> I'm sorry.. but what is your daughter selling, exactly?
Did.. did you just post “I’d have to see these images of the preteen girl before I could form an opinion about whether or not the men buying and sharing them were creeps” as a rebuttal to an article about social media enabling child predators?
Well, I already have an opinion on them. The article seems to purposefully avoid describing what the market and the service here is. There are a limited number of venues where a preteen girl can credibly earn money on social media. Also, if she's earning that money, I'd openly wonder whether a Coogan Account is appropriate and if one exists here.
Anyways.. my shock was really over the fact that the mother is basically saying "I want to sell access to my daughter online but I'm surprised that the biggest spenders are adult men with questionable intentions." Did she genuinely believe that the target market was other 12 year old girls willing to pay to watch another 12 year old girl? The parents resignation over the situation in deference to the money is also disgusting.
> about social media enabling child predators?
That's my point. The article entirely fails to do that. It's one case with a questionable background and zero investigation over the claim, which you'd expect, because the crime statistics show the exact opposite.
That was the impression I got from your previous post.
> There are a limited number of venues where a preteen girl can credibly earn money on social media.
… ???
> my shock was really over the fact that the mother is basically saying "I want to sell access to my daughter online but I'm surprised that the biggest spenders are adult men with questionable intentions."
This article is about how Instagram enables [sometimes paid!] access to children. It is good that we both agree that that is what happened here, on Instagram, in this case. You also agree that the people buying access to this child, in this case, on Instagram, are adult men.
Somehow you have an issue with the mother and the child doing something but in the same breath say
> The article entirely fails to do that. [“That” being enabling child predators]
If Instagram didn’t facilitate access to child predators then… what happened here?
And finally (this is a question for literally any person reading this other than akira2501) how did you read this article and arrive at “I should post that I would want to see the pictures before I render judgment about the platform”? If it is uncharitable to notice that that’s a weird post, how do you interpret that specific point?
> Instagram’s algorithms have steered men with deviant sexual attraction to children to the girl’s page, flooding it with unwanted comments and come-ons, according the Journal.
It is a normal response to think “I wonder what was so attractive about the images that the child made that these men were forced to follow and comment on them. I will post about how we shouldn’t judge the men or platform until we’ve seen the images”
Did.. did you just post “I’d have to see these images of the preteen girl before I could form an opinion about whether or not the men buying and sharing them were creeps” as a rebuttal to an article about social media enabling child predators?