Facebook Asks Users: Should We Allow Men To Ask Children For Sexual Images? (theguardian.com)

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."

Comments

It's a trap!

[Nidi62]

For those who answered "this content should be allowed on Facebook, and I would not mind seeing it" to that specific question, they immediately saw Chris Hansen pop up on the "people you may know" list.

Re:It's a trap!

[dbialac]

And it's sexist. There are plenty of female pedophiles.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you choose to be an ass, does not mean I did not say what I meant.

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

I literally puked to death at your inability to grasp that "sleep with" literally has two meanings.

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook: "Hey, Chad, the intern. Here's our moderation policy. Enter each rule into the survey so we can see what people think."

Chad: "You got it, boss."

Yellow journalism including Slashdot: "Facebook thinks it might be OK ask kids for porn!"

Re:It's a trap!

[cayenne8]

Not flamebait! Just look at all the Female Teacher Sleeps With Student articles that are out there....

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:It's a trap!

[sexconker]

Yes really.

Re: It's a trap!

[DontBeAMoran]

If you literally puked to death, you would not have been able to post your message.

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

I literally died, irregardless.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

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???

Peer pressure; regretting being a man. Maybe also an indication of onsetting gayness.

I would never blow the whistle on my teacher (a she obviously) lover. Unfortunately as a teen I must not have been fuckable enough. I would have loved being 'abused' by my hot French language teacher.

Re:It's a trap!

[Lord Kano]

Indeed. I only came to this entry to see if anyone else had made this same observation.

LK

Re:It's a trap!

[fafalone]

"I'd been a hero amongst my peers"... and you don't understand how they're getting caught?

Re:It's a trap!

[cayenne8]

"I'd been a hero amongst my peers"... and you don't understand how they're getting caught?

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

beau confirmed ped0

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd been a hero amongst my peers"... and you don't understand how they're getting caught?

Well, none of my friends back in the day would have snitched me out either....

Yeah right. Let's just say that jealously is a bitch.

Re:It's a trap!

[dcw3]

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:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a pedant isn't much better than being a pedophile.

Re:It's a trap!

[Cederic]

Non-existent?
https://www.theguardian.com/so... 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:It's a trap!

[PaulRivers10]

It's hilarious that Chris Hansen's show was cancelled after he was caught fooling around with a coworker 32 years younger than himself.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cayenne you're a faggot.

Re:It's a trap!

[king neckbeard]

For the strict definition of "pedophilia," it'd be before puberty, so around 10-11 or younger.

Re:It's a trap!

[mysidia]

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

At whatever point physical sexual maturity is complete. So you could go by Tanner stages, for example.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of abuse on children is done by females. Mothers in particular. Ugly well documented peer reviewed truth.

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I literally puked to death at your inability to grasp that "sleep with" literally has two meanings."

Next time don't hit the enter key to send your message as you fall away from your keyboard from the puke.

Anyway, I figuratively puked to death at your inability to realize that everyone else knew full well that they weren't getting any sleeping done despite how they described it.

Any time people say "I slept with X" you know damned well they did more than sleep. If it was having visitors over for the night they'd describe it as "X slept over" and the like. And they'd avoid saying "X slept with O" because they know damned well what the commonly accepted connotations and assumptions are for that kind of phrase.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

REAL friends don't require your help moving bodies.

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

I identify as a zombie!.. Deal with it!

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas a moral human being turns your ass in as a killer.

Re:It's a trap!

[Lonewolf666]

If we're talking about the distinction between pedophiles and "normal" people, the appearance of sexual maturity would be the relevant factor.
I had to look up Tanner stages, but given the large variety between people's looks, I'd say Tanner IV or higher is where sexual attraction to the person is normal. And some people reach that stage way before 18.

The age limit of 18 still makes sense as a clear boundary. But even trying to suppress a discussion of what is appropriate makes no sense and is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent. That it is not binding for private venues such as Facebook is a problem.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pssst! Don't harsh the narrative.

Re:It's a trap!

[DarkOx]

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. There are also lots of them who are not. So again from a policy perspective picking a 'safe age' 18 where most people generally capable of decision making is reasonable. Saying adults can not engage in sexual relations with non-adults is perfectly reasonable as well because its a good protection for those less savy 16s and 17s out there. If you at least make some carve outs like if the difference in age is less than 36 months an over 18 can engage with a consenting under 18; many states do something exactly like.

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. I think historically it might have been reasonable to relax those age range protections in low population western and northern states like Alaska. The need to grow the population for economic prosperity out weighted some number of minors being taken advantage of, forced in arraigned marriages etc. Population growth (as in encouraging it) really isn't a concern today. So we probably should have one uniform set of rules, for everyone to know and live by.

Re:It's a trap!

[dcw3]

"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!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would pretty much exclude women from being capable of being pedophiles. Cause if the boy hasn't hit puberty yet, well, he isn't very useful.

Re:It's a trap!

[CronoCloud]

32? It was actually 20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:It's a trap!

[Hal_Porter]

If only US megacorps had a sense of humour.

Re:It's a trap!

[Khashishi]

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:It's a trap!

[jd]

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 in the rules about consent.) Apparently, according to The Grauniad, there are states with similar laws on the book.

America is ultra-puritanical when it comes to women's rights, but not so much when it comes to predator's rights.

I tend to think Europe has a much better grasp of rights than America. They tend to be universal rather than selective, although that's not always the case, and tend to be slightly more modern and slightly less religious. But this does not mean that they should be adopted globally for social media.

This is where child psychologists, psychologists specializing in social media, psychologists specializing in trauma and ethicists from around the globe should be getting together and debating the issue as experts in a relatively calm, relatively neutral atmosphere. They should then, as experts, jointly produce recommendations on different types of consent and the ages they are appropriate at under varying cultural environments if you want optimal mental health for all concerned and least harm.

Right now, people are throwing numbers around as though it's a circus act. These are people's lives, not mass entertainment. A wrong decision in either direction can cause incalculable damage. And the number isn't guaranteed to be fixed. France has a lot of problems, but it doesn't have significantly more than the Bible Belt. Norway isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better off than Virginia! But if Virginia followed Norway, would it be better? If the Bible Belt copied French laws, would that solve anything? Chances are, no. Different cultures produce different rates of emotional maturity.

We need a model that can tell us, for any given culture, what would be sensible for any given situation. With that, there's still practically no chance anyone (least of all Facebook) would make sensible decisions, but at least we'd have an idea of the impact of a decision and the harm likely done by it.

Obviously no number, however sophisticated, is going to replace consent, but as politicians have no grasp of consent, they can't really do anything useful about it.

Re:It's a trap!

[sheramil]

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.

Re:It's a trap!

[SuricouRaven]

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 give them a firm telling-off but won't throw them in jail.

Re:It's a trap!

[Cajun Hell]

Just look at all the Female Teacher Sleeps With Student articles that are out there

Nice.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

However, ass-raping with a billi-club is encouraged. If the Labor Party is in power, they even drive a rusty nail into the end.

Re:It's a trap!

[dcw3]

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:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Soooo...where do people post CP these days? (Asking for a friend)

Re:It's a trap!

[Dread_ed]

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:It's a trap!

[shilly]

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: It's a trap!

[shilly]

If FB and Chad couldn't spot this a mile off...I mean, the same problem is obviously going to happen with half a dozen other policy rulings. Racism, incitement to violence, terrorism, swatting. If that's how FB thought they'd resolve this, that was pretty fucking dumb

Re:It's a trap!

[Dread_ed]

Cultural differences between males and females result in different expressions externally. What occurs under the surface is more similar than you might think. Boasting is the only valid expression available to a male of a certain age who is assaulted by an older woman. Also, social expectation is that unaccompanied heterosexual males will welcome and respond to all sexual invitations from attractive females. Women have their bases covered, even if the age difference is drastic. See "MILF," "GILF," and "Cougar" for the relevant details.

So, boasting may not actually be boasting. It could be a cry for help, translated through the cultural matrix of what is available to young heterosexual males.

Re:It's a trap!

[Obfuscant]

It's hilarious that Chris Hansen's show was cancelled

"His affair came to light after a story was published by Radar Magazine, which documented his affair with a local news reporter 20 years his junior."

In 2013 Chris Hansen would have been about 53; twenty years his junior would put her at 33. Both were well above the age of consent, and the age difference is hardly significant. It appears no laws were broken, and there is no story here. What is hilarious about it? His show said nothing at all about married people having affairs, it was about people who would show up when a 22 year old (or so) lied about her age and asked them to.

Re:It's a trap!

[Dread_ed]

Speaking of Chris Hansen, shouldn't law enforcement solicit young children for naked photos on Facebook, and when they provide them, put them in jail?

It seems only fair. Clean up the supply side and demand will follow. Right?

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Entitled fatass cougars.

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Irregardless isnt a word

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Irregardless isnt a word

It is now.

Re:It's a trap!

[Dread_ed]

When the affair became public it, apparently, triggered a "morality clause" in his contract and he was fired.

Bwahahahahah! A journalist with a "morality clause" in their contract! OMFG I'm dying!

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly all the offenders in sexual assaults reported to law enforcement were male (96%).
- Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement, 7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

So there's that.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

All presidents of the United States have been male (100%)

What's your point?

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what she said but I still got it in irregardless.

Also my phone autocompleted the word "irregardless" for me.

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the kind of woman who is into sick stuff probably likes to do most of the penetrating.

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

"isnt" isn't a word, and your post wasn't a sentence since it didn't end in punctuation.

Re:It's a trap!

[morethanapapercert]

To be fair though, he was 53 at the time, making the mistress in her mid 30's. Cheating on your spouse is a slimy thing sure, but it's not in the same league as grooming and molesting "jailbait" youths. (which itself technically not pedophilia but rather ehebophilia.) Whether the youth is 8 or 14, the online predators are still deliberately and with great focus taking advantage of the youths naivete for their own pleasures.

Personally, as far as age of consent laws go, I favour "close in age exemption" for young people under 18. I don't think a 14 and 16 yr old having sexual activity with each other is inherently wrong, but a legal adult being sexual with someone under 16 (where the nominal age of consent is 18) very much is.

In my experience, once a person is old enough to want to, they are going to, if they get the opportunity. Our duty as parents and as members of our society is to make sure our youths are educated early and thoroughly so that, if they choose to be sexually active, they can do so safely and ethically.

Re: It's a trap!

[sound vision]

What if I'm a pedantophile? Slashdot would be like a dating site.

Re: It's a trap!

[sound vision]

The US does have "child brides" as was reported on Vice, but every state also has an age of consent law somewhere from 16 to 18, so sexual acts with a 12 year old bride are still illegal. Even if the marriage is legal.

Re: It's a trap!

[sound vision]

Sounds like a shitty contract, but when you are the public face of these morality investigations, I can see the reasoning behind it.

Re: It's a trap!

[Dread_ed]

Irrationally emotional self-righteous puritanical condemnation is something most Americans can get behind, and heartily support, regardless of whether or not they are part of the religious right. That is all the reasoning necessary to fire someone for participating in a consensual clandestine relationship with another adult. Not surprising that "morals clauses" in contracts were invented in the US.

If this were someplace civilized, like most of the rest of the world, no one would care, nor would they publicize such private matters as a huge scandal. For a country where we "value privacy" we sure like to dig into other people's business a whole hell of a lot.

Re:It's a trap!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I had an English teacher who occasionally would not wear a bra. Under a see-through knit sweater. On a cold day.

I always wondered if she knew why the boys got worse grades than girls in her class.

Re:It's a trap!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Social maturity, sadly, is now economic maturity- and I know a lot of people who aren't economically ready for sex before age 40 these days.

Re: It's a trap!

[baristabrian]

Islam âoeprophet,â Muhammad, fucked a 9-year old girl. The Muslims call it âoemarriage.â

Re:It's a trap!

[aquacrayfish]

Obvious answer: parents or the school board finds out, and game over. This isn't difficult, right?

Re:It's a trap!

[Whorhay]

Here, here!

Whenever I hear people talking about sheltering their kids and trying to keep them safe from adult content I have to correct them. I was raised in a pretty conservative and religious family. I attended a private Montessori school run by Nuns for K through 3rd grade. We didn't even have cable TV for the discovery channel. But I sure as hell knew what a plethora of lewd jokes meant by the time I was in 2nd grade and a buddy had a "girlfriend". I didn't understand all of it and how it all worked, but I certainly knew what went where and what the result was likely to be. What kids usually don't understand and reasonably have a hard time comprehending is the huge responsibilities that come with sex. Hell, I know plenty of adults that seemingly can't grasp that and take proper precautions.

