immigrants" continue to groom, abuse, drug, kidnap, sexually traffic, gang rape, and kill underage British children.
This is not what Progressive means, but it is exactly what Progressive thought does. It prioritizes the wrong things for the right reasons. Like when it tries to cure cultural divides by enforced racism. Or when it tries to punish male sexual predators by casting all men as the problem. Or when it tries to enforce diversity through explicit discrimination.
In this case your brain is overwhelmed by the injustice of innocent children being raped. This sets off alarms that you cannot silence, even through the conveniently provided self-justifying lies of "privilege" and "rape culture." When it is white people, or men, or even better, just white and Asian men, you have been provided with a narrative that anesthetizes your injustice meter. Fortunately there isn't one for raping kids, at least not on this side of the Atlantic.
Glad to know you still know to draw the line somewhere. Those law enforcement officers in England were steeped in progressive thought with regard to "Asian immigrants" and they really lost their way.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is ok for women. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Research the phrase "protected class", which appears to comprise about 75% of the US population.
Re: (Score:2)
The implicature is that if an adult "woman" asks for an explicit picture of a boy or a girl it is OK.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
2. You probably meant to use the word "implication", but even that word doesn't make sense in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
1. "implicature" is not a word. 2. You probably meant to use the word "implication", but even that word doesn't make sense in this context.
1. Yes, it is.
2. No, I didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. This is an example of a loaded question that's mean to get a specific response.
To your point, people do tend to find adult women pursuing underage boys to be less offensive than adult men pursuing underage girls, so phrasing the question with the genders reversed would probably result in a fewer people saying it was offensive.
The person who wrote the question most likely chose what they felt was the most offensive example in order to sway people toward giving the response that it is not accepta
Sounds like CYA? (Score:2)
Ask survey questions whose answers you already know. Get cover for policies you were going to make anyway, if you haven't already.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying I think this is what FB is doing.
You don't need to ask permission to do good. (Score:2)
You don't need permission to do the right thing. However you should inform others that you are doing such actions, to help prevent mistakes from being made.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is more Modern Western Culture morality, then christian morality. The Age of Consent has historically been in flux. However it normally trends to older then younger. Especially as science points to developmental issues, in the brain showing that younger children are not good at decision making. Also to note in cultures with a younger consent age, people were put together for political and strategic reasons, not because of Love or sexual preference. And such marriages at a young age often reco
Hmm... (Score:2)
The move to raise the Age of Consent in the 19th century in the UK and parts of the US came from a concern by Christians to prevent 12-15 year old prostitutes.
Re: (Score:3)
Good spot (Score:2)
The Christian argument is more subtle - the primary reason to oppose such images is 'objectification'; there isn't a Christian position on Age of Consent per se, the Christian objection is to fornication. IF the local culture is supportive and constructive about younger brides, then from first principles Christianity doesn't have a big objection. The raising of the Age of Consent in the UK and parts of the USA in the 19th century was a measure aimed at child prostitution.
Hastert Rule (Score:2)
It's kind of funny watching this vast social media platform, which has grown up without any moral guidance whatsoever, stumble all over itself trying to find some sort of social conscience at this late stage.
It's like one of those feral kids who grows up locked in their parents' basement and then is released at age 23, a 200 lb baby who has never played with other children. I imagine Facebook will eventually figure this stuff out, but only if they can be motivated out of fear for its existence. I don't th
How about NO! (Score:2)
If you have to even think about it there is a problem.
Why no thinking? (Score:2)
Given that most historic societies had ages of consent or 14 or less, this can be argued to be a classic piece of Western cultural imperialism. As a conservative Christian, I can argue that my faith makes the matter clear - asking ANYONE for a sexually explicit picture over the internet is clearly wrong according to Christian morality. What's your reason - other than 'everyone agrees it's wrong' (except they don't...).
We are just visible for it (Score:3)
Overall there's no evidence that Christians are more sexually deviant - but inevitably given that we actually take morality seriously and people prefer to avoid the topic, we rightly get accused of hypocrisy when we do get caught. And Rome's insistence of clerical celibacy and their cover up of child abuse has been a disaster. But overall:
'It's far more fun to point your finger than recognise your own failings'...
Age of consent is less than 14 (Score:2)
The world is not America, where kids can buy guns but they can't have sex or drink beer. Other countries have much lower ages of consent, at or below 14 years of age.
Shhh (Score:4, Funny)
Americans don't believe the rest of the world exists - you might give them a nasty surprise
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans don't want Americans to exist....until they threaten to withdraw from NATO or enact trade tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in English it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we are being pedantic: America is two continents, not a continent.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they did not ask for 16 (Score:2)
While this question is not interesting for 14, it is interesting for 16, where different countries have different laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any countries that are not complete shitholes where the age of consent is lower than 16?
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. A few examples:
- Japan, South Korea, Argentina: 13
- Germany, Italy, Austria, Portugal, much of South America, China: 14
- France, Sweden, Denmark, Greece: 15
Quite often, there are some qualifications to this (e.g. if you are much older, you may still get into trouble), but generally, this at least allows youths to have consensual sex without fear of criminal retribution (e.g. from parents that don't approve of the relationship complaining to the police). What use is it to society to punish a 15-
Re: (Score:3)
In Israel, where I live, a 14 year old is allowed to have sex with someone less than 19. I am talking about something completely without qualifications. Note that the question was talking about an adult and a 14 year old, not about a teeanger and a 14 year old.
