• Jarix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Iirc child nudity isn’t enough for something to be considered porn. It has to be gratuitous. Not sure if that is the same for transmitting online or not.

    It’s fakin weird by today’s standards though and is probably handled very differently from one place to another

      • WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        This story is what led me to start dropping Google services and got me into self hosting for more than just media.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Good.

          Fuck google. I just wish the other 5 billion people obsessed with it would do the same. Company is one of many that deserve to die.

      • Jarix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Perhaps I didn’t remember correctly. I’m curious how movies have gotten away with it

          • Jarix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            I don’t follow where you are going with this. The premise is Google recording images and having a naked child in them, which is no different than named children appearing in movies without it being CP… Somehow.

            And what your response to my comment doesn’t seem to address or explain is why those movies got to be allowed when they have naked children in them. At least it’s not obvious

            So what is it that makes recording naked kids permissible and what doesn’t.

            Google doesn’t make movies doesn’t answer or explain anything that I can figure out