Turns out that putting geeks in charge

[Anonymous Coward]

Of designing 21st century society, is no better than letting politicians or the media decide. Maybe worse.

It’s A Trap!

[Bigbutt]

Yea, should not be allowed, WTF?

[John]

Re:It’s A Trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but asking "WTF?" is no longer allowed. See how easy it is to turn the simple act of asking a question (no actions, just words) back against you?

Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

trololololo

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of what facebook does on this issue, the trolls won today. I don't know how, but they did, and it is hilarious.

Re:trololololo

[postbigbang]

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: trololololo

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making the assumption that the survey was thoughtfully considered. This shows a lack of understanding of business.

Re:trololololo

[jd]

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 fact that Europe left the Middle Ages, then Facebook shouldn't be there.

It may well be that for some cultures, the standards will be stricter than 18. There may be places where 21 plus a license would be suitable.

Britain has never had a problem with 16, Samantha Fox has repeatedly said in interviews that she was only hassled once (I think by an American) and she kneed him in the nuts before throwing him to the ground. Good. It would be good if every girl, by age 16 or even 12, had basic self-defense, a strong kicking foot and a reinforced toe cap on their shoes. Solve a lot of problems. If Britain feels that's entirely appropriate, then provided psychologists and ethicists from multiple countries actually back that up and say that it's ok in that culture, that it does no harm in that context, I don't think the Moral Majority in America should have a say. They should have a say as to whether it can reach America, sure, but they should not have rights over other cultures. Of course, if those psychologists and ethicists say Britain is out of line, that 17 is correct, then Britain should raise the age to 17 and not argue.

This is about getting it right. In each context and each subcontext. That's tough. The only thing that's certain is that it's not standard.

Re:trololololo

[postbigbang]

Cultural context is understood, but you must also understand predation of the young. Some are mature at 14, others in their 20s, and of course, some never do.

My line is arbitrary, but the need to educate and mentor youth so that they understand the negative mazes of the adult works is very important.

I'm not sure it's possible to stanch the predators, but this is the goal, that and the safety of youth. Then, dip youth in latex, and let them on their way as we presume they're informed and understand the consequences.

Re:trololololo

[jd]

I absolutely agree there is predation of the young and that this cannot be tolerated.

I've wracked my brains on this for so many years, because the question keeps coming up. I've reached the conclusion that there's two types of maturity - intellectual and emotional. Autistic people will mature far more quickly intellectually, but be emotionally far behind, as just one example. I've wondered if the age of consent should be the average of intellectual age, emotional age and biological age, but that could lead to some weird results. And how would these be measured?

Ideally, you'd have the brain checked with the yearly medical, but that's not really practical at the moment.

Hence the desire for a conference of the people who are far wiser on the different nuances than I, and more intelligent, who can tell us how to balance the risks at a finer level than global.

Agreed that the safety of youth is very important. But we must be wary of unintended consequences. Just as antibacterial soap created deadlier bacteria and reduced our own defenses to them, we can make things too safe, too sterile. On the flip side, we can underestimate certain risks and certain forms of damage. PTSD turns out to form with almost any level of trauma, so mild constant trauma is actually just as destructive as a major calamity. Under certain circumstances. Recovery is not guaranteed because the brain doesn't work off video tape and you can't delete. Not thinking about it doesn't help, because the brain is one gigantic neural net. Every experience weighs in to everything, whether you think about it or not.

It's an absolute nightmare. I share your concerns and aims, absolutely, but it's a tough problem. Fortunately, we aren't the ones being asked to solve it. I'm just hoping that those who ARE asked to solve it, at least for Facebook, have looked at this level of complexity.

Re:trololololo

[postbigbang]

Complexity goes only as far as a time-pressured coder is going to spend on the algorithm. As we're not unique, and our medical histories are private in many cultures, it's fair to say that Facebook and others cannot know us, despite all that they see we post and react to, how long we stay in places, and our Messenger data.

Facebook can, and should ask for proof of address and personna, and reject those that don't provide this information. There are those that need personna protection, and this can be argued on an individual basis.

My seeming arbitrarily-drawn line means that we (the responsible adults) must use the simplest, yet most enforceable line drawn possible, in this case, age, or in lieu of age, a guardian's assent. Without either of these, lots of predation is possible.

The same should go for smartphones/mobiles. No dick pics until you're 18. Send one uninvited to anyone at all, and be thrown in jail, as though you were a male that had exposed himself publicly at a shopping mall. Unsolicited nudies ought to be a crime. It's an affront to dignity, both on the part of the sender, and the receiver, unless there is prior asset, just like one needs active positive response for the initiation of a sexual relationship to begin. Permission. Without it, you're a predator, male, female, whichever.

But WE HAVE TO SOLVE THIS. Facebook will use any old algorithm they want without pressure, because it doesn't make them profits to behave in any other way. They aren't like Delta Airlines, whose morals apparently aren't for sale, or so their lore goes.

Re:trololololo

[jd]

Agreed we have to solve this, and although I'm not convinced by the specific line you draw (Facebook does have access to either your location or whether you're blocking it, so can use finer-grained rules), I'd rather have you debating this and helping with developing the rules than almost anyone else because you ARE interested in a solution. A real solution.

There are plenty of people out there who are looking to poke holes in arguments or derail debate, but you've make some good points and you've a desire to see this sorted. That's a sadly rare quality.

I'm well aware of the complexity problem and it's incredibly frustrating. Usually, if there's an appearance of high complexity, there isn't. It only seems that way because it's insufficiently understood. Chaos theory showed that most complexity is an illusion, that simplicity is the order of the day, but that it might not be the simplicity anyone was expecting. The challenge is in finding the simplicity.

I'm perfectly happy with a standardized 18 across the globe until that question is addressed. Well, ok, I'll tolerate it, because the moderators on Facebook are going through hell and young users aren't exactly getting a thrill ride either. As long as it does get addressed some time, I'm not going to complain.

Shouldn't the answer be obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

FaceBook, why even ask this when you know the answer is... NOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

No Facebook

[XSportSeeker]

Actual crimes should not be allowed on Facebook.
Is it that hard to get?

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual crimes should not be allowed on Facebook.
Is it that hard to get?

Apparently it is, yes.

Facebook being a US company, following US laws, is a HUGE complaining point made all the time by the rest of the world.
While this particular may not be the best example of that, it is still an example.

While receiving such imagery is illegal in most countries, requesting it isn't as consistently illegal.

Both are illegal in the US where Facebook is based, but the EU has demanded a very insanely huge amount of money from Facebook in the way of fines for doing exactly this, or more specifically for not following EU law above US law.
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.

In the US it is also a crime for that 14 year old to even be on Facebook to be asked, yet you can imagine the outrage if Facebook simply enforced that law as well.

Using the topic about child predators gives rise to an "obvious" answer that nearly everyone wants, but applied broadly and consistently to other non kid related topics gets very complicated very fast.

Re:No Facebook

[TheRaven64]

In this case, it actually is. If someone posts something in a public place saying 'hey, any underage girls / boys want to send me naked pictures?' then it's pretty easy to take down the post. But presumably pedophiles are not doing that, they're sending direct messages. Is it therefore acceptable for Facebook to inspect every direct message (i.e. no end-to-end encryption on WhatsApp anymore) and block anything illegal? Should they just disable end-to-end encryption for under-18s and block illegal content? Can they even legally do that, without running afoul of various minor-protection laws in different jurisdictions? Should they then warn you that you're talking to an under-18 (and would this help pedophiles identify targets)?

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US it is also a crime for that 14 year old to even be on Facebook

Uh, no. I'm pretty certain that's not a crime. Please point me to the law that criminalizes underage facebook usage.

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone posts something in a public place saying 'hey, any underage girls / boys want to send me naked pictures?' then it's pretty easy to take down the post.

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.

Acting upon that question, on the other hand, is something else entirely. But I'm not talking about actions, I am talking about simply asking questions. And I for one don't want to end up at the end of a gallows simply because I asked a question that is apparently so blasphemous, it is on par with saying "Voldemort".

Re:No Facebook

[gnick]

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:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

a 14 year old is breaking the terms of service of the facebook website. There have been many instances where it has been argued that this is a form of computer hacking, which is a serious crime, with potential high punishment, including long time in prison.

There has only been one Judge in the US that said breaking the terms of service is not equal to hacking, in other situations is was settled.

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

...While receiving such imagery is illegal in most countries, requesting it isn't as consistently illegal.

In the electronic world, what exactly is the point in making one half of this legal? That's some seriously fucking stupid logic when the very instant a request is fulfilled it becomes illegal.

Both are illegal in the US where Facebook is based, but the EU has demanded a very insanely huge amount of money from Facebook in the way of fines for doing exactly this, or more specifically for not following EU law above US law.

Oh, so the EU wants to ensure their laws trump all others? How about they fuck off instead, and wake up to the fact that Facebook is a US Corporation. If they can't handle US law coming first, then the fix for that is rather easy. Facebook can simply block all access from the EU.

Re:No Facebook

[lucasnate1]

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:No Facebook

[Knuckles]

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:No Facebook

[PaulRivers10]

"We need to arrest and jail the 14 year olds to protect them!" (rolls eyes) It's like we revisiting the 70's here. "computer hacking" lmao.

Re:No Facebook

[dgatwood]

a 14 year old is breaking the terms of service of the facebook website.

Nope. Facebook requires kids to be 13 or older, unless they are in a jurisdiction that imposes additional restrictions.

Re:No Facebook

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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? ". Then the perp is just exercising his first amendment rights. Right?

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Speech is already limited. Try asking a question using the word "bomb" in a loud voice in line at the airport.

"Do you think there's anyone around here with a bomb today?"

"What are the odds there will be a bomb on our flight?"

"Are these security precautions effective enough to guarantee there's no bomb on our flight?"

See how that works out.

By allowing discussions of crimes (of some particular forms), you may actually be enabling them which might itself be criminal. It depends on what the speech contains (or in this case FB post)

Re:No Facebook

[bluefoxlucid]

We often separate solicitation from fulfillment. We also separate attempted murder from murder. It's weird, but okay, that's a thing.

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

14 year olds are too young to be a party to a web site's terms of service.

how many of them asked and got their parents to 'agree' to the terms on their behalf?

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, exactly. I know you are being sarcastic and actually think that that should be illegal, but you haven't actually explained why. Whether it's "will you send me nudes?", "will you have sex with me?", "is God real?", "does the Sun really revolve around the Earth?" or anything else, it should never be wrong to ask a question, no matter the question.

You can't explain why acting upon a question is wrong if you can't ask the question in the first place.

Re:No Facebook

[Obfuscant]

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:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it therefore acceptable for Facebook to inspect every direct message

OMG you naive sheeple. They not only inspect every message, they inspect your keystrokes, including backspace, and all the timing in between them, for all private and direct messages. and store it forever. even when those messages have been "deleted". This is not something new either. They've always done this.

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No matter the question? How about asking a witness or defendant the following in court: "Yes or no, have you stopped beating your spouse?"

In court this would certainly cause an objection but the character of the witness or defendant is already tainted.

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

It's certainly more severe than robbery. Sex crimes are crimes against persons rather than property, and we take that more seriously.
Sex being a two-person deal (I know, this is Slashdot) means consent is required.
Infants can't give consent, so there is a legal age of consent.
We legally recognize the vulnerability of the young and set limits to try to protect them. This is a good thing.
Can't you people just control yourselves a little bit and wait for kids to grow up?

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious thing you are missing is the underage status.

Not missing it, it's simply irrelevant.

Like I said, acting upon a question might be wrong, but simply asking it should never be wrong. If it is wrong to ask a question, then one can never learn why acting upon said question is wrong.

Re:No Facebook

[jd]

It's not a crime in all parts of the US. Until last year, it would have been perfectly legal in Virginia, provided the perp married the girl some time afterwards. Child brides, for the purpose of avoiding lawsuits, are still common in the Bible Belt, according to The Guardian.

Obviously, that's insane. But if it's not actually illegal, then it's not a crime.

In Britain, you can pose topless for the newspapers and magazines at age 16. Perfectly legal. You can walk nude in public at any age, anywhere you like, provided it doesn't cause actual offence. There are no other restrictions. And, no, I don't think a few shocked ultra-conservatives from Saudi Arabia or Alabama would count towards it being actually offensive. On that basis, a British teen who is a professional model might well argue that she should be able to distribute what she damn well pleases. In Britain. That you don't get to call that a crime.

