Reporting Websites

This evening I went back onto two sites that I knew contain indecent photos of children, not to use it for my own pornographic use, but to report it to the authorities (IWF) for the atrocities that they were creating - I reported them anonymously without giving away any personal information. I urge everyone who knows of a publicly accessible website or online source depicting child abuse to do the same. Have you reported sites in the past? Did you feel better for doing so, or if not, what's stopping you?

Have you reported sites in the past? Did you feel better for doing so, or if not, what's stopping you?

No.

I have never reported sites in the past. The main reason for this is probably that I do not frequent those parts of the 'Net and I can't think of ever having accidentally stumbled on child abuse imagery.

The other issue is moral political: your expression "indecent photos" is used very widely and sometimes includes harmless fun and art.

For example: I knew this guy really well who was into arts and culture. He participated in a fine arts website that had nudes; sculpture, paintings, cinema, and photography. The site was deemed illegal in the country where it was hosted, and hostile persons who reported the site led to it being taken down. Thankfully the site came back up hosted from a different country. A lot of people in the arts community who were familiar with the events did not accept that the supposedly abusive and obscene images of children were abusive or obscene.

For example: that same guy I knew really well who was into arts and culture administrated an ideas discussion site for three years. The site included discussion of child sexuality, as well as art, photos, and writing that the site company eventually took down due to a campaign of reporting by offended people. The site was very arts and ideas oriented and had lengthy discussion from professors, including Oxford's, and even a letter of support and endorsement from well respected Anglo-American philosopher Hilary Putnam.

So that's why.

I don't see the point, since the only ones actually profiting from it are run by the FBI anyway.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:I don't see the point, since the only ones actually profiting from it are run by the FBI anyway.

Yeah, because the FBI owns child pornography sites, right?
Oh God, this one....

Planet Conspiracy again

ElKahn wrote:Yeah, because the FBI owns child pornography sites, right?
Oh God, this one....

Planet Conspiracy again

I recall that being reported in mainstream media; LEAs taking over pay-by-credit card sites and also media trading sites.

Oh well if you mean they do that to catch people who watch CP then yeah that's true.
Just nothing more than that.

I'm not saying that the system of reporting websites is perfect and yes, sometimes perfectly legitimate sites are taken down unfairly, but it is a vital service that public users can provide for the authorities.

The main purpose of doing it, as well as to track down people who regularly watch, distribute and host child pornography, is so that pedophiles, not necessarily child abusers, but people who hate their addition that is fueled by this online material, can attempt to regain some control. If the material is not there to be viewed then regardless of of who is hosting the material, these people can gain self-therapy through not accessing the material.

but people who hate their addition that is fueled by this online material, can attempt to regain some control. If the material is not there to be viewed then regardless of of who is hosting the material, these people can gain self-therapy through not accessing the material.

That is one of the "4 Ds of disconnection": "Denial of responsibility". The sites do not make you look at them: you do. Accepting doership of our actions rather than pawning responsibility off onto other people or things is considered to be therapeutic by many.

http://www.noogenesis.com/nvc/disconnect.html

Mr Writer wrote:The main purpose of doing it, as well as to track down people who regularly watch, distribute and host child pornography, is so that pedophiles, not necessarily child abusers, but people who hate their addition that is fueled by this online material, can attempt to regain some control.

Please. It happens time and time again that an outspoken, virgin pedophile is investigated and it brings the LEAs endless frustration that they can't do anything about it. Get rid of all the CP on the internet as it is considered now and they will just tighten the definition and go after lolicon, Youtube videos and sex dolls, with ever increasing standards of "maturity" of the content even going after young-looking adults.

It is not about deniability of what a person is doing, it is about not giving a person the chance to fuel their obsession by making the material available in the first place. It is a fair statement to say that some people would go on to dig further into the dark web for illicit sites and that does not solve the problem, but it is too generalising to assume that all pedophiles would. It is a procedure that does more to stop pedophiles first discovering material online, or yet to start using it, rather than pedophiles experienced with finding and using CP.