Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Actual crimes should not be allowed on Facebook.
Is it that hard to get?
I thought this would have already decided by federal law? It doesn't seem like it is even up to Facebook or its userbase.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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."
The real path to male liberation
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?
The implicature is that if an adult woman asks for an explicit picture of a boy or a girl it is OK.
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.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you have to even think about it there is a problem.
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.
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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
While this question is not interesting for 14, it is interesting for 16, where different countries have different laws.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Why are children allowed on Facebook?
Because marketing to children is profitable.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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...).
Americans don't believe the rest of the world exists - you might give them a nasty surprise
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictur...
This smells very "motte and bailey" to me, if being played in reverse.
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.
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
"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."
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'...
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's their TOS, and as a member, they don't need a court order to read your messages.
Just another day in Paradise
Where was the option "this is a federal crime" just say no ;)
And they'll just go back to doing what they did before Facebook lowered the age to 13: lie about their age. Kids do that, you know.
Like their parents, aunts and uncles, etc. So now, all the pedophiles can create accounts and pretend that they are 15, then court all the children they want, and the kids' parents will be none the wiser. Why do I have a feeling this won't work out as well as you think?
And this assumes that neither the would-be child abusers nor the children lie about their age. Otherwise, this fails completely.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
It is at -1 because the poster got modded down so many times that his/her posts automatically start at -1.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
...that made me wish it was April 1st.
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.
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.
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
As long as the police are allowed to lock those men away for a long time.
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.
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
This is what happens when you let "ai" generate your questions for you based on website stats'n'usage.
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Why assume the predator is always a man and the victim is always a girl?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
... I'm going to raise my kids to reply to a request for sexual pictures with Goaste Guy.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Just another day in Paradise
Which is just another way to select the "I don't know anything about the fourth amendment and how the world works" option.
“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.
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?
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Good question.
Because more and more apps, games and software started to rely on Facebook alone for account creation.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
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.
Of course, because on the Internet men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)