This is that murky water where cultural values matter and cultural impacts matter. I don't think there's ever been a serious study of whether that causes the girls harm or not. If it does cause them harm, then you still don't get to call that a crime but you have justification for asking the British to make it one. If it doesn't cause them harm, then where does this justification come from? If we don't know which way it goes, any guess we make is just a guess and will either harm them through abuse or harm them by trampling on their rights. You still end up with harm. That's not ok. We need to know.

Facebook has terms of service that are independent of the law. They're universal. Not keen on that but it'll do for now. Breach of the TOS is not a crime, it is at worst a violation of contract law, a civil law matter. Facebook hasn't the resources to run a global psycho-ethic conference on the morality of teen sexuality. That's something they can maybe campaign for, since they obviously don't want the burden of making some of these decisions on their own. Fine. I'd love to see such a global conference. Get a single unified model that allows you to plug in details of culture, diet and anything else that alters rate of maturity to get a series of numbers out that tells you when things become ok.

Could turn out such a model never produces any number below 21. Could be that the numbers you get out are always similar to the Nordic model. Could be that it turns out to be so complex that no model is possible, that everything has to be case by case on an individual level. But I'd rather hear from them as to what should be a crime rather than a specific individual in a specific culture calling everything worldwide that would be a crime where they live a crime. That just doesn't help.

Re:No Facebook

[Knuckles]

The obvious thing you are missing is the underage status.

Not missing it, it's simply irrelevant.

Like I said, acting upon a question might be wrong, but simply asking it should never be wrong. If it is wrong to ask a question, then one can never learn why acting upon said question is wrong.

Absolutely not. Children are different and there is no reason not to treat them accordingly. If the damage is already in the asking, there is no reason to say that it's ok. Just don't ask children inappropriate things, it's easy

Re:No Facebook

[Knuckles]

And if it's not easy, please seek professional help

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but your speech has been deemed to enable crimes and you are no longer allowed to talk.

See how easy that was?!??

Re:No Facebook

[angel'o'sphere]

FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.
In your country perhaps. Not in the EU and other sane countries, when do you guys finally understand: LAW > TOS

Re:No Facebook

[angel'o'sphere]

a 14 year old is breaking the terms of service of the facebook website.
Which can not be enforced on most places where the law disagrees.
OTOH FB hardy realizes if a "customer" is below 13.

I know a girl who was about 7 when she used my iPad to surf on FB, all her class mates where there, but they used fake names and grany and granddad photos for their profile.

Her father watched and took care that the privacy settings were right, and she explained me: you know, we little girls can not use our real names and real pictures, to many creepy men out there (well, I forgot the correct words)

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

In the electronic world, what exactly is the point in making one half of this legal? That's some seriously fucking stupid logic when the very instant a request is fulfilled it becomes illegal.

GP here. Also with a disclaimer this time that I'm most familiar with US law, so when it comes to other countries reasoning and logic, I'm probably not the best source of an answer.

If my understanding is correct, it isn't so much "making it legal" as it is "not making it illegal"

In the US you'll note these two acts are each covered by two separate laws.
It's also important to point out that our system works on a "default allow" assumption. That is, laws are passed to make something illegal, and lacking a law to do that the act is by default legal without requiring it to be itemized or even mentioned in the law.

That said, receiving such an image falls under "possession or trafficking in pornography of a minor", but requesting such an image from a child falls under "promoting the coruption of a minor"

While most countries have some form of the first law on the books, although differing in the definition of "minor", the second law doesn't always have an equivalent and even when it does I've occasionally seen it worded under quite different pretenses.

On one hand the US wording about corrupting a minor appears to stem mainly from the countries Christian backgrounds, which IMHO tend to be pretty heavy handed and draconian in many cases.
On the other hand there really are some countries out there with absolutely nothing even close that I'm aware of, instead preferring to rely completely on the act itself being criminal as enough.

You could also Google a listing of countries and their age of consent for sexual acts to see there are actually countries where 14 is of legal age... I don't believe any EU countries are of this type, so that bit may not apply at all here, but it once again shows how foly the original posters statement can be when he said everyone should follow everyones laws no matter what and that it really is that simple.

Re:No Facebook

[gnick]

FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.

Not in the EU and other sane countries, when do you guys finally understand: LAW > TOS

Bullshit. In "the EU and other sane countries" private companies that allow users to post comments have to allow ANY post as long as it doesn't violate the law? I'd really appreciate it if you could show me that law for ANY one of these "sane" countries. /. might be in trouble - They filter out things that aren't illegal and operate all over the world.

Re:No Facebook

[Obfuscant]

Obviously, that's insane. ... But I'd rather hear from them as to what should be a crime rather than a specific individual in a specific culture calling everything worldwide that would be a crime where they live a crime.

Substitute "insane" for "crime" in that last sentence. Why is it "obviously" insane? And why insane at all? Different culture. It's "insane" in your culture, but that make it true globally?

You can walk nude in public at any age, anywhere you like, provided it doesn't cause actual offence.

Thus pointing out the difference between nudity and pornography. But the question is, if I can wear a t-shirt that offends people without breaking the law, why should just offending people make nudity a breach of the law? Why should Rosanne Barr be hauled off to prison for "offensive nudity" if Cheryl Teigs would not be?

Facebook has terms of service that are independent of the law. They're universal.

When a TOS says "not for illegal purposes", the it is, inherently, not universal. Not even global.

to get a series of numbers out that tells you when things become ok.

You can run as many conferences and get as many numbers as you wish, but local law will still determine what's legal. If you're looking for a "number" from a "conference" I can guess that the last NAMBLA conference came up with "0".

Re:No Facebook

[war4peace]

There's one large issue though.
There's a plethora of kids games out there which don't really work unless you have a Facebook account. Talking about things such as inability to save your progress, access various game functions, etc.
I have created a Facebook account for my older son back when he was 4. I'm the one using it, but Facebook doesn't have Family options like, for example, Netflix or Microsoft. It would have been nice to have.

Re:No Facebook

[war4peace]

I'm sorry but no.
As an European citizen, I'm telling you, a private company is welcome to have stricter rules than the law, as much as they like. I could create a website with My Little Pony pictures and prohibit anyone under 18 from visiting it, and I wouldn't break the law.

Re:No Facebook

[angel'o'sphere]

I did mot say they have to allow any post that does not be in conflict with the law.
I said law is above tos, they can not restrict freedoms of customers based on a tos when the law says otherwise.

Why you are such an idiot noot to grasp that is beyond me.

The question here btw. is not about posts - which are somewhat public - but about messages, which are protecccted by privacy and secrecy laws. Go figure ...

Re:No Facebook

[angel'o'sphere]

Of course they can have _stricter_ rules. Depending on the laws anyway. E.g. if the law says a 10 year old can use certain web sites, they can not raise it to 13.
But a TOS alowing them to read messages is against telecomunication laws.
So: how would younmake it more strict? By writing into the TOS parents may not read messages of children over age X? Sorry, can't do that.

Re:No Facebook

[gnick]

I said:

FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.

You said:

Not in the EU and other sane countries...

It sure as hell sounds like you're saying that companies can't block legal content based on TOS. If that's not what you're saying, then WTF are you saying? I'd love to get a handle on your point; please make one.

...they can not restrict freedoms of customers based on a tos when the law says otherwise.

When and where does the law say otherwise? In what country does the law say that companies can't filter what messages go through their site based on their TOS? What law in particular is overriding the TOS forcing companies to post content they don't want to? You say "LAW > TOS". Great. What fucking absurd law are you referring to that's disallowing companies from filtering messages?

Re:No Facebook

[Cajun Hell]

The news of the day is that people are offended by the possibility that you might be wrong. It's not only ok that Facebook is doing what you say, it'd be intolerable if they didn't!

Re:No Facebook

[gnick]

if the law says a 10 year old can use certain web sites, they can not raise it to 13.

WTF are you talking about? In the US, you have to be 18 to view porn. The law says that at 18, you can use pornographic web sites. That doesn't remotely stop me from making a porn site and restricting it to 21+. Is that an American privilege that doesn't exist overseas?

Re:No Facebook

[Dread_ed]

I doubt that Facebook will complain too much about the reams of additional lifetime data garnered during developmental years. Plus, when Facebook identifies these accounts they can really dig in the hooks with content experiments that teenagers and adults are more resilient to.

How incredible that we allow a company with the singular purpose of decoding, mastering, and controlling the human stimulus-response system unfettered access to our children. Nothing could ever go wrong, could it?

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is a crime, its called conspiracy to commit a crime and is a felony for the examples you listed.

Re:No Facebook

[war4peace]

It does, GP doesn't know what he's talking about.
What you're not allowed to do is discriminate - say, allowing white kids starting age of 13 but black kids only from the age of 15.

Re:No Facebook

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes, a company that is providing a messaging service, telecommunication etc. has to make sure that every message arrives.

What is so hard to grasp in that?

Re:No Facebook

[angel'o'sphere]

Depends on the web site, as I said before.

The legal age for accessing porn is 18, so no, you can not raise it to 21.
No idea why you think you could.
What is next? A Bank with online banking that restricts access to people above 21?
Either banks and porn hubs are considered equal under law or not. You can not have one one way and the other one the other way.

Nonsense like this you can do in a house where you are the host and a nice law wich has nothing to do with age, says: the owner of the house can decide who he lets in.

And then again: a bank can not do that, and a pub/bar/club is on the borderline of illegal if he tries this. Many do that nevertheless ...

And you can not TOSs out people out of a grosery store either, because they do not fit your definition of age.

In my country ... no idea about yours.

Re:No Facebook

[angel'o'sphere]

GP doesn't know what he's talking about
Actually I do. And so would you if you ever had taken a law class or watch european press about companies trying to TOSs rules down the throat of their "customers".

Then read this: https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:No Facebook

[gnick]

The legal age for accessing porn is 18, so no, you can not raise it to 21.

I really think you're mistaken. Just because you're 19 and legally allowed to view porn, I'm not obligated to sell you a subscription.

What is next? A Bank with online banking that restricts access to people above 21?

I don't know of anything preventing them from doing that but common sense. Do you? You have a lot to say about the laws but have yet to cite one.

Re:No Facebook

[war4peace]

There's a difference between "more restricted then the law" and "against the law".

Re:No Facebook

[gnick]

...company that is providing a messaging service, telecommunication etc. has to make sure that every message arrives.

You've yet to cite anything to back that up. For the US, the EU, or the other "sane" countries. Pretty sure the virus I emailed my boss never arrived.

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think Facebook doesn't inspect every message now?

A better question might be why 14yo's can be targeted at all?

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

if you ever had taken a law class

Still waiting for you to cite one of these laws.

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is a grosery?

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

It's politically incorrect. Right. All the more reason we should be asking it. While I might not be into that sort of thing its wrong for any person to utilize violence or partake in actions on the part of others (like a government) to stop voluntary interactions between people. Now if the action non-voluntary we have a valid reason to penalize such actions so long as we do so without discrimination. Be it age, sex, race, or some other factor. I know that is going to be unpopular because of the "think of the children" crowd and the appeal to emotion being stronger for the stupid majority, rather than the logical minority... but none-the-less that said if you are part of that logical minority who values freedom, prefers logic to emotion, and above all else values freedom over safety you should be migrating to New Hampshire to be amongst like-minded people who are working for liberty in our life time: The Shire Society and Free State Project and other organizations have done a lot to draw principled libertarians to the state for the purpose of establishing a last bastion of hope in an unfree totalitarian world.

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

if you ever had taken a law class

Still waiting for you to cite one of these laws.

* crickets *

Re:No Facebook

[gnick]

In my country ... no idea about yours.

Your country has peculiar laws where companies can't restrict business based on age. Would you mind sharing where you are so I can read up on it? Things are very different here in the US.

Re:No Facebook

[Knuckles]

This has nothing to do with political correctness. Grow up.

Re:No Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

You dodged the question by essentially implying: "it is wrong because it is wrong". Try answering it again: why is it wrong to ask that?

Re:No Facebook

[epine]

Substitute "insane" for "crime" in that last sentence. Why is it "obviously" insane? And why insane at all? Different culture. It's "insane" in your culture, but that make it true globally?

I think the original poster was placing the modern state of Virginia in the context of women's suffrage, 35-years downstream from even Liechtenstein.

Late adopters in Europe were Spain in 1933, France in 1944, Italy in 1946, Greece in 1952, San Marino in 1959, Monaco in 1962, Andorra in 1970, Switzerland in 1971 at federal level, and Liechtenstein in 1984.