Re: (Score:2)
In Italy, it is from 14 generally, with just a restrictions on teachers, etc. For Germany, it is pretty much also from 14. There are restrictions on older sex partners that are considered "guardians" (e.g. sports coaches). Furthermore, if you are over 21 and your sex partner is 14 or 15, their parents can file charges against you. However, you would only be convicted if the 14/15-year old was deemed not to be capable of sexual self-determination. Austria and Portugal have very similar rules to Germany
Re: (Score:2)
What use is it to society to punish a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old that are in a relationship for having consensual sex?
The assumption is that the 15- and 16-year-old are too young to handle sex responsibly, and will as a result end up with either disease or pregnancy. Since society as a whole is better off with less disease and less unwanted pregnancies, preventing 15- and 16-year-olds from having sex presumably results in a net gain for society.
The reality is that the policing, punishment, and resulting "destroyed lives" from banning this consensual sex is probably even more detrimental to society as a whole, but getting
Re: (Score:2)
I think proper sex education at a sufficiently early age is better at preventing diseases or pregnancy than threatening imprisonment.
Statistics on teen pregnancies support this: the US with its strict policies has 41 teenage pregnancies per 1,000 women between 15 and 19, whereas Germany and Italy with their more liberal attitudes and laws have only 9 and 7 teenage pregnancies per 1,000 women, respectively.
However, the age of consent is not what drives this - Argentina with its early age of consent has a ra
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not from the US and have travelled multiple times to various South American countries, so please drop the insults. Just because I mention various countries under one geographic term does not mean they are not different countries. None of the other continents are as homogenous regarding the age of consent, though.
By the way, I am pretty sure you are mistaken about the 16 years in Brazil. It seems to be clearly 14 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
According to Wikipedia, most of South America ha
Re: (Score:2)
OK, that's interesting. I was surprised to see Japan on this list with such a low age given my experiences with Japanese culture (but I have no experience with that aspect, so did not review more carefully).
Re: (Score:2)
Define shithole.
That said...this is just North & Central America, there are many more.
Mexico (as low as 12 in some parts)
Aruba 15
Canada...it's 16 now, but was 14 until 2008
Honduras 14
St Maarten 15
Women are predators too (Score:2)
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictur... [cbsnews.com]
A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an option (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's their TOS, and as a member, they don't need a court order to read your messages.
Re: (Score:2)
But can they break any encryption the user can use? After all you can put ANY text into a facebook message field:
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
owE7bZjEEDV3vqRnmkJlfqlCcmKeQlFqYopCSUZmsQ5YKDczPaNEISlVIVEhL7Uo
RY8LAA==
=4NpZ
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
It isn't actually encrypted of course, just an example of what could be done if someone actually encrypted a message. Facebook makes it easy to share gpg keys.
Great now we can't discuss the topic (Score:2)
1. Identify the problem
2. Gather facts
3. Discuss how bad the problem is
4. Think of various solutions
5. Evaluate each solution based on cost and side effects
Unless the topic is race, sex, any oppressed group or the environment. Then just stop at 1, allow everyone's opinions to have equal merit (if they agree with you) and scream for punishment. We have had these problems for a very long time. There is a reason we haven't solved them and most of the blame goes to the people
The second /. article today... (Score:2)
Interesting question (Score:2)
How would they catch people asking minors for nudes? How frequently are they scraping IM conversations right now as it is? Would the filtering only be placed on conversations of accounts who have identified themselves as under 18? What about people that lied about their age online?
While I certainly don't condone people trying to get n
in an ideal world... (Score:3)
In any sensible world, that is handled the same way it was handled for the telephone system: communications providers don't listen in on private conversations without a court order. We used to impose severe penalties for that kind of eavesdropping.
And, thank you, Facebook for being at least so open about it. People have a choice in communications platforms and "Communicate on Facebook--We Give You More Surveillance than the Stasi! Now with AI!" is a really catchy sales pitch. Let's see how that works out for you.
Sure, as long as (Score:2)
AI? (Score:2)
This is what happens when you let "ai" generate your questions for you based on website stats'n'usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Sexual exploitation of _anyone_ is a crime.
Sexual exploitation of children is a crime. Sexual exploitation of young women is practically its own porn genre.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are children allowed on Facebook?
Because marketing to children is profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are children allowed on Facebook?
Because marketing to children is profitable.
Again, why? How much money do they have? What kind of market presence do children command? Is it because they can nag their parents until the parents give in and buy them that $1400 phone so they can take nude selfies and share them on whatever platform is trending?
I am coming around to the position where parents should be required to pass a four year university level course in parenting before they're allowed to take on that challenge.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the trolls didn't win.
The fact that they're asking the question means they're trying to cast off legal liabilities associated with gruesome possibilities.
Youth on Facebook are quite impressionable, and youth is very vulnerable to sexual misdeeds of adults. IMHO, everyone under 18 on Facebook should have a mentoring sponsor, who's active and sees everything (including private messages) of the under 18 set. It's called parenting. After 18: you graduate and you're on your own, use condoms.
Re: (Score:2)
That rather takes European values and sets them on fire, supplanting them with values of a culture not exactly known for a lack of child abuse.
No, different cultures, different needs. Most cultures have got those needs hopelessly wrong and need to understand them better, but Europeans kicked the Puritans out and should not tolerate letting them back in. We need proper decisions, made to address each of the different proper needs, not some blanket standard that suits nobody.
If Facebook cannot cope with the f
Re: (Score:2)
And they'll just go back to doing what they did before Facebook lowered the age to 13: lie about their age. Kids do that, you know.
Like their parents, aunts and uncles, etc. So now, all the pedophiles can create accounts and pretend that they are 15, then court all the children they want, and the kids' parents will be none the wiser. Why do I have a feeling this wo
Re: (Score:2)
It is at -1 because the poster got modded down so many times that his/her posts automatically start at -1.