We have to reject the self-mythologising of the technology sector. "AI" is not sentient machines. The "dark web" is not an secret parallel internet. These are all mundane technologies developed by people and legal entities who can and should be held to account.
We mystify online harms when we talk about the "internet" like it's a natural kind , and not an industry made up of companies whose decisions determine whether their users are harmed or not, regulated by govts who grant them that discretion.
e.g. the mental and physical illness that results from the constant anxiety & hypervigilance as child sexual abuse material, intimate images or deepfakes go 'viral'.
This illness is the result of the commercial decision not to moderate content, not to scan for illegal content.
When teenagers make deepfakes of other children, we have to ask why app stores are carrying deepfake apps, why social media companies are advertising these apps to children, and why these apps are lawful to develop and sell in the first place.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We've had some questions about our child sexual abuse perpetration prevalence survey, which found that one in ten Aust men have committed a child sex offence, and one in six men are attracted to children. humanrights.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/…
We used 18 as the age of consent across all offences, although consent varies in Australia between 16 - 17. It is 18 for many child sex offences (ie child sexual abuse material, child sexual exploitation). Some have suggested that this inflated our findings.
Why did we use 18 as the age of consent? Although our report focused on the Oz data, this is a multi-jurisdictional study that surveyed men in Oz, UK and USA. The age of consent varies up to 18 across the three countries.
1. They should receive the assurance of the Aust govt that the distribution of their material is being monitored and disrupted via proactive detection and removal strategies.
2. A govt agency should be tasked with safety checks to ensure that no identifying information about them has been leaked in the online offender community.
3. If it has, then that survivor requires tailored safety planning and ongoing monitoring of offender chatter.
A lot of child protection history gets memory-holed. People forget.
For instance, the push to criminalise "child pornography" came from a 1973 case where 27 boys were sexually exploited and murdered in the production of child sexual abuse material.
US Attorney General, 1986:
This was just one of several cases where US authorities identified the industrial production of child sexual abuse material in the 1970s.
Leading to a series of public inquiries in the late 70s which all concluded that CSAM constituted a major black market and locus of organised crime.
In light of the attention to the Balenciaga shoot, it's worth noting the 2020 article in Australian Feminist Studies defending a sexualised fashion shoot with prepubescent models from the mid-1990s. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
The shoot has young girls in revealing, low cut dresses (exposed sternum and back) and provocative poses, including one lying flat over a table. One girl is posed next to a teddy bear that appears to be masturbating.
The photos were controversial at the time, which the article decries as a "moral panic" about "child pornography". Instead, we are told that the photos were forging a "visual trajectory for rethinking childhood through a queer affective prism".
The Balenciaga campaign has girls holding BDSM teddy bears and includes photographs of the court decision that legalised some virtual child sexual abuse material in the US.
There is a long history of allusions to child sexual abuse within "high" culture, art and theory.
Throughout the 20th century, sexual violence against children & women has been depicted in the fine arts, cinema and intellectual culture as a courageous unveiling of hidden truths ie the open tolerance of child sexual abuse by French novelists & intellectuals until #metooinceste
Acceptance or allusions to child sexual abuse is a strategy for artists and intellectuals to mark themselves as more daring or sophisticated than the masses. We see this strategy used across a range of settings from fashion to art and academia.
Make no mistake about it, there are well funded programs, clinicians and academics who want to "destigmatise" the desire to sexually abuse children. They believe that this will somehow (?) prevent child sexual abuse.
They use the language of "public health" and "prevention" but they are forensic psychs/researchers with no public health or primary prevention training. They see stigma solely as a negative force that prevents paedophiles from accessing clinical treatment.
They have no familiarity with the social benefit of stigma in setting normative boundaries and acting as a guide to acceptable behaviour. Those of us with actual public health training and an understanding of social norms recognise that stigma has a role in prevention.