Not on the list: The Appalachians (now mostly cliche), the Mormon outback (not quite 100% exsanguinated), and wealthy Wahabists (still in the pink of yesteryear).

Re:No Facebook

[angel'o'sphere]

In the laws regulating what you can do at certain age ... simple as that. Anti discrimination laws etc. Laws that define that a business has to offer its service uniformly to everyone. Stuff that you can restrict is extremely limited. E.g. a business can decide to only sell to resellers and not end customers.
If you are interested in that you have unfortunately to google for your self.

Re:No Facebook

[gnick]

If you are interested in that you have unfortunately to google for your self.

Yep, did that. Concluded that either you're full of shit or your mystery country has some very strange laws. It's telling that you can't cite one for ANY of the countries you've mentioned.

Re:No Facebook

[angel'o'sphere]

How should I cite stuff I learned when I found my company decades ago?
And in german even? I don't even know for what terms exactly to google.

So you either believe me or not. For a discussion on the internet it is not really important who is right or wrong as you obviously don't plan to found a company in germany.

But this is a start: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Age" is "Alter".

More I don't find at the moment and the topic is not interesting enough to search for hours :D

Re:No Facebook

[gnick]

How should I cite stuff I learned when I found my company decades ago?

When you drone on and on about "the law says...", it's reasonable to ask "what law"? Your answer of "that one law that I remember from way back" isn't sufficient.

And in german even? I don't even know for what terms exactly to google.

The US, the EU, and the other "sane" countries have quite a few laws not written in German. Germany would qualify for my request for "any country", but are they the sole country where I'm prohibited from putting an age limit on my web site?

From your link (translated):

Age-related unequal treatment can be justified if it is objectively appropriate and has a legitimate aim...

The law doesn't say you have to be 25 to rent a car. The rental companies say you need to be 25 to rent a car. The law doesn't say you have to be 13 to use FB. FB says you have to be 13 to use FB. The law doesn't say that you have to be 21 to access my porn site. I say you have to be 21 to access my porn site. The porn involves drinking and it's important to me not to show videos of alcohol consumption to people too young to drink.

Re:No Facebook

[Obfuscant]

I think the original poster was placing the modern state of Virginia in the context of women's suffrage,

While it is fascinating to assume that "suffrage" has something to do with "suffering", it does not, and "child brides" is just as far removed. The point is that "obviously insane" is a contradiction to the ending sentence where the OP points out that someone from outside has no standing. He's not a part of that culture and has no standing, especially to call it "obviously". I've found that the argument "obviously" usually is not.

Re:No Facebook

[jd]

I live in Virginia, have done for quite some time. North and South Virginia. I'm not "outside".

Your reply assumes that because X misuses "obviously" in some arbitrary context, then Y must also be misusing it, even though you've bugger all evidence of that.

I was debating how to respond, but I think it's sufficient to say my karma ran over your dogma.

Re:No Facebook

[TheRaven64]

I didn't ask if it was done, I asked if it was acceptable. I don't have a Facebook account because I don't believe that it is.

Re:No Facebook

[Obfuscant]

I live in Virginia, have done for quite some time. North and South Virginia. I'm not "outside".

I'm not familiar with the states of North Virginia and South Virginia. I know Virginia and West Virginia. But in any case, you are outside the culture and thus your claim about not judging holds.

Your reply assumes that because X misuses "obviously" in some arbitrary context,

No, I assumed YOU misused it. Specifically you in this specific context. That's why I asked why it was obvious. There is also a general interpretation that arises because so many people misuse it the way you did, but that is a secondary point. You called it "obviously insane" with nothing to back up why it was insane in the first place, and why it should be obvious even then. Then you followed that all up with a statement that people who aren't involved shouldn't be determining criminality, which I bent a bit to include "obvious insanity".

I was debating how to respond, but I think it's sufficient to say my karma ran over your dogma.

I think you're the one with the wild dogma, calling people in other cultures "obviously" insane, and referring to North Virginia. I didn't have to debate with anyone how to respond to that. It was obvious.

Re:No Facebook

[jd]

If you've never worked at NASA Langley, or in other parts of the Hampton Roads area, you can sod off when it comes to northern Virginia, I was a damn sight more of the culture than someone who, by their own admission, is West Virginian (and thus, in Virginian eyes... well, you claim to know the culture so damn well, you tell me how those of us here see you)

Huh?

[OrangeTide]

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:Huh?

[quintus_horatius]

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:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it passes through a US server or if either party is in the US then it violates federal law.

Working jointly with INTERPOL and agencies of other nations that view pedophilia as a crime also Trumps any policy that Facebook may attempt.

If you solicit nude photographs from a minor you've committed a crime. We will find you and punish you.

Re:Huh?

[gnick]

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:Huh?

[Plugh]

He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.

Nice sig! I don't know why I call him Gerold

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks! For correctly identifying the name of the mouse that hasn't got a house, I'll give you anything, everything, if you want things.

-gnick

Re:Huh?

[Plugh]

RIP to the man who invented Rock n' Roll... but then got left behind :'(

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with enforcing US pedophilia standards on all FB users regardless of the laws where they're located.

And this is why Americans are assholes, because they believe such idiotic shit.

Just because it may be legal doesn't mean FB has to allow it.

At the end of the day, nobody wants laws which don't apply to them because some moralizing douchbag "has no problem" doing so.

You deserve a smack in the head with a heavy object.

Fuck you and your belief that the rest of the world gives a fuck what some asshole in the US thinks.

Re:Huh?

[gnick]

Just because it may be legal doesn't mean FB has to allow it.

At the end of the day, nobody wants laws which don't apply to them because some moralizing douchbag "has no problem" doing so.

FB can censor just about anything they want for just about any reason. Live somewhere that allows public stonings? Fine, but FB doesn't have to let you use their tools to schedule one. Say FB wants to take a stand against smoking. Nothing's stopping them from disallowing pics of people with cigarettes. Live somewhere where it's just fine to ask a 14 year-old for nudes? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on; FB doesn't have to play ball. Where are you that a private company has to allow any and all activity that isn't specifically illegal?

Re:Huh?

[Rob Riggs]

Facebook's customers are international and, unfortunately, pedophilia is not universally banned.

Or universally defined.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it passes through a US server or if either party is in the US then it violates federal law.

Working jointly with INTERPOL and agencies of other nations that view pedophilia as a crime also Trumps any policy that Facebook may attempt.

If you solicit nude photographs from a minor you've committed a crime. We will find you and punish you.

I think those people are really dumb too. As a scientific linux user who uses the fnal.gov links for downloads and updates (and therefore use more gigabytes than the average person), I wonder how many pedophiles unwittingly use a united states government information service for their hobbies. Even if one were to think that they're smart and use tor, I bet their internet provider would be more than willing to redirect to a node somewhere anywhere else. Add to the fact they probably use compromised integrated architectures, can you say checkmate? In case you need a way to deny it all I'm sure you can do a shitload of math to decrypt the connection after the fact, or use the statistical likelihood of a stream of bytes of x size being sent out at y time might be received somewhere in the form of a derivative of x at y+100's of milliseconds later. Math geeks don’t get the credit they deserve.

For a constitutionally sound way of getting people into the courts we can rely on the if you see something say something model (I hope). I hope facebook informants can send tips (to the authorities and might as well your favorite journalist) that lead to the arrest of these sick child abusers. Once in the courts clean actions should be taken by clean actors. Clean investigators, clean labs, clean attorneys. This may mean we will need to weed out the pedophiles, sympathizers, and otherwise blackmail-able people in all positions of public trust. I pray for God to grant wisdom and strength to the awesome rank and file member people involved in these matters.

Re:Huh?

[luis_a_espinal]

I have no problem with enforcing US pedophilia standards on all FB users regardless of the laws where they're located.

And this is why Americans are assholes, because they believe such idiotic shit.

I hope you never get near children, anywhere in this world, regardless of laws.

Re:Huh?

[angel'o'sphere]

So because he thinks americans are assholes you conclude he is a pedophile? Can you explain that in simple steps of logic, it is not obvious to me.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) He thinks Facebook should cater to pedophiles.
2) I conclude he's a pedophile or at least sympathetic to their activities.

It has nothing to do with thinking that Americans are assholes. It has everything to do with making Facebook pedo-friendly.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I have no problem with Facebook on its own deciding to impose US pedophilia standards on the the Facebook activity of all its users worldwide. It is, after all, their platform.

I would not force Facebook to do this but that's because it's not my platform, it's Facebook's platform. If I want a platform that enforces US pedophilia standards then I'll try to make my own, not co-opt someone else's. With the argument: "This company is so successful and its product/service so good that we should just take control of it by force", one simply betrays their barbarity.

Finally, US pedophilia standards are prudish and mindlessly destructive. I most certainly would prefer a platform that does not enforce these standards.

Re:Huh?

[gnick]

US pedophilia standards are prudish and mindlessly destructive. I most certainly would prefer a platform that does not enforce these standards.

If that's how you feel and FB isn't pedo-permissive enough for you, nobody's forcing you to use it. I hear 4chan has a pretty loose TOS. The reason I picked "American standards for pedophilia" is because FB is an American company and it seems natural to adopt those standards instead of picking another country's rules that it decided it prefers. Picking ANY set of rules seems preferable to me than NO rules. There are a million ways you can say just about whatever you want, but FB doesn't have to facilitate it.

Re:Huh?

[OrangeTide]

And this is why Americans are assholes, because they believe such idiotic shit.

American company must operate by American standards at the bare minimum, no matter where they operate. Nothing arrogant or idiotic about that.

That many so-called American companies operating outside of the US get away with performing vile services, conduct business with slavers, and tolerating pedophilia is not something we should accept.

If your country has high standards, perhaps even higher standards than American companies (we're not setting the bare unreasonably high here), then you should also expect the businesses of your nation to operate according to the values and laws of your nation even when operating outside of your borders.

The important thing about laws, the thing that truly matters and why we have them, is that laws represent the standards that society has. Having an appendage of your society reach into another that is utterly corrupt reflects badly on the whole of your society. (also having corrupt laws within your own borders, like we experience to some degree in the US also reflects badly on our society)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or universally defined.

If your country's laws are more permissive than the US's, then that's just too damn bad. Start your own Facebook clone in your own country if you don't like it.

Re:Huh?

[gnick]

American company must operate by American standards at the bare minimum, no matter where they operate.

Golly that sounds sensible. It's unfortunate that you have to point out the obvious.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pedophilia isn't banned in the United States, but "child" porn is, although I forget what the courts decided about animated porn. I think there might have been a decision about appearance and actually being underage too although I don't recall the decision. In other words bart simpson porn might be legal, but someone who is 18 that looks 10 is criminal even if they can't prove the person is 10. Though it's not illegal for an adult to fuck a 16 year old (maybe even younger) in many states image of those under 18 in "sexually suggestive" posses is. What "sexually suggestive" is though is undefined or defined as "I know it when I see it" which is actually quite dangerous (a quote or something like from a famous supreme court ruling judge). Sex with a 16 year old isn't pedophilia although the usage of the word "child" frequently alludes to that of anyone under the age of 18, 21, or even older sometimes. I'd hate to be someone in the 10-25 age range today. There are more children being abused by the system (ie arrested for sexting, pissing in garbage cans, but ending up on sex offender lists, etc) than there are pedophiles in existence for the sake of "protecting the children".

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. If it's in a law anyway then there's no harm done if Facebook asks its users about it.

Re:Huh?

[OrangeTide]

Golly that sounds sensible. It's unfortunate that you have to point out the obvious.

It is unfortunate, I can think of several examples where they do not. Maybe nobody cares anymore, as long as Walmart has low low prices.

Re:Huh?

[gnick]

I can think of several examples where they do not. Maybe nobody cares anymore, as long as Walmart has low low prices.

I might be confused. Are you suggesting that Walmart operates in America but fails to adhere to American legal standards? There are (supposed to be) repercussions for that.

Re:Huh?

[OrangeTide]

I don't think Walmart's contractors outside of the US are conforming to US law.

Re:Huh?

[gnick]

That wouldn't surprise me at all. But that's a very different situation than the one we're discussing here. "American company must operate by American standards..." could use a couple of qualifiers.

Re:Huh?

[OrangeTide]

I don't see how it is different. If you hire a company to do work for you, you should expect them to hold to the same standard practices as your own company. That Walmart doesn't give a shit that a sub-contractor might be using child labor or indentured servants from rural families, tells us that the company doesn't have standards that match American standards. The only thing keeping a company like Walmart from human rights violations in the US is that we have laws in place to prevent it from happening on our soil. A good company wouldn't have to be told not to use slave labor.

