0

Just how sick do you have to be to upload hundreds of porn videos, disguised as videos suitable for kids, to the most popular of video sharing sites? And how sick do you have to be to do so under the impression it is either funny or somehow exposing a YouTube shortcoming? I would suggest, in the light of the 'Porn Day' attack which hit YouTube yesterday, very sick indeed.

If this stunt was, indeed, intended to highlight a failing in the YouTube adult content filtering system then the people behind it could have done that without resorting to the tactics they did. They could have been mature and sensible about it, but instead opted to demonstrate more immaturity than can be found at the annual dumbass convention.

You see what happened was a whole load of video clips got uploaded to YouTube which purported to feature Hannah Montana or the Jonas Brothers or other content which would appeal primarily to children. Many of the video clips apparently did start off with kid's video content, one assumes in order to circumvent any automatic adult filtering process, before proceeding to display sexually explicit acts featuring groups of adults.

Can you imagine being a parent of young kids and having to deal with the fallout of such an experience? Sure, you might argue that it is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their kids are not viewing inappropriate material. You might argue that it is the responsibility of YouTube. Both are fair points, but in this particular case the responsibility has to fall on the sick dumbass idiots who thought it was funny to post these videos in the first place. Perhaps if they ever become parents themselves they might take a different view on what is acceptable behavior when it could impact upon their own children.

I am not suggesting that we should be following the Chinese lead in attempting to remove all traces of sexual content from the Internet, far from it. Nor am I suggesting that Google is squeaky clean when it comes to dealing with getting it's own house in order when it comes to pornographic content. What I am saying, quite plainly, is that deliberately disguising explicit pornographic videos as content aimed at children is beyond stupid, beyond sick and in my opinion completely criminal. Indeed, if the authorities are prepared to prosecute teenagers who text naked images of themselves to each other via their mobile phones, then I see no reason why they should not prosecute this bunch of dumbass idiots as well. Of course, there is the small matter of catching them, which should not be too difficult as many have been bragging only about their posts in assorted online hangouts.

So who was behind all of this? Well, the consensus of opinion would appear to suggest that the stunt was the work of the 4Chan group. This is the same group that recently managed to hack Time magazine's most influential poll to ensure the founder of the group came out on top. Indeed, someone claiming to be a spokesperson for the group has already claimed responsibility and has told the BBC it was done to expose just how easy it is to post porn to the supposedly family friendly YouTube. Dumbass.

Google has acted quickly to ensure the videos can no longer be viewed and is working hard to remove all traces of them from the system. However, it does admit that it could take a couple of days to delete all the associated thumbnails from video searches for example.

As Editorial Director and Managing Analyst with IT Security Thing I am putting more than two decades of consulting experience into providing opinionated insight regarding the security threat landscape for IT security professionals. As an Editorial Fellow with Dennis Publishing, I bring more than two decades of writing experience across the technology industry into publications such as Alphr, IT Pro and (in good old fashioned print) PC Pro. I also write for SC Magazine UK and Infosecurity, as well as The Times and Sunday Times newspapers. Along the way I have been honoured with a Technology Journalist of the Year award, and three Information Security Journalist of the Year awards. Most humbling, though, was the Enigma Award for 'lifetime contribution to IT security journalism' bestowed on me in 2011.

9
Contributors
10
Replies
12
Views
8 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by servicecat
0

That's just not right. Sick, twisted freaks. Why not just leave YouTube alone and stick to making their own pornographic websites?

0

Typical ignorant, arrogant, selfish mentality of these extremists. They are the sort of people who infect children with aids to prove that the medical coverage is not good enough, who would bomb their own villages in Iraq to make the people hate the "oppressors".....
Whatever they can do to inflict some damage, so that their pet peeve gets some coverage. Reminds me of arsonists who set fires in order to generate some attention for their pitiful little existence...

0

Sigh, just thought i'd put you imbeciles straight

They weren't aimed at children; they were posted under the most popular tags on youtube. It is a coincedence that these happen to be retarded fame-whores who have no talent and are just famous for being famous, which kids thoroughly enjoy.

To your claims about us being 'sick, twisted' etc, yes. yes we are; for we believe in ultimate freedom of speech: and that brings out sides in people that they don't normally let out.

Also, the time.com raid wasn't 4chan's doing, it was a small group that are regulars there: doesn't mean that we were representing.

0

Right, so you did not aim these porn videos at kids you just used tags you knew kids would be searching for. Very mature.

And how do you explain having porn clips which start off with kid friendly content that then turns into sexually explicit content.

Ah, I see, that's where your "ultimate freedom of speech" claim comes in I guess. I suppose you would use the same argument to defend child porn then, after all it is just freedom of speech right?

<sigh>

0

Boo-hoo-hoo! WGAF

Your 4chan accusation is a danger to this site. Any reference to that site could lead to a potential invasion.

0

A good action is to remove all the porn videos and make penalties to whoever will try to upload this kind of video.It is not good for the kids to watch things that are beyond their thinking for now.Have you realize the effect of this to them?

0

MosaicFuneral: It is not my accusation, but rather comes from someone claiming to be a member of 4Chan who told the BBC they were responsible. The comment from Anonwinrar in this thread would seem to confirm this.

As for "WGAF" the answer is most parents of young kids who could have got exposed to hardcore porn disguised as kids content I would imagine.

And finally, suggesting that a news story is not covered in case of some kind of retaliation is not something that, as a journalist, I have any time for.

0

Sheesh, people your forgetting the lesson to be learned here.

1. Life is not fair.
2. Life is hostile. Who are we kidding to think otherwise?
3. It is impossible to shield children of everything bad and is unhealthy to do so. Why? How else will they learn the skills to cope with a cruel world. How else will they learn what to do when confronted by a bad situation or unexpected one. When some prank like this happens you sit the children down and explain it to them. If you can not be responsible adults and get over your squeamishness about the facts of life that SEX is Mandatory for survival, and teach your children right from wrong on how to deal with the subject, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN. I don't, and I am 35.:|

Here in the USA we try so hard to shield children and teens from sex Vs in Europe they are more open regarding the subject. Then Look at the statistics on teen pregnancy. And I am shamed to say this but over protecting children has led to youth not knowing how to deal with sexuality in a mature manor for lack of practice through mainly communication. We are suppose to guide them NOT shield them.

Free speech regarding child porn infringes on the child liberties.
Porn=demeaning, put down, do harm in a sexual manor. Thus its an indirect metaphor of punching the child in the face. Thus harming the children liberties. Then free speech has to be retracted in this instance, regarding child porn.

Edited by servicecat: n/a

Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.