view the rest of the comments
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Let's not get it twisted. If he was just watching videos on RedTube or something, I don't think that would have been a huge issue. But what you don't want is a minor in a chat app actively talking to groomers and what not. I feel like a lot of you would be way less judgy here if it had been a 14-year-old girl on a porn site with adult men.
Doesn't change the fact that the parent wasn't parenting their child.
You're right, kids should grow up in a highly observed police state experience with constant observation so nothing is ever the fault of corporations. Turns out Mom has to work when kid is off school and trying to keep someone offline now is nearly impossible. There's a myriad of endpoints. I think the parenting aspect here is the mom should be explaining to the son why sites like Chaturbate are extremely dangerous. It's not parenting to constantly police your child. I find it hilarious that a generation that grew up just disappearing into the night until the lights came on for dinner advocates that anytime a parent isn't directly looking at their child, they're wildly irresponsible.
I grew up with completely unfettered access to the internet. I first had sex with a married woman that I met on a site when I was 15. I think I largely turned out okay, but I can understand why someone may not want that to be possible for their child.
No, how about you just fucking talk to your kid? "Ew, no I could never talk to my kid about sex! How could I set boundaries in my home with the child I'm raising when I really really don't wanna talk about the horizontal dance!"
If you can't be an adult and be involved in your children's online activities and day to day life, then maybe you shouldn't have done the things those actors are doing on the porn site? "Oh but it's your right to have sex and reproduce!" If that's the case then it is your responsibility to raise that child in an environment that you believe is morally and ethically correct.
You don't want porn in your house? Learn how to use parental controls on your home network. You don't want your kid talking to strangers on the internet? Then you ought to make sure you know who they are talking to or stop them from talking at all.
This isn't black and white and you are being disingenuous suggesting that is the case.
Some of us like porn and also privacy. This woman hates both. This woman wants her freedoms to supercede other's freedoms.
Oh you mean like I explicitly suggested she do? I think you're projecting things onto my comment that I didn't suggest. I think people are just being way too savage on here without any moderate thought about what challenges might be there.
All that was required to stop this entire situation was for her to put a password on the computer. I live alone and I have a password on my computer. If you’re too stupid to setup password protection then you’re too stupid to be operating a computer or raising children, this really is an issue of parenting.
Edit: Also, no you fucking didn’t.
You are obviously not a parent.
Don't change the gender, change the event. Teen shoots self on the foot while playing with parent's unsecured revolver. Is Smith and Wesson responsible?
Morally? Maybe. Legally? Hardly.
If dems went on that basis to push gun laws Republicans would have a fit. That's how you know the political attention and support around this event is an hypocritical act. This has nothing to do with protecting children, but all with exerting government control over citizen's internet activity.
Grooming happens everywhere on the internet, and Kansas laws aren't aimed at that at all. Xitter, Facebook, tiktok, Snapchat, Instagram are way bigger vectors of child grooming. We've known for a decade that social media is the biggest source of CSAM, usually with way less moderation than porn sites. But this isn't about children, it is about pushing a purinatical agenda to get support for a party to acquire control of free speech online and ultimately squash dissent and independent thinking.
Lol okay let's equate a computer and gun, this is a hilariously bad argument
Sexual abuse and grooming children are life altering events that put psychological development and life in danger. How are they not on the same level of severity as a gun inflicted wound? You brought up the subject, not me.
No. The models on those sites don’t know the age of the people they’re talking to. It’s just another anonymous user watching or grey username saying stupid shit to them in the main chat. The vast majority of performers will not speak to users privately unless they pay. I don’t give a shit if a 14 year old girl is watching porn. That’s her business.
These type of sites required payment or at least a payment method to chat no? The kid could watch stuff but I really doubt they could chat with anyone.
Good point, I'm not up to date on what free offering gets you. If that's true then that already acts as at least partial age assurance