Many companies operate as sociopaths. Others operate as a mindless ever-consuming amoeba. Capitalism as a societal system can only work if everyone understands that we should promote good behavior and exclude bad behavior. But most of us don't think this way, and don't look beyond the price tag printed on the things we buy.

Re:Huh?

[gnick]

I don't see how it is different.

It's different because if FB violated American laws, it would be illegal. If Walmart violates American laws, but only in other countries, it's not illegal. Immoral, sure, but not illegal and that's a very big difference.

A good company wouldn't have to be told not to use slave labor.

Companies are under no obligation to be "good". They are obligated to follow applicable laws.

Gender biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the hell does gender have to do with this? Sexual exploitation of _anyone_ is a crime. What a loaded crock of self-serving shit since the only way they could know about those messages was to monitor everything. I'm surprised they didn't advocate banning encryption.

Re:Gender biased much?

[gnick]

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: Gender biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

No its most porn genres.

Re:Gender biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, "barely legal" is a thing. But that "barely" bit doesn't matter in the slightest, as it is still 100% legal.

Re:Gender biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

A fetish is a fetish, nothing more. There is a lot of fake porn out there to satisfy that fetish, doesn't mean it's real. It shouldn't be Facebook nor anyone elses responsibility to in their quest of ridding the world of a thing, require mass surveillance. The only way to facilitate that is through backdoors, subverting encryption, AI trying to infer context (age for example) - etc. Fuck. That. Shit. Teach your kids to report creepy messages, take responsibility for your own future.

Yay Slashdot manipulating anon scores.

Re:Gender biased much?

[gnick]

There is a lot of fake porn out there to satisfy that fetish, doesn't mean it's real.

And just because it's a fetish doesn't mean it's all fake. The existence of commercial schoolgirl-themed porn does not negate the existence of genuine kiddie porn. I said "sexual exploitation of young women" has become a genre. I know TFA's focus is age, but I was more focused on the exploitation. Whether or not a person is being "exploited" part has no effect on legality but is important to me personally. I can't enjoy porn where a participant is clearly being manipulated into doing something they object to because they're too desperate or insecure to object to being dominated and abused. Slapping, choking, crying, screaming... That's what I was referring to. There's a LOT of that. Some of it's probably fake; a lot is likely real. It's not illegal; it's just fucked up. If that shit turns you on, seek help. I like enthusiasts (Asa Akira comes to mind); I find that attractive.

Re:Gender biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of fake porn out there to satisfy that fetish, doesn't mean it's real.

And just because it's a fetish doesn't mean it's all fake. The existence of commercial schoolgirl-themed porn does not negate the existence of genuine kiddie porn.

Never said it was, quite the opposite.

I said "sexual exploitation of young women" has become a genre. I know TFA's focus is age, but I was more focused on the exploitation. Whether or not a person is being "exploited" part has no effect on legality but is important to me personally. I can't enjoy porn where a participant is clearly being manipulated into doing something they object to because they're too desperate or insecure to object to being dominated and abused. Slapping, choking, crying, screaming... That's what I was referring to. There's a LOT of that. Some of it's probably fake; a lot is likely real. It's not illegal; it's just fucked up. If that shit turns you on, seek help.

Quite a bit of mixed up things there. BDSM has always been some what of an underground fetish, the internet allows it to be less underground. Whether you agree with the fetish or not is your choice, understand however the ends to eradicate it are no different then any other taboo. That is my point. We survived for thousands of years without needing to know the intricate details of everyones personal lives, documented in perpetuity. I neither like BSDM nor violence, I also don't seek them out.

I like enthusiasts (Asa Akira comes to mind); I find that attractive.

No idea who or what that is but whatever floats your boat. Hope someone at Facebook doesn't outlaw it next.

Pedo Bear Bait

[Richard Dick Head]

I disagree, it is a great question. They can more closely monitor the perverts who answered "this content should be allowed on Facebook, and I would not mind seeing it."

Re:Pedo Bear Bait

[TheRaven64]

I can understand the 'and I wouldn't mind seeing it' bit: If pedophiles are going to be asking children for naked pictures, then doing so where other adults can see gives more of an opportunity to explain to the child why it's a really bad idea to cooperate and to forward the request to law enforcement. I'd much rather would-be child molesters used Facebook to talk to children than something like Signal or Telegram.

Re:Pedo Bear Bait

[dcw3]

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.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they really need to ask?

How did this happen?

[H3lldr0p]

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?

[DogDude]

It's a terrible company run by terrible people because it can be. The product that they sell is given to them for free by billions of really, really dumb people. Any company that makes money this easily isn't necessarily going to be run by the best and brightest because it's simple not necessary. I would imagine that even the Trump family couldn't fuck up Facebook if anybody were insane enough to let them run it.

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they wanted poll results that say users want Facebook to control things. Mistake my ass. It's like starting a conversation about gun control by asking whether the currently incarcerated should have access to firearms. They're trying to move to "we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price." point.

Re:How did this happen?

[swb]

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 out how to fix the platform and their manipulation and intrusiveness wears people out enough to abandon the platform. Once enough reasonable people start leaving, I think it will collapse pretty quickly and become a wasteland.

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump family could probably buy your family's entire lifetime income going back several generations. Who really is the fuckup 'cause it's not them. Jealous much?

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Work on your English, comrade.

Re:How did this happen?

[Kohath]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Elaborate, idiot.

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

They made a platform element to measure the degree of user reaction to various kinds of troublesome content. It had generic, scantron style answers. "I strongly approve", "I strongly disapprove". Absolutely normal.

They also made a list of kinds of troublesome content. It will have had things like "political advertising", "racial generalizations", etc.

They blindly fed the list of troublesome content into the survey module. They wanted to find out how upset people are by each kind of content and which ones are most likely to cause an uproar. It's definitely useful to know how many users are think Nazi content should be considered acceptable on Facebook for free speech reasons. That's a reasonable position.

Nobody realized that some combinations of the troublesome content elements and the generic answers would be heinous and imply that Facebook has no moral position on these things.

This happens all the time because Facebook has no moral positions on anything. It's just not how Facebook is structured. The individuals in it have moral positions but the company doesn't. It's the same reason Facebook took years to deal with the notion of "liking" your best friend's horrible death in a car accident.

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought

Re:How did this happen?

[PaulRivers10]

No one said "let's have early teens sending sexual pics on our platform". They said:
- Does facebook want to pay for the large number of employees to read through everyone's messages?
- Is it morally right for facebook to be reading everyone one of your private messages? I'm sure an ai already does, but should this would mean an actual person sifting through every one of your messages.
- If facebook hires people to read your messages are they legally liable now if they don't report other crimes communicated through their platform? What if you planned a robbery on facebook? What if you admitted to jaywalking on facebook? Should you be reported? What if you were joking around with some friends on facebook, facebook called the police, and the police showed up at your house and killed you?

I see the same crowd who thinks the NSA reading their messages is bad, suddenly be 100% fine with the same thing as long as you put "sex" and "children" in the description. How much money do you think would become involved in bribing these minders to pass along the private messages of a corporate competitor, or competing politician, or members of a political group?

Re: How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

thats not what âoeprogressiveâ means and im sure you know this

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA is arguably better than FB because they don't have a profit motive.

Now, you did miss one case: FB not requiring bribing to sell this additional data to somebody with $$$.

Pre-emption of crimes kind of requires information. We want crimes pre-empted and yet we have a discomfort with the surveillance that would lead to more pre-emption (for reasons sane and less so). This is the tension that is being explored but.... let's be honest, this is not the sort of survey you should throw out to your user base. Your leadership should get legal advice and make principled choices based on their values (ha ha... oh I am hilarious....) and in line with legal advice.

On the other hand, FB and principled leadership would be novel and strange bedfellows.

Re:How did this happen?

[jbmartin6]

It happened to set up the follow up questions about what the response should be. That's relevant and valuable information for Facebook. The one question, er, in question, was not the only one asked, it was merely exposition.

Re: How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pretty hard thing to quit. For many people it's basically the storage mechanism for all of their family memories and photos and crap.

Re:How did this happen?

[ElizabethGreene]

This is so they'll have justification for active real-time censorship.

"Our users said they wanted us to police this, so we do."

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta disagree with you there. Do you have any idea how many child sex abusers are in government? Me neither. However that does sound like a national security issue to me. Unfortunately those in the silent services are not saying anything because perhaps to do so could jeopardize an apparently unrelated case. I hope that congress can call forth a committee to look into that. When the time is ready I hope they have documented it all so thoroughly that there cannot be any doubt in a jurors mind that said defendant is guilty.

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump family could probably buy your family's entire lifetime income going back several generations. Who really is the fuckup 'cause it's not them. Jealous much?

So you are a mammon-worshiping whore. Got it.

Re:How did this happen?

[angel'o'sphere]

People are migrating to https://steemit.com/ anyway and other platforms like tumbler which are now more or less FB clones or Line, the chat app, where you have a time line in your user profile.

Re:How did this happen?

[Dread_ed]

He thinks any smart or witty comments must be made by Russians, because, well...have you met Americans?

He sure has. He is one, so he knows first hand.

Re: How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

The comrade comment , whilst trolling, was reasonable based upon the halting English and missing conjunctions. Even for the level of social media, the comment sounded like a Russian ...

Re: How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's white knights are the most pathetic white knights on the planet.

Trump isn't going to sleep with you. Stop trying.

Re: How did this happen?

[Dread_ed]

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:How did this happen?

[RightwingNutjob]

How? Easy. They're all globalists. Literally. They import their workforce from places where that sort of behavior isn't as taboo as it is here, and once those people start gaining seniority within the organization, their cultural norms bleed into the actions of what is on paper an American company. And the guy at the top doesn't care. "Move fast and break things," and all that.

Google and Damore and Sundar Pichai is another example. He's from a place where free speech isn't as ingrained in the culture, so he's less likely to be a champion for it in the workplace. Would a blond-haired, blue-eyed, red-blooded American have done better? Maybe not, but in the aggregate a place where many of the people at the top didn't grow up learning about the American Revolution and Oliver Wendel Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, MLK and Abraham Lincoln and saying the Pledge of Allegiance every morning is going to work differently from a place where nearly all of the people at the top did.

Re:How did this happen?

[drew_kime]

The product that they sell is given to them for free by billions of really, really dumb people.

The product they sell is those billions of people.

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did what happen? Spell it out what you want to say and why do you feel so. Stop with the cowardly implying as if you were scared of using 'wrong' words.

Re:How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

FBtook off and evolved the social genre of applications to enough degree to attract both young and elder generations on the same platform. Earlier attempts, like geocities, myspace, etc. all failed after a while. Why?

Can it be because such social "platforms" can only thrive/survive on growth, and when that peaks, the people leave? Also, changes like ads and commercials, while bringing in more direct money, tend to dillute and alienate your userbase. It's harder still to engage people to direct the evolution, as diverse groups may have different goals and aspirations. Any change or no change are all existential threats and risks, and the competition is fierce.

In the end, these platforms plateau, peak and fall into oblivion. For FB that has already happened for the younger gen, and older gens are catching/wisening up as well, or moving to insta/snap.

Building your userbase is a huge risky and costly task, but maintaining them even harder.

Re: How did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately there isn't one for raping kids, at least not on this side of the Atlantic.

So busy being a racist shitwhistler that you forgot all about Roy Moore.

Pathetic, disgusting, exploitative

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the moral arguments. Lets just look at what this is: A haven for sick sick fools that at times even politicize their pedophilia. Particularly a segment of so-called "hebephiles" that reside in mainly right-wing libertarian circles, and actually ask the question, unironically, "But what if the child consents?" This kind of villainy is given power by equally uninformed, power-hungry bootlickers that actually think that children CAN consent to things like this. Facebook hedging for this, by even asking the question, is beyhond reprehensible and shows a serious lack of judgement when it comes to defending vulnerable people.

Re: Pathetic, disgusting, exploitative

[Anonymous Coward]

You spelled left wing liberals wrong.

Re: Pathetic, disgusting, exploitative

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals aren't leftists, and beyond that, cite your claims, oh hyper partisan one.

Re: Pathetic, disgusting, exploitative

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals are in control of pretty much all tech companies and social media.
Just look at what Time Cook is doing and has done to Apple, he claims his homosexual lifestyle is "a gift from God".
Microsoft with their extremely discriminating h-b1 hiring policies, Google and Facebook with their threats of censorship allegedly (fighting fake news) when both are guilty of being purveyors of fake news.

