• taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Does it feel odd to anyone else that a platform for something this universally condemned in any jurisdiction can operate for 4 years, with a catchy name clearly thought up by a marketing person, its own payment system and nearly six figure number of videos? I mean even if we assume that some of those 4 years were intentional to allow law enforcement to catch as many perpetrators as possible this feels too similar to fully legal operations in scope.

    • lumony@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      It would feel odd, but you have to remember we live in a world where Epstein was allowed to get away with what he did until the little people found out.

      • Geetnerd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Epstein was very smart, and figured out early on there were many, many rich pedophiles.

        So, he got buddy buddy with them, supplied young girls to them.

        BUT, he filmed the encounters in secret, and blackmailed the shit out of these people.

        He was smart enough to become obscenely rich on Wall Street legitimately, but he liked to bang little girls, found others who did too, and then extorted them.

        There’s an anecdote about how when Epstein was holding court with other Aristos, they would bring up any random subject, to get his opinion.

        What would he say? “What does that have to do with pussy?”

        Many, many people have verified that. But because we was filthy rich, everyone just laughed, and blew it off.

        Epstein was murdered. I’m not a conspiracy nut. It’s just blatantly obvious. The 2 guards on duty admitted to fucking off (bribed,) and were aquitted.

        https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/case-dropped-jail-guards-duty-night-epstein-died-rcna10557

        • Ledericas@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          trump was his most frequent guest, and he trump had his goon do everything in his power to get rid of the evidence when he was still alive. alot of politicians of different countries are part of it, as are hollywood execs, weinstein was probably the most infamous one.

          • Geetnerd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            This kind of thing is rampant. And it’s not just little girls.

            Heard from Bryan Singer, lately? Corey Feldman’s story about he, and Corey Haim confirm it.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      with a catchy name clearly thought up by a marketing person

      A marketing person? They took “Netflix” and changed the first three letters lol

      • imetators@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Exactly! There are plethora of *flix sites out there including adult ones. It does not take much of marketing skill to name site like this.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      95
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Illegal business can operate online for a long time if they have good OpSec. Anonymous payment systems are much easier these days because of cryptocurrencies.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s a side effect of privacy and security. The one side effect they’re trying to use to undermine all of the privacy and security.

      • TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        This has nothing to do with privacy! Criminals have their techniques and methods to protect themselves and their “businesses” from discovery, both in the real world and in the online world. Even in a complete absence of privacy they would find a way to hide their stuff from the police - at least for a while.

        In the real world, criminals (e.g. drug dealers) also use cars, so you could argue, that druck trafficking is a side effect of people having cars…

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          Well, it does have to do with privacy and security, it just doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not for them. These people (in the US) always make a point that criminals will buy guns whether it’s legal or not, but then they’ll argue they need to destroy privacy because criminals are using it. It doesn’t make sense, but it doesn’t need to because honesty or consistency aren’t important.

        • x00z@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          This platform used Tor. And because we want to protect privacy, they can make use of it.

          • sleen@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            This particular platform used tor. It doesn’t mean all platforms are using privacy centric anonymous networks. There are incidents with people using kik, Snapchat, Facebook and other clear net services to perform criminal actions such as drugs or cp.

    • sleen@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      With the amount of sites that are easily accessed on the dark net though the hidden wiki and other sites. This might of been a honeypot from the start.

      On the contrary, why would they announce that they seized the site? To cause more panic, and to exaggerate the actual situation?

      In addition, that last point should be considered because even if they used these type of operations, honeypotting would still be considered illegal. So Ultimately what is stopping the supreme power to abuse that power on other people?

      • quack@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        No judge would authorise a honeypot that runs for multiple years, hosting original child abuse material meaning that children are actively being abused to produce content for it. That would be an unspeakable atrocity. A few years ago the Australian police seized a similar website and ran it for a matter of weeks to gather intelligence which undoubtedly protected far more children than it harmed and even that was considered too far for many.

        • sleen@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          “That would be an unspeakable atrocity”, yet there is contradiction in the final sentence. The issue is, what evidence is there to prove such thing operation actually works, as my last point implied - what stops the government from abusing this sort of operation. With “covert” operations like this the outcome can be catastrophic for everyone.

        • Rob1992@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Pick any country where child marriage is legal and where women are a object the man owns

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Context is important I guess. So two things.

          Is something illegal if it’s not prosecuted?

          Is it CSA if the kid is 9 but that’s marrying age in that country?

          If you answer yes, then no, then we’ll not agree on this topic.

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            I am not talking about CSA, I am talking about video material of CSA. Most countries with marriage ages that low have much more wide-spread bans on videos including sex of any kind.

            As for prosecution, yes, it is still illegal if it is not prosecuted. There are many reasons not to prosecute something ranging all the way from resource and other means related concerns to intentionally turning a blind eye and only a small minority of them would lead that country to actively sabotage a major international investigation, especially after the trade-offs are considered (such as loss of international reputation by refusing to cooperate).