|
|
Forum: In the News
Thread (Discussion): [Wired News] Sexual predators lose an outlet
Message 164340
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Oct 12, 2005 05:22 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss the article Sexual predators lose an outlet, which appeared on Wired News on October 12, 2005.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 164343 (In Reply to Message 164340)
Posted by Renunciation
on Oct 12, 2005 09:56 PM | Also by Renunciation
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Bahrain |
Funny how Yahoo acts as though this is the first time they heard of this issue.
In 1998 there were chat rooms and groups that were started by young girls with the expressed intent to compete on how many adult men they could "bag"
Yahoo Groups was once the sexual haven for perverts of all walks. From clown fetishes to seriously illegal sex classifieds.
Now in 2005 Yahoo acts like they are surprised?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164340)
Message 164345 (In Reply to Message 164343)
Posted by steve
on Oct 12, 2005 10:09 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
True. It's a good move on their part and they're obviously getting political pressure, but I agree that it's been a problem in various parts of Yahoo for a long time and they haven't always seemed eager and quick to address it.
The agreement calls for the ISP to remove and bar the posting of user-created chat rooms with names that promote sex between children and adults
SNIP
In June, while still in discussions with the attorneys general, Yahoo removed or barred the posting of about 70,000 user-created chat rooms whose names suggested they facilitated illegal conduct, including promoting sex between adults and minors.
At first glance it sounds like they are just going after chat room names that sound like they promote adult-child sexual contact. That in of itself wouldn't be that effective since it doesn't address chat rooms that have less blatant names, but still contain content and discussions of this type. However, it goes on to say:
# Yahoo must prescreen all user-created chat room names and deny posting of all that encourage sex acts between adults and minors.
# If and when Yahoo becomes aware of any such chat rooms, it must purge them from its site within 24 hours.
That seems to imply any that involve discussion (and images I presume) of this type will be purged. I thought that was already the case, though I don't think they were as active at policing their chat rooms (and when they say "chat rooms" I think, or at least hope, they also mean Yahoo Groups as well), and appeared to sometimes need repeated pressure from people for action to be taken (could have been a backlog, workload issue). In any case, unless they can streamline the process and work with law enforcement to prosecute, there's no reason for those interested in engaging in the prohibited activity to continue to create new accounts and new chat rooms and groups.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164343)
Message 164381 (In Reply to Message 164340)
Posted by artie
on Oct 13, 2005 02:32 AM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I don't want to hurt your feelings but Yahoo still is the biggest spreader of child porn.
There are over 1,000 images on the profiles in the member directory. Yahoo refuses to remove them because they don't want to raise the free speech issue. This agreement allows this to continue.
We fought this battle before
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164340)
Message 164461 (In Reply to Message 164340)
Posted by saintjimmy
on Oct 13, 2005 07:15 PM | Also by saintjimmy
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
These rooms have been in existence for so long, that all these chatters know each other, will continue communicating with each other, and will simply invade other chat rooms. This is too little, too late.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164340)
Message 164462 (In Reply to Message 164340)
Posted by artie
on Oct 13, 2005 07:25 PM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Sexual predators lose an outlet
Don't forget that Law Enforcement just lost themselves one of thierr playgrounds.
This is smoke and mirrors. The cops are trying to draw more people to thier chat rooms. You will know then; they are the ones that are set up in Yahoo and AOL for the benefit of the cops. The member chats were too hard to control.
Don't believe me? go to PT Cruisers (PT), Order of Rainbow Girls, Incest Daddy's etc.
Why weren't they banned? Then go check the groups. the list is too long and disgusting to print here. Be careful, they are monitored and you WILL be noted if you visit.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164340)
Message 164465 (In Reply to Message 164461)
Challenge to Non-Sex Offenders!!!
Posted by Renunciation
on Oct 13, 2005 08:16 PM | Also by Renunciation
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Bahrain |
My personal problem with Yahoo Groups being what they are is my personal presumption that they generate rather little revenue from the members in relation to their use.
I was in several non-sexual groups, still am in fact, veterans and a group targeted towards other non sexual interests. Not once have I clicked on an advertising banner, and I cannot recall at this moment a single company that advertised there.
So, there is NO WAY that Yahoo is unaware of what exists in their groups, that would be simply impossible. So only one of two options exists as to why these horrible groups still flourish.
1. The people in control of Yahoo Groups are non-convicted sex offenders who siphon the materials and use them for their own personal sexual gratification.
2. Law Enforcement has directed Yahoo to not shutdown those groups because they use them as an investigative tool to capture predators. If shut down, the kids, and the predators would go deeper underground.
I say poppycock. If just ONE child can be saved by reviewing and shutting down inappropriate Yahoo Groups, then that should be done. LE surely does not catch every predator in the Groups.