Yep, all of them are the liberal left.

Re: Pathetic, disgusting, exploitative

[Anonymous Coward]

hah its lolbertarians that want to make this shit legal

Re: Pathetic, disgusting, exploitative

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberalism is the most mainstream form of capitalism; it is the very of capitalism indeed. There is even a motto that translates perfectly the _ethos_ of liberalism: "Laissez faire, laissez passer", meaning let them do, let them pass. Adam Smith himself used to be a Liberal.

Re: Pathetic, disgusting, exploitative

[Anonymous Coward]

it is the very core of capitalism indeed.

*same AC.

Re:Pathetic, disgusting, exploitative

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your side has the pedophiles, terrorists, and drug dealers!

define pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it." - 'murika defines pornography.

Why are children allowed on Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, Why are children allowed on Facebook?

Re:Why are children allowed on Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Greed

Re:Why are children allowed on Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, Why are children allowed on Facebook?

Yah! Or Google! Or Pinterest! Or in malls!! or ... oh wait, that's not how the internet works

Re:Why are children allowed on Facebook?

[gnick]

Why are children allowed on Facebook?

Because marketing to children is profitable.

Re:Why are children allowed on Facebook?

[sheramil]

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:Why are children allowed on Facebook?

[gnick]

Is it because they can nag their parents until the parents give in...

Yes. It is exactly because of that. If that was not the case, we'd no longer see ads targeting children. Do you think parents' spending is unaffected by "input" from their children?

Re:Why are children allowed on Facebook?

[dryeo]

Besides gnick's answer, the earlier you get them hooked to your brand, the better. Think of computers and kids. Learn Windows as a kid and likely a Windows user for life, likewise for Apple.
Kids are also naive in the way advertising works and easy to sucker in.

Re:Why are children allowed on Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids have plenty of disposable income but more importantly they are being groomed by companies like Facebook for when they reach adulthood. Anyone who has a child or spent any time outside can see this in kids who have no grasp of privacy or personal bounds. We've always had groups of people who were more vulnerable to exploitation either due to lack of Education, abuse or simply living sheltered lives. It's nothing really new.

What has changed however is companies are not being held accountable for their own exploitation rather they paradoxically, claim responsibility. Yes, you read that correctly. They would love nothing more then to be responsible for molding your child into perfect consumers. It's why Facebook and Google can be so cavalier in their dismissing privacy as something no one should expect. They are in effect brainwashing people into believing it's the "future" or normal and most of the time it's entirely subversive. Pepsi, Coke, Nike, tobacco, fastfood and retail in general all learned this decades ago - brand loyalty. Kids are the ultimate long term foot soldiers.

What the actual fuck?

[Lisandro]

Seriously?

But it is ok for women.

[lucaiaco]

The implicature is that if an adult woman asks for an explicit picture of a boy or a girl it is OK.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[Anonymous Coward]

My first thought as well. War on men continues.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[houghi]

I came to say the same thing. Reminds me that it is ok that some lesbian place could refuse me because of my gender.
ASnd talking about being PC. Two Black people (That is what they are called in Belgium) where talking today how they disliked a certain group of Africans due to the way theu spoke English. I just said aloud that if I would say the same thing I would be called a racist.
Being a (white) foreigner and they are (black) Belgians you should see their faces when I say I hate foreigners. The confusion is priceless.
(No, I am not a racist. I hate everybody euqaly. Some just more equaly than others.)

Re:But it is ok for women.

[Brett Buck]

Research the phrase "protected class", which appears to comprise about 75% of the US population.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[OzPeter]

The implicature is that if an adult "woman" asks for an explicit picture of a boy or a girl it is OK.

FTFY.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[DogDude]

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.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[GrumpySteen]

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 acceptable. This does imply that it is okay for women to hit on underage boys any more than it implies that it would be okay for aliens to abduct and anally probe children.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[Anonymous Coward]

implicature (n):

potential inference that is not logical entailment.

- Random House Dictionary

a proposition inferred from the circumstances of utterances of another proposition rather than from its literal meaning, as when an academic referee writes the candidate's handwriting is excellent to convey that he has nothing relevant to commend

- Collins English Dictionary

Implicature is a technical term in the pragmatics linguistics, coined by H. P. Grice, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied (that is, entailed) by the utterance.[1] As an example, the sentence "Mary had a baby and got married" strongly suggests that Mary had the baby before the wedding, but the sentence would still be strictly true if Mary had her baby after she got married. Further, if we append the qualification "not necessarily in that order" to the original sentence, then the implicature is now cancelled even though the meaning of the original sentence is not altered.

- from Wikipedia

Re:But it is ok for women.

[Anonymous Coward]

Implicature is linguistics jargon, so it's not a common word, but the GP did use it correctly.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[lucaiaco]

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:But it is ok for women.

[Anonymous Coward]

any more than it implies that it would be okay for aliens to abduct and anally probe children.

What about aliens anally probing adults? I'm asking for a friend...

Re:But it is ok for women.

[Anonymous Coward]

I told you to stop making up imaginary animals.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[war4peace]

They've done it with cows for ages... didn't you now?

Re:But it is ok for women.

[serviscope_minor]

Research the phrase "protected class", which appears to comprise about 75% of the US population.

It seems particularly ironic since you clearly didn't. Women are not a protected class. Gender is a protected class.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[Malggi]

I'll never understand why men think it's legal to be fired for being a man, but illegal to be fired for being a woman. It's some real cognitive dissonance.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[thesupraman]

Ah, yes. In the same way skin colour is a protected class?
In that if its white or (arguably) yellow you are protected against additional rights?

Saying Gender is a protected class is BS Newspeak. being NOT MALE is a protected class.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[Anonymous Coward]

Male denotes the absence of gender just like white denotes the absence of race.

Re:But it is ok for women.

[serviscope_minor]

I'll never understand why men think it's legal to be fired for being a man, but illegal to be fired for being a woman. It's some real cognitive dissonance.

Well, no you won't ever understand something that's not true.

Sounds like CYA?

[ClickOnThis]

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.

[jellomizer]

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.

Men only?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that "men", specifically, are the focus of the question infers that...somehow it's ok if a woman asks for pictures? Why would that be?

Hastert Rule

[PopeRatzo]

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 think we're there yet.

Re:Hastert Rule

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook pulled a home movie I made because the soundtrack used an itunes song (Which I bought) and was sharing with my immediate family. They claimed it was a copyright violation. It wasn't. It was fair use. But nevermind. Then later that day I read (on slashdot) that they stood by their decision to keep a beheading video. (Approx: November 2013 timeframe) So, they'll immediately pull a video where IP rights are at stake, but they keep a video where a real human being is loosing his life. With judgement like that, the world would really be better off without facebook in it.

Re:Hastert Rule

[Anonymous Coward]

They claimed it was a copyright violation. It wasn't. It was fair use.

Fair use is a legal defense you can claim when a copyright holder sues you. The court can rule on that.
Since you distributed a copy of that song in violation of the terms of your license, the copy was obviously infringing.

So, they'll immediately pull a video where IP rights are at stake, but they keep a video where a real human being is loosing his life.

I don't know why you think a beheading video is relevant. The video didn't kill anyone. It was probably legal. Yours was probably not.

Outstandingly good behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like Facebook but this is exactly the right approach:
          1) Find out what the community standard is
          2) Find out what the lawyers can tolerate
          3) Find the closest point of overlap between the two
          4) Build the mechanism

I wish more companies took that approach. Personally, I think 14 is WAY THE FRAKK too young, but 16 isn't. I have zero numbers to back that up, and very strong feelings about it, it's obvious I'm being irrational. I suspect many people will react similarly. I think the community standard approach will be the most effective.

How much money does Facebook make from pedophiles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Motherfucking Christ, what a stupid question.

What kind of moron would even ASK this?

Damn if Zuckerburg isn't proof of how wonderful the US is in giving people opportunities.

If a dumbass who creates a company utterly stupid enough to ask "Should We Allow Men To Ask Children For Sexual Images? " can become a billionaire, there's hope for everyone.

A *bullshit* question

[udachny]

So the actual question is this: should FB be actively monitoring all conversations and make value decisions, redact / sensor content and information, actively pass information collected in conversations to authorities, isn't that the actual question?

See, it is obviously a loaded question: should FB allow men to ask children for naked photos (pretty much that's the question, yes?) It is a loaded question, it's a bullshit question, that's because the answer is predetermined: no, FB shouldn't be allowing men to ask children for naked photos. (How about women, by the way?)

BUT the reality is that this question makes no sense. FB is not providing men with a short list of predetermined questions that they can then send to children, where one of those questions reads: 'send me your naked photo'.

That's not what is happening. For FB to not allow men to ask this type of a question from a child a number of things will have to be done:
1. Maybe FB should not allow children to register.

2. Maybe FB should not allow children to add / request to be added as 'friends' with adults.

3. Maybe FB should be monitoring all conversations between men and children and then using various cues (as determined by some form of AI I suppose) to record conversations and then to pass information to a human/to authorities.

4. Maybe FB should be monitoring all conversations at all times, record them and use AI to sensor/redact information and pass data to authorities.

Zukerberger and his FB(I) want to do 4, they want to control your thoughts, conversations, search for 'undesirable' behaviour and report it to authorities.

Instead of asking the question they want to ask (4) they ask you this bullshit question about preventing child porn from being distributed.

Re:A *bullshit* question

[Torodung]

Why is this comment magically at -1? This is what FB is really asking. Is it okay for us to continuously monitor private messaging on our platform?

They just use the "think about the children" loaded question so that you knee-jerk answer "Yes," when the answer should totally be, "If you're providing a private messaging service, then that should remain private. You should comply with any valid search warrant to monitor communications, but we don't do precrime, so we can't just monitor everyone, without a writ."

At least as I understand US law. Other countries may be different. Is precrime a thing in other countries?

I mean, OP might be a little gruff and paranoid, but I don't see any problem with this comment at all that would garner a mod down.

Re:A *bullshit* question

[dgatwood]

1. Maybe FB should not allow children to register.

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.

2. Maybe FB should not allow children to add / request to be added as 'friends' with adults.

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 won't work out as well as you think?

3. Maybe FB should be monitoring all conversations between men and children and then using various cues (as determined by some form of AI I suppose) to record conversations and then to pass information to a human/to authorities.

And this assumes that neither the would-be child abusers nor the children lie about their age. Otherwise, this fails completely.

4. Maybe FB should be monitoring all conversations at all times, record them and use AI to sensor/redact information and pass data to authorities.

That will work as long as it is secret. As soon as anybody finds out they're doing it, the first thing a child exploiter will do is send a "chat with me on [insert other service here]" message, and Facebook won't see anything interesting.

No, none of these things will work in practice. What might work is detecting sexually explicit images and, if uploaded via a child account, reporting them to the parents, but really, there's no substitute for proper parenting—teaching your kids not to do things like that—and any technology that tries to be a substitute for good parenting is doomed to failure.

Re:A *bullshit* question

[dgatwood]

Why is this comment magically at -1? This is what FB is really asking. Is it okay for us to continuously monitor private messaging on our platform?

It is at -1 because the poster got modded down so many times that his/her posts automatically start at -1.

They just use the "think about the children" loaded question so that you knee-jerk answer "Yes," when the answer should totally be, "If you're providing a private messaging service, then that should remain private. You should comply with any valid search warrant to monitor communications, but we don't do precrime, so we can't just monitor everyone, without a writ."

Facebook already allows parents to monitor their children's accounts, including, AFAIK, their private messages. So what they're really asking is, "Should we babysit your children so you don't have to pay attention to what they're doing online?" to which people's answers will vary widely.

Re:A *bullshit* question

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to upload a picture of my penis, but unfortunately I don't have a camera with sufficient focal length to fully appreciate the sight.

Re:A *bullshit* question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this comment magically at -1? This is what FB is really asking. Is it okay for us to continuously monitor private messaging on our platform?

It is at -1 because the poster got modded down so many times that his/her posts automatically start at -1.

They just use the "think about the children" loaded question so that you knee-jerk answer "Yes," when the answer should totally be, "If you're providing a private messaging service, then that should remain private. You should comply with any valid search warrant to monitor communications, but we don't do precrime, so we can't just monitor everyone, without a writ."

Facebook already allows parents to monitor their children's accounts, including, AFAIK, their private messages. So what they're really asking is, "Should we babysit your children so you don't have to pay attention to what they're doing online?" to which people's answers will vary widely.

erm, nope, what they are doing is trying to get away with a TOS that allows them to freely monitor any and all private messaging under the guise of "think of the children".

