Why does the headline focus on the "incest"? It was child porn. I don't think it's even illegal to possess incest porn if it's consenting adults. This guy was into kiddie porn.
The article itself heavily focuses on the child porn, too. It only mentions the word incest 3 time, once at the top (the opening lines are typically a reiteration of the headline), and then twice in the same paragraph later on, but it mentions child porn numerous times. The writer clearly understood what the most significant thing was.
I think this is one of those cases where the writer submitted the article but the editor, for whatever dumb reason, altered the title. That's not unusual nowadays, editors will change titles for SEO and engagement purposes all the time, and I'll bet they're using LLM's to assist now. It's just that usually there's an obvious reason. Take an article one of your journalists wrote, give it a clickbait headline, hit submit. This is odd because it does the exact opposite.
I think the other comment has the right idea: there's a good change search and social media algorithms are hiding or dropping the rankings of titles that explicitly mention CSAM.
There has definitely been a trend in the media of downplaying CP and CSAM recently. I thought others were crazy when they said it, but after paying attention a bit, yeah, it's happening. My theory is that it is because of algorithms filtering stuff like that out.
No one becomes a cop in a small town with good intentions. It's just power-tripping assholes from day one. People can say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and maybe they're right - but malice is a no-speed-limit freeway.
In case anyone else misunderstood the title the guy wasn't producing incest videos himself but he had all kinds of underage and incest content on his electronics that he was exchanging with other pedos.
He was definitely doing some disgusting stuff but he wasn't physically abusing anyone as far as these charges are concerned, which is what I assumed based on the headline. It sounds like he hasn't had the chance to act on his perversions but he was actively looking for someone to abuse.
Title suggested he was trading. But either way it doesn’t matter. It is in part condoning physical abuse by providing a willful and consenting audience to it. Even if you’re not doing the act you’re still benefiting from an act doesn’t excuse you from partaking the dog pile.
A brain with a shred of ethics where something may have even been mis clicked online spots and terminates a non consensual interaction as to know that feeling that they provided some eyes to see it and regret having seen it. Eg: regretful search in google.
Where as a monster comes up with excuses to keep looking at it….such as an excuse like what you just provided.
Is incest porn illegal? I assumed it was child porn in the article. Seems like “step” incest porn is everywhere. Always thought it was pretty gross tbh. The “step” thing always seemed like a thinly veiled wink and nod type of thing.
“38 w male looking 4 that special girl that was raised right and wants 2 continue the tradition.... If u luv the little things In life message on Wire same name....”
Like, ok, everyone has their kinks. Who am I to judge. But using, of all things, TWITTER to share porn? Wtf
Edit: ok it was child porn, much worse than incest. But my point generally stands. Why tf would anyone use twitter of all things to share illegal files?