I think people like Valerie would be VERY VERY effective in this type of mission. Attacking people already convicted is a coward's game, going after Yahoo and those not yet convicted in the groups would make her ilk true warriors in the cause against sexual abusers of children.
People not yet convicted will not play as nice and meek as a RSO on probation. Get a predator convicted, THEN you have accomplished something. Harassing RSOs is like dangling keys in front of a car thief, it is useless.
Finding and bringing to justice a sex offender not yet convicted is like breaking the fingers on a car thief as he tries to steal your car, it might save a child and its true "combat" in the war against predators.
I issue a challenge to all non-sex offenders:
Go after Yahoo Groups. You may have no idea just how disgusting and vile the groups are. If you truly want to protect children go after the Yahoo Groups.
I do not not know the key words to find the groups and I am not allowed into the adult based groups, nor would I go if I were, it would be like an alcoholic drinking light beer and saying it didnt count.
But those groups are in there, and in the time it took me to write this post, an adult probably has solicted sex from a minor, or vice versa, and someone is in danger.
Non sex offenders, save a child, go after Yahoo Groups!!!
Anyone who can help with the new "hip" keywords, please help them if they accept this mission. LE should be able to help on this.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164461)
Message 164557 (In Reply to Message 164465)
Posted by mawmaw
on Oct 14, 2005 10:33 PM | Also by mawmaw
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
I agree that there is big problem with sex on the internet but we all have a " Choice " and it's simple .... stay OUT of sites that you have a gut feeling about child porn chat sites !!!!!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164465)
Message 164652 (In Reply to Message 164557)
Posted by Renunciation
on Oct 15, 2005 08:35 PM | Also by Renunciation
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Bahrain |
So does this mean you are accepting my challenge and going after Yahoo Groups to at least moderate their content if not shut them down altogether?
Or you another coward who attacks people already convicted who are on probation and cannot fight back?
You want to make a difference in stopping child sexual abuse, go after Yahoo Groups. Do something, you canot ignore the problem, I JUST told you the problem exists. If you know about it and do nothing to stop it, it is the same as doing it.
I cannot go after Yahoo directly because I cannto to go those groups. You can and you can make life hard on the predators and Yahoo. You might even safe a child from rape or death. If you dont, you might allow a child to raped or killed.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164557)
Message 164942 (In Reply to Message 164340)
I'm Amazed this was allowed in the first place......
Posted by victorialondon
on Oct 18, 2005 05:53 PM | Also by victorialondon
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United Kingdom |
I'm amazed this was ever allowed in the first place.
As for the web being a psreader of Child porn.
I don't appove of this filth in any way.
But it's strange,in the case of digital images(a growing number of actors in films of all sorts from now on will be non existent people ,as in Toy story,star trek,Harry Potter and many others)that paediatricans (in this country a paediatricain and his family were attacked by a mob,confusing the term with padophile,lynch mobs aren't the best experts at interpreting the clasiical Greek roots of words) are called in to assess the ages of people who have never existed.
Similarily it's odd that the verdict of a court or appeal court,as to what is/is not Child pornography will put thousands who have downloaded in or out of the category of "PAEDOPHILE!!!!"(different state by state,due to differing consent laws,and legal Child "marriage"what someone is posted for,the address where they live with their Children for in one state,is legal across the road in another state).
Tragically strange is the way the web was used to spread Child pornography in the following instance.(see thread)
Two poor 16 year old girls,in Latrobe,with common juvenile exhibitionism,posted nude pictures of themselves on their website.They were then charged with "MAKING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY/ABUSING A CHILD!!!!",the Child they abused themselves.Their boyfriends who recieved the pictures were charged with "POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!!".
They all now stand to be posted and pilloried for this.
What if this were your daughter? your son?.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164340)
Message 165556 (In Reply to Message 164942)
Posted by MrTruth
on Oct 27, 2005 01:52 AM | Also by MrTruth
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Well, if I were mawmaw, I would disown my child because as everyone knows, viewing porn is one small step away from being a baby raper, which, of course, being mawmaw, means every sex offender is a baby raper.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164942)
Thread
164340, admin, Oct 12, 2005 05:22 PM [Introduction]
164343, Renunciation, Oct 12, 2005 09:56 PM
164345, steve, Oct 12, 2005 10:09 PM
164381, artie, Oct 13, 2005 02:32 AM
164461, saintjimmy, Oct 13, 2005 07:15 PM
164465, Renunciation, Oct 13, 2005 08:16 PM [Challenge to Non-Sex Offenders!!!]
164557, mawmaw, Oct 14, 2005 10:33 PM
164652, Renunciation, Oct 15, 2005 08:35 PM
164462, artie, Oct 13, 2005 07:25 PM
164942, victorialondon, Oct 18, 2005 05:53 PM [I'm Amazed this was allowed in the firs...]
165556, MrTruth, Oct 27, 2005 01:52 AM
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