Re: A *bullshit* question

[Anonymous Coward]

Fbi *is* monitoring every conversation for ad purposes. I wonder how they handle drug sales or murder for hire.

Re:A *bullshit* question

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, does torodung actively search for posts with bullshit in the subject/text? Sorry that this is offtopic

How about NO!

[Zorro]

If you have to even think about it there is a problem.

Why only men?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get it everyone thinks men are more likely to be paedophiles, but grooming behavior also can come from females as well.

I don't know how you really police this well without being Orwellian though. And I agree its a problem.

Age of consent is less than 14

[eggstasy]

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.

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[110010001000]

Since we are being pedantic: America is a continent, not a country.

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we are being pedantic: your mom is a planet, not a galaxy.

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is not America, where kids can buy guns but they can't have sex or drink beer.

Yeah, we really should do something about Mexico.

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[Pfhorrest]

Not in English it's not.

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[dgatwood]

Since we are being pedantic: America is a continent, not a country.

Since we are being pedantic: America is two continents, not a continent.

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[desdinova 216]

I keep hearing about this one guy who wants to build a wall.

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[jbmartin6]

Don't forget, they can vote and go overseas and use the guns, but can't drink.

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on if you're using American or regular English.

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

Hmmm....legal age to buy a gun in the USA - 18. Legal age to buy beer in the USA - 18. Legal age to have sex...wait for it...18.

Though note that there are exceptions to that age limit for sex, depending on the State. There are states that make it illegal for minors to have sex with adults, but not with each other....

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[Pfhorrest]

So by "regular English" you mean the English as most native speakers use it, like in the United States and Canada, whereas by "American English" you mean English as it is spoken (mostly non-natively) in the rest of the Americas?

Re:Age of consent is less than 14

[Anonymous Coward]

since we are being pedantic, america is 2 continents, one relatively contiguous continental shelf, and thousands of islands, and depending on what you consider territory, some territorial waters, and the sea floor under those waters. with an arbitrary line separating the bering strait continental shelf between russian and alaskan territory.

Perfect for cross-promotion with Messenger Kids

[mario6915]

Survey: Hey guys, should we allow pedophiles on our site? Advertisement: Sign up your children for Facebook Messenger Kids today!

Too bad they did not ask for 16

[lucasnate1]

While this question is not interesting for 14, it is interesting for 16, where different countries have different laws.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[110010001000]

You might be surprised to know how shockingly low the ages of consent are in some countries.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[lucasnate1]

Are there any countries that are not complete shitholes where the age of consent is lower than 16?

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[SmilingBoy]

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-year-old and a 16-year-old that are in a relationship for having consensual sex?

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[dcw3]

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

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing you got holidays coming up. Ima right, eh?!

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[lucasnate1]

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:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[PaulRivers10]

You might be surprised how shockingly low the age of puberty actually is.

The onset of puberty varies among individuals. Puberty usually occurs in girls between the ages of 10 and 14, while in boys it generally occurs later, between the ages of 12 and 16. In some African-American girls, puberty begins earlier, at about age 9, meaning that puberty occurs from ages 9 to 14.

The same people that were making out with people their same age when they were 10, grew up to be adults and are now wringing their hands at all that "dirty teenage sex" that's happening and they just can't believe it!

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. A few examples:

- Japan, South Korea, Argentina: 13
- Germany, Italy, Austria, Portugal, much of South America, China: 14

I'd really love to see you defining this highly abstract thing called [by yourself - maybe an US citizen} South America. It is a VERY different and diverse and BIG place.

By the way, in Brazil it is 16. So, you wrong in your absurdly narrow and shallow world view.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[SmilingBoy]

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/...

According to Wikipedia, most of South America has an age of consent of 14 (Brazil, Chile, Peri, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia). As mentioned in my post, Argentina has 13. Uruguay and French Guyana have 15, and Venezuela, Guyana and Suriname 16.

I'd still call this "much of South America", and used it so that the list was kept brief.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[Anonymous Coward]

Incredibly misleading. Japan's laws are complicated, but saying the AoC is 13 is incredibly misleading. It doesn't map to American laws well, but the best fit would be 20 (yes, twenty.) It depends heavily on local laws, but there are areas where incredibly vague and subjective laws mean a 20+ year old man could be arrested for talking to a girl who is under 20. 13 is just the federal bare minimum age where sexual contact is statutory rape (a felony if the perpetrator is male, a misdemeanor if female.)

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[MagicM]

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 support to change the law to "let more kids have more sex" is going to be tricky.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[SmilingBoy]

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:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[SmilingBoy]

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 rate of 67 teenage pregnancies per 1,000 women.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[SmilingBoy]

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:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[ElizabethGreene]

The majority of Europe has ages of consent lower than 16.

Americans should be careful about throwing around the "shithole" moniker. Given our infant mortality, life expectancy, crime and illiteracy rates we live in a particularly fragile glass house. It is un-patriotic to ignore that.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[lucasnate1]

I apologize for my ignorance and lack of clarity. I meant "are there countries where age of consent with extra conditions if less than 16" and I did not know that it is common in europe. Note that I'm coming from Israel, where "age of consent" is 16, but legally 14-16 year olds are allowed to have sex with people that are 14-20 years old.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[angel'o'sphere]

This is the assumption in a shithole like the USA.
How should young people actually catch diseases when they are basically beginners doing sex? And if you don't know it: we have health insurance ... you realize very quickly if you have a sexual transmitted disease. You get treatment.
And: how to prevent pregnancy is taught in schools, at age of about 12. For girls the pill is cost free.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[cascadingstylesheet]

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?

Maybe we should tax them.

Leftists are fine with behavior control as long as it is framed as a "nudge" ...

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[TeknoHog]

The same people that were making out with people their same age when they were 10, grew up to be adults and are now wringing their hands at all that "dirty teenage sex" that's happening and they just can't believe it!

It's one thing for teenagers to make out with each other. It's completely different when one is 14 and the other over 20, for example. There's an imbalance of authority and power, even if there's no literal authority (teacher, coach etc). The teenager will be less likely to realize if they're being taken advantage of, and when they do, they'll be less likely to do anything about it (fear of losing respect).

This is why the age of consent generally applies only when the other party is considerably older. It has little to do with the physiology of sex, it's mostly about psycho-social maturity.

Re:Too bad they did not ask for 16

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem angry. I do not know what is going on, but I hope something good comes your way soon.

Take care of yourself.

"To do Good"

[Bruce66423]

Congratulations on buying into Christian morality. I have no problems with saying it is wrong - but for those who aren't Christian will struggle to condemn the behaviour, given than most societies had an age of consent of 14 or less (cf Socrates' Athens)...

Re:"To do Good"

[jellomizer]

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 recommended a good period of time before consecrations.

Re:"To do Good"

[fafalone]

It's funny that you condemn non-Christian morality on the basis on ancient Greece having an age of consent equivalent to modern Italy and Germany (14), when it's most likely Mary was likely the same age as marriage and child bearing was back then, i.e. even younger- 12, and often to *much* older men-- Joseph was older by decades-- (in practice, where premarital sex was common there were no restrictions whatsoever regarding age before ~1200AD, where the first laws varied from 6 to 12). Funny, 12 was also the age of consent in Vatican City for quite a while wasn't it? Until 2013 (and it still has exceptions for married males 16-17 and females 14-17). Religion has exactly zero legs to stand on when it comes to discussing modern values regarding consent; argue why your particular number is the absolute truth and all others must be condemned, but your 'Christian values' can't back you up unless you pick a fairly low number that I think you'd find even atheists won't agree on.

Re:"To do Good"

[dryeo]

Kids used to grow up faster. When you start going to work full time at 5 years old, by 12 generally you're more mature then modern teenagers.
Childhood is actually a pretty recent invention, especially amongst the working class.

Why no thinking?

[Bruce66423]

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...).

Re:Why no thinking?

[110010001000]

I agree. So why do so many conservative Christians get caught participating in such deviant behavior? The list is endless.

Re:Why no thinking?

[angel'o'sphere]

asking ANYONE for a sexually explicit picture over the internet is clearly wrong according to Christian morality
Why should that be? Because asking via phone is ok? Or via paper mail? Or in whispered words in the ear of the other party?
There is no christian morality against nudeness, it is just a made up thing in modern times ... and if you as a christian find it wrong, you have not much knowledge about your religion and honestly likely a mental problem, too.

Shhh

[Bruce66423]

Americans don't believe the rest of the world exists - you might give them a nasty surprise

Re:Shhh

[Major Blud]

Europeans don't want Americans to exist....until they threaten to withdraw from NATO or enact trade tariffs.

Re:Shhh

[angel'o'sphere]

The rest of the NATO can do just fine without America.

Re:Shhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's all give up and cater to some outsider's incompatible cultural values instead.

Re:Shhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans don't believe the rest of the world exists - you might give them a nasty surprise

How often do Europeans say "The World" when they really mean just Europe or even just the "good" parts of the EU. How often does a country of 350 million people, discussing societal concerns assume the import of their own society.

There is this nasty habit coming from the northwestern Atlantic of projecting what they hate about themselves on others. There is a neutral habit of the northeastern Atlantic where the countries are large enough that locality does not need to be explicitly stated in a societal discussion.

Re:Shhh

[Anonymous Coward]

There might not be so many reasons for NATO to exist if America would just stop existing.

Women are predators too

[schwit1]

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictur...

"Shall FB read all PRIVATE messages you send?"

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't answer no to "shall Facebook read all private messages you send" while also answer no to the original question.
While I don't expect "private" messages on FB to be private and I don't like pedophiles, I would like my private mail and messages to be private.

Mottte and Bailey

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

This smells very "motte and bailey" to me, if being played in reverse.

1. Vanishingly few people will be okay with adults grooming adolescents for sex on Facebook, so I would presume that overwhelming answer will be that this sort of behavior should be disallowed on the platform.
2. Facebook implements additional controls on behavior in other areas, as well, like they always do.
3. When there's public backlash, they'll fire back with "the users asked for it," citing this poll and tying whatever additional restrictions they make into "protecting the children."

Remember in 2012 when Facebook put out a huge policy change but would allow the users to veto it if 30% of the accounts voted against it? Of course it was fair because people aren't allowed to have multiple accounts; therefore, "no one" has one. Sure it included people who abandoned the platform and many others who had died, but it was only 30%, right? Getting the equivalent of the whole population of the US to care about something enough to log in during a week-long window and find the "vote" button is no big deal, yeah?

It's their platform to do as they please, and that's fine. I just wish they wouldn't be so duplicitous about it. Do your thing, Facebook, but don't act like your users asked for it.

What If

[Anonymous Coward]

The adult was the students biology teacher and the sexual images requested were the complete meiosis process?

A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an option

[Torodung]

"It's none of your goddamn business what people put in their private messages. Anything else falls under the 4th amendment. Get a court order."

We are just visible for it

[Bruce66423]

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'...

Re:We are just visible for it

[Anonymous Coward]

OP didn't say "Christians are more sexually deviant." They said "many conservative Christians get caught participating in such deviant behavior".

I think the point is that Christians are exactly as sexually deviant as non-Christians (on average) even though they claim to "take morality (more) seriously". People who frequent buildings with lots of pretty stained glass windows shouldn't throw stones.

Re:We are just visible for it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Is there evidence that Christians actually take morality seriously?

Hmm...

[Bruce66423]

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.

facebook reads ALL messages

[Anonymous Coward]

The implication and obvious fact is that Facebook reads ALL the posts, even if marked "Private".
So do not conduct any business or other "Private" activity on FB.
We should be burning pedo rapists in the public square.

Good spot

[Bruce66423]

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.

Something to offend everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi! I'm Joe Camel! Actually, this is just my nose! Hey, can I come into your tent? It looks nice, out of the sandstorm and all... or are you the kind of person who likes having sex with children?

Oh. Hi, Mohammed. Heh heh. No offens

Swish! Thud! Splash splash .. quiet.

Great now we can't discuss the topic

[FeelGood314]

How to solve a problem:
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 yelling the loudest. If you want to look at how to actually solve a problem look at the gay rights activists who were inclusive, engaging and non-confrontational.

Re:A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an opt

[dcw3]

It's their TOS, and as a member, they don't need a court order to read your messages.

Where was the option "this is a federal crime"

[brainchill]

Where was the option "this is a federal crime" just say no ;)

Not enough time

[micahraleigh]

Facebook doesn't have enough time to check for that.

They have to make sure people have the correct political views.

