Twitter Allows Self-Proclaimed Pedophiles to Spread Their Message on Its Platform


#1

Twitter Allows Self-Proclaimed Pedophiles to Spread Their Message on Its Platform

Charlie Nash 4 Dec 2018 Breitbart News

Twitter is allowing dozens of pedophiles to use the social network and promote their pro-pedophile messages, focusing its time instead on banning conservatives and cracking down on “hate speech.”

In a series of posts, Saturday, one anonymous Twitter account documented the dozens of pedophiles openly using the social network. Breitbart Tech confirmed the listed accounts on Twitter.

Over 50 accounts which openly described themselves either as pedophiles or MAPs, an acronym for Minor-Attracted Persons, were listed — some of which have been active on Twitter since 2012. . . .

. . . . Twitter’s pedophile problem has previously been reported on by news outlets, including the Daily Mail , the Sun , and Vice News . . .

. . . “Twitter’s pedophile problem has previously been reported on by news outlets, including the Daily Mail, the Sun, and Vice News” . . .

Twitter’s priorities give new meaning to the phrase . . . . VICE news.


Behind the Google-Southern Poverty Law Center relationship
#2

That is disgusting!!!


#3

Extremely disgusting!


#4

So says Breitbart. But look deeper. I looked at the first Twitter account mentioned, (Virtuous Pedophiles) and I did not think it was “promoting” pedophilia, any more than AA promotes alcoholism. Don’t believe everything you read on Breitbart.


#5

LeafByNiggle . . .

I looked at the first Twitter account mentioned, (Virtuous Pedophiles) and I did not think it was “promoting” pedophilia

I am disappointed you think this Leaf.

For all other people . . . .

. . . read even the name of the account, then go on and read the provided excerpts in the article.

You readers can draw your own conclusions.


#6

But don’t stop with excerpts, which can be biased. The article provides a link to the actual Twitter account. Go to the primary source, since it is available. Why settle for a secondary source to curate your data?


#7

Yes. Go ahead and read the accounts if you want (if you can stomach that).

Draw your own conclusions.

Why settle for a secondary source to curate your data?

Because once you see some of these pedophile sexual-deviants perverted ideas, they may sear in your mind.

So some people do NOT WANT to be exposed to that in the first place .
Or they do not want more exposure than we already get from news stories (and even that is too much sometimes).

I’m glad cops and district attorneys do it (to help put these people away often times), but I want no part of it.


#8

LeafByNiggle . . . .

Don’t believe everything you read on Breitbart.

Cathoholic . . . .

Don’t believe everything you read almost anywhere.


#10

@Cathoholic, it looks to me like your last two posts contradict each other. By saying you’re unwilling to look at the source material and make your own fully-informed judgment

Yes I assumed someone would bring this up (and I debated with myself about not even bringing it up for that reason.)

What I mean is . . . I have read enough where I am comfortable making MY decision.

That is WHY I said . . . .

So some people do NOT WANT to be exposed

YOU on the other hand may not have read enough. IN which case delve deeper.

No self-contradiction.


#11

Wampa . . . .

That Twitter feed is run by someone vociferously opposed to adults having sexual contact with children

Yet not so “vociferously opposed” as to quit identifying with Pedophiles.

(Or devious enough to proclaim themselves as innocent pedophiles,
yet solicit private emailings [instead of just post only on public forums]
to “further the conversation” furtively or secretly
while some people are credulous enough to think this is ALL innocent despite pedophiles openly identifying as pedophiles, Twitter giving them a platform, yet banning others.)

I guess this is why I never read Breitbart (or HuffPo or InfoWars or any number of far-right and far-left entities for that matter): they’ve proven to me over time that they will selectively report things (and sometimes make them up) to further an agenda.

WHO do you read (that you think has no agenda)?

From the Breitbart article . . . .

One account, named Virtuous Pedophiles, described itself as an account for “pedophiles against adult-child sex,” while another user described himself as a “50ish year old anti-contact paedophile.”

“howdy, i’m davey,” declared one user in his bio. “i’m attracted to boys 4+.”

Breitbart notified its readers of just what you are talking about.

Wampa. You are relieved and “pretty happy” at these pedophiles reassurances.

Again, from the article . . .

“I’m out to around 15 ppl and all of them love me and no-one was aggressive or disrespectful,” claimed another self-proclaimed “anti-contact pedophile,” who used an image of a young boy as his profile picture. “My friends are even better friends now.”

Many others are not necessarily relieved.
You will have to make your own decisions.

I guess this is why I frequently read Breitbart. They’ve proven to me over time that they will report things that many other news outlets will not report. (At least until the story goes viral on Breitbart. THEN the legacy media sometimes WILL in a sense, be “forced” to report it.)


#12

I think I may need to step away from this. I have never been so disturbed. With the current worldwide crisis in our Church, to think anyone could possibly think of defending this on CAF, makes me want to vomit.


#13

Seeing a poster I genuinely respect understand my post (which was intended to be about attacking the “reporting”) as defense makes me realize I should have never waded into this thread. I have deleted my post, lest anyone else have this same takeaway.

None exist in the media anymore IMO. It’s all just varying degrees of bias. I endeavor to stick to sources that at least try to weed out their bias, such as the major wire services (e.g. the Associated Press and Reuters) and stay away from the ones that are unabashedly ideologically-driven. And if I read a report about a topic where I care enough to get at the truth, I go to the primary source/document - it’s the only way to filter out the bias nowadays.


#14

Wampa (regarding unbiased media outlets today) . . .

None exist in the media anymore IMO.

You and I concur here.

I think some of the media outlets hide their extreme biases better
which that may be even more insidious and pernicious to those unsuspecting readers who “think” they are getting unbiased media reports.


#15

I apologize that I misunderstood your post. And it is a relief to me that I did. I can respect criticizing reporting and also specific news outlets.


#16

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.