[SpaceBuddha]

If you're actually an active pedophile then I'm sure you're already well aware of any tactics for accessing illicit content by the time they're showing up in the WSJ. For everyone else, the only way to understand the full depth of the problem and how pervasive it is, is to understand and examine the methods these people are using to connect and distribute that illicit content.

[bacchusracine]

>For everyone else, the only way to understand the full depth of the problem and how pervasive it is, is to understand and examine the methods these people are using to connect and distribute that illicit content.

Doesn't that basically serve as advertising for them though? How many people with Instagram accounts are going to try testing some of these keywords, just to see if they are real? How many aren't going to simply take the word of the journalist and suddenly have these recommendations spamming them and others?

[SpaceBuddha]

"Pedophiles have their chosen hashtags, too. Search terms such as #pedobait and variations on #mnsfw (“minor not safe for work”) had been used to tag thousands of posts... Following queries from the Journal, Meta said it is in the process of banning such terms."

It seems like any concrete examples used in the article are likely to be the first ones removed by Meta (if they haven't already done so). Also if you try typing in weird keywords to see illegal content because you don't trust journalists Idk how you can effectively accuse those same journalists as advertising them. As an analogy, I don't think anyone would accuse someone of advertising drugs just because the information they spread about the dangers of fentanyl could hypothetically be used by someone to distinguish real fentanyl from other substances.