They help a lot with that kind of thing.

The better question would be...

[Anonymous Coward]

why are paedophiles still walking? Any man or woman that attempts to groom my children for any reasons relating to the topic had better have their affairs in order. I agree with the middle east leaning on how to handle paedophiles. We in the west have become softies as relates sexual crimes. There are tonnes of sick people out there trying to get governments to lower the age of consent for sex. If one follows the trail, it's the usual suspects: always the homosexual/paedophile groups, and there is not much difference between the two. It's a proven fact that most homosexuals were groomed as young kids. Most were also sexually assaulted. Western governments are soft. Rape or molest a kid, get the death penalty, even if "consensual". Young kids don't have the emotional wherewithal to navigate their feelings. Some feel trapped and ashamed at having been taken advantage of. Some are blackmailed. But these people are sick, you say! They need help, you plead! Paedophilia has the single highest recidivist rate for any crime at almost 100%. These sick bastards return to their crimes like a dog to its own vomit. I'd be happy with segregated life in prison, but the death penalty is preferable.

Re:The better question would be...

[war4peace]

There are questions around and issues with what you are stating, though.

1. "Any man or woman that attempts to groom my children for any reasons relating to the topic had better have their affairs in order." - you failed to specify an age limit. 5 is different from 16 as age.
2. "I agree with the middle east leaning on how to handle paedophiles." The problem there is that women are property wherever Shari'a is law. Even from a young age. Do some research before stating incorrect facts.
3. "There are tonnes of sick people out there trying to get governments to lower the age of consent for sex." - okay, what if those "tonnes" become the majority? Standards would change, wouldn't they? And then it wouldn't be sick anymore, would it? this reminds me of that joke with the Brit trucker taking a shipment to Europe for the first time, and he hears on the radio "A madman drives on the opposing lane" and yells "ONE madman? There's THOUSANDS!".
4. "It's a proven fact that most homosexuals were groomed as young kids." I found myself to be bisexual late in my life, at around the age of 30. I was never sexually assaulted, groomed or whatever. So far, I am yet to meet ONE homosexual / bisexual male who was groomed or abused at a young age. Not saying they don't exist, but there's doubt around "most".
5. "Rape or molest a kid, get the death penalty, even if "consensual"." - If it's consensual and of legal age, it's no longer rape or molesting, now, is it? Just defining a baseline here.

Now that we got those out of the way, please define which are the characteristics, or features that would differentiate between "legal" and "illegal" in matters of sex. Otherwise we can't discuss further because we have no baseline to start with.

The second /. article today...

[neo-mkrey]

...that made me wish it was April 1st.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to use this like you expect us to find that bad.

Degenerates like you SHOULD hurt. You think we persist to keep our course for fun? No. Each time it happens,the very point was,to make you puke yourself to death.

And all you keep giving us, are false promises.

Gender Discrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not ask in a way that includes females requesting sexual images from minors, or is that just allowed by default?

Should Users Allow Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook has become quite the nuisance.

Why aren't we all canceling our accounts???

Re:Should Users Allow Facebook?

[war4peace]

Good question.
Because more and more apps, games and software started to rely on Facebook alone for account creation.

Interesting question

[wardrich86]

Everybody is jumping on the "Should not be allowed" option, but are missing the fact that skimming this kind of stuff means more monitoring of "private" conversations.

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 nudes of minors, I'm also curious/worried about how they would put a system in place to monitor the chats prevent it from happening.

if ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If facebook decides that enabling that grotesque criminal crap is allowed, I suggest that everyone in the US burn down your local facebook office. In the lack of the presence of a facebook office, they could put a per-transaction tax on facebook to operate in the state. This would require facebook to massively counter in every single state in the US. It should cost tens to hundreds of millions to mitigate, if it can, and then it would cost billions in brand-value damage.

Silly question

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook Asks Users: Should We Allow Men To Ask Children For Sexual Images?

Yes, please!

in an ideal world...

[ooloorie]

"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."

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.

Not Necessary To Ask

[sycodon]

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: Not Necessary To Ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Today if you aren't a stupid imported minority you are supposed to castrate yourself. Too many of you aboriginals, just die.

Sure, as long as

[scourfish]

As long as the police are allowed to lock those men away for a long time.

Re:A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an opt

[CronoCloud]

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.

Think about the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Facebook looking to read all of your messages so it can mine them. They are just trying to get you feeling instead of thinking by saying it is to protect children from pedophiles.
Facebook showed that they don't give a rat's ass about the kids when they decided kids could set up Facebook pages and get mined and marketed to.

Not Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to create a not slashdot because f* posting somewhere if behind the scenes moderators are just going to filter/delete it out if it does not blend with their world view.

AI?

[Imazalil]

This is what happens when you let "ai" generate your questions for you based on website stats'n'usage.

wishful thinking

[superwiz]

I don't think any normal 14-year-olds use Facebook. I have a 14-year-old and she thinks emails are too much work to write. I think she is more likely to think of Facebook as something that her mom uses than a place to meet some mysterious stranger.

Re:wishful thinking

[war4peace]

At least that's what she tells you :)

Re:wishful thinking

[superwiz]

Something I knew even when I was a kid myself: parents know *most* of the time when they are lied to. They just don't bring it up most of the time.

Re:wishful thinking

[war4peace]

That's true, as a parent I can relate. However, there are kids and kids, and starting a certain age, they get GOOD.

someone wrote, and reviewed, this survey

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot believe how this survey got out. I've sent 100's of surveys , and those got lots of eyes on the survey.

I'm incredulous.

Also, these surveys , if well designed, come with 'if they say x, we'll do y.' I cannot imagine what the authors were thinking , as y means 'we'd facilitate breaking the law'

"Mistake"

[Cajun Hell]

Yvette Cooper MP, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, condemned the survey. âoeThis is a stupid and irresponsible survey,â she said. âoeAdult men asking 14-year-olds to send sexual images is not only against the law, it is completely wrong and an appalling abuse and exploitation of children.

Interesting that Cooper is not only weighing in with the opinion that Facebook shouldn't have asked people for their opinions, but also weighs in on what everyone's opinion should be.

It sounds like Cooper is saying that it would be ok for Facebook to ask her; the problem is that she doesn't want Facebook to ask anyone else.

Re:"Mistake"

[Cajun Hell]

BTW, one of the things that's so disappointing about the objectors, is that they missed something so obvious: Facebook is asking these questions because they're trying to set priorities. This is going to come down to whether or not you want Facebook to be spending money on having AIs read private messages, vs leaving policing to someone else (government, users, whatever). The outrage seems to have as its premise, that Facebook should be a cop, rather than cooperating with warrant-wielding cops like everyone else is expected to.

Facebook should have an elevated position compared to, say, you.

I hope these fuckwits realize what they're asking for, because pedophiles are going to be less than a percent of what they just asked Facebook to hunt for.

Of course, yes, I do realize what Facebook's "mistake" was. They trusted people to think. They trusted evil, lazy, arrogant, stupid people to think, and misplaced trust is indeed a mistake.

The question is sexist!

[Locke2005]

Why assume the predator is always a man and the victim is always a girl?

Personnally...

[PPH]

... I'm going to raise my kids to reply to a request for sexual pictures with Goaste Guy.

Should Say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Men, Women, Transexuals, etc.

List all the genders..

Re:A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an opt

[angel'o'sphere]

It's their TOS, and as a member, they don't need a court order to read your messages.
Regardless of TOS they are not allowed to read the messages at all. Even automated scanning for any purpose is on the edge to be illegal.
No idea why here are so many idiots who think a TOS has more weight then the law has.
Regarding the curt order: a court can order them to hand over messages, but not allow them to read them.

Re:A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an opt

[dcw3]

Even automated scanning for any purpose is on the edge to be illegal.

Either it's legal or it's illegal...there is NO edge. And the legality varies by country.

Re:A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an opt

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and one more thing. You can give consent, which is what you're doing when you sign up for a FB account.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/s...

Jailbait

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be a crime with the same punishments as pedophiles would face for a 14-year old girl to hit on an older man.

Re:A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an opt

[Megol]

Which is just another way to select the "I don't know anything about the fourth amendment and how the world works" option.

Matthew 5?

[Bruce66423]

“You have heard that it was said to those of old ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Re:Matthew 5?

[angel'o'sphere]

That is not christian ... that is jewish.
And it has nothing to do with walking around nude ...

Seriously

[dethjester]

Why do they allow children on Facebook at all? I guess that any online forum should be safe for a child, but would not limiting access to FB to people over the age of consent fix this problem to a certain extent? I am aware of the fact that most kids can work their way around any restrictions imposed by their parents, but surely they can start to take some responsibility for their own actions, and the actions of their kids. Oh and I am in no way justifying the behaviour of those that do groom kids, but would this not be the best approach? I dunno, would you let your child out at night in town after, like, I don't know, 6pm? Again I guess in an ideal world a child should be able to go out at any time, but should we not make a sensible approach to the problem? One thing I guess is that social media has proliferated our lives so much that it has become important for kids to become familiar with it at an early age, but is there not a line we should draw in the sand at what children can do online, for the sake of their safety?

More tech

[Anonymous Coward]

less sex

Re:A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an opt

[angel'o'sphere]

You as a person, may not read my message.
But if you let your dog sniff at the envelop and it barks, you put a stamp on it saying 'suspicious', that would be legal.

If automated scanning of mails/messages is legal or illegal is a matter of the country. I have no idea if it is illegal in the EU. But if you hired enough people to actually read the messages, or even read the message after an automated system flagged them: that would be illegal.

Re:A possible answer, which I'm sure wasn't an opt

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yeah... try sending that to a 14yo. Great way to recruit highly skilled underaged labor, but kind of a narrow target for sexual purposes...

Wow - a Marcionite! How quaint

[Bruce66423]

So when Paul quotes a command from Jesus you accept that authority (1 Cor 7), but reject the gospels as an accurate representation of what Jesus said? Or do you merely excise the bits of the New Testament that you don't like entirely? Tell me more: as a recent MA in church history I'm fascinated by the truly unusual.

Re:Wow - a Marcionite! How quaint

[angel'o'sphere]

I don't exercise any religion.

So I don't tell you why Paul said this or that.

Point is: in christian religion there is no moral point that nudity is immoral.

And the old testament is not christian religion, it is a reference book about what christians are not: e.g. christians prefer forgiveness over revenge.

You citing old testament but don't know that is for christians more or less irrelevant. It is a collection of historical events, e.g. Moses flight from Egypt or the conquest by Babylon, and law and health rules and other events, "suggestions".

Heck christians can not even agree if/which parts of the old testament "make sense": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Old Testament consists of many distinct books by various authors produced over a period of centuries.[4] Christians traditionally divide the Old Testament into four sections: (1) the first five books or Pentateuch (Torah); (2) the history books telling the history of the Israelites, from their conquest of Canaan to their defeat and exile in Babylon; (3) the poetic and "Wisdom books" dealing, in various forms, with questions of good and evil in the world; and (4) the books of the biblical prophets, warning of the consequences of turning away from God.

Anyway, I have no problem with christians as long as they don't impose their self invented personal moral views on the rest of the world.

A friend of mine always says: all the evil on the world coms from the monotheistic religions (and this focuses on the three main ones).

Anyway, pray and live in peace!

P.S. look up the christian translation of the Indian greeting "Namaste" or the Thai version "Sawadee Khrap". Hint: it is wrong. And there is a reason why it is wrong. So sad ...

Re:No Facebook (not the point)

[King_TJ]

The question asked in the FB survey was pretty straightforward, and it simply asked if you'd be ok with a particular type of Federal crime going on over the service. The only sane answer is "no".

This wasn't asking to what extent FB would be expected to spy on private messages, actively seeking out certain types of discussions or content.

Old Internet aphorisms

[istartedi]

Of course, because on the Internet men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents.

What a stupid question

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid question

And again.

[Anonymous Coward]

So...it's only men that are pedophiles?

More and more female teachers are getting caught, so...this is another case of the blind eye being given.

It's Disruption

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Facebook is just trying to remake pedophilia. To "disrupt" it. Give it a cool, hipster, brogrammer vibe.

It's true, young people are so much smarted than stupid, old people. A stupid old person would have dismissed this opportunity out of hand and would have been afraid to reach out the the pedophilia community.

#FacebookCares

Facebook hypocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Tge garbage that Facebook allows or recognizes as acceptable is demoralizing to everyone. The scammers run rampant on FB and Amazon and Google owned sites like blogger. These employees and company principals should be brought to the guillotine!