The NCMEC are frequent readers of my site. Seriously, those guys never miss a Brian Ribbon post! However, should anyone in law enforcement be interested in "talking" to me, please note that I have nothing but an anonymous e-mail address for my interviewee, and I'm not interested in talking with you anyway. Don't waste your energy.

A few weeks ago, a person contacted an activist organization with the message that someone had encouraged him to speak with a man named Brian. He stated he was the operator of various darknet sites that allow sharing of criminalized images, but with strong ethical guidelines. My interest very much piqued, I first clarified a few safety guidelines before sending a list of questions.

The interview was conducted fully anonymously, and at no point did I need to access any illicit services. That does of course mean I was not able to verify the person's statements. Nonetheless, this must be the first time such an interview has been attempted. Let's see what the man has to say.

The interview

The interview is copied and pasted verbatim, with my thoughts stated below. In some cases, I've then added the interviewee's response to my thoughts.

Prologue: First, without providing names or links, please tell us a little about what your sites offer, as background for the article.

The sites I'm responsible for position themselves between MAP sites, which usually focus on activism and promoting loving relationships towards individuals who are younger than 18, and sites where sexual material is shared openly. On my sites, we offer a relatively safe environment where individuals who have a sexual interest in others between the ages of 0-17 are able to share material and discuss various topics. Sites of a similar nature have existed on the dark web for years, but we are different. We have been part of numerous sites in the past and have seen a lot of good and bad play out. We are taking what we learned during our time with other sites and applying it to our group. Our decisions are made from a mature and relatively moral point of view.

This is quite a novel idea, mixing activism with erotica. I once had a contact who would share links to my writing on darknet sites, and he reported a surprising level of apathy among participants. There are allegedly hundreds of thousands of MAPs on darknet porn sites, and they need nudging toward activism. I'm pleased to hear that someone is apparently trying to teach these people pro-MAP ideology.

Question 1: You use the very loaded term 'CSAM'. Is there a reason for this? To many MAP activists, this term is essentially newspeak intended to manipulate the public.

The definition of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) is, to me, material which features children with a sexual intent. And we are dealing with such content. The term 'Abuse' is problematic since there are degrees of abuse. My personal scale of what signifies 'Abuse' does not align with society, which is quick to conclude that an image of a naked child in their backyard could be classified as abuse if it's shared.

In this case, I would ask why use loaded language at all? There is no actual need to refer to criminalized images as 'CSAM'. The term 'criminalized images of minors' (or even 'CIM') would suffice. The current terminology is 100% newspeak, pushed by organizations that profit from hysteria.

In a follow-up, our interviewee acknowledged my concerns about terminology.

Question 2. Most people assume that criminalized images/videos of minors depict adults violently assaulting small children. How accurate is this assumption?

Such images/videos certainly exist, and we've seen many sites that take pride in being uncensored and open towards sexual violence come and go through the years. According to the way we classify content, all sites except the ones I'm hosting allow content where sexual violence occurs. They claim to be child lovers, but the truth is they will ignore reports regarding certain content where the child is clearly crying in pain because it's what makes them different. And their users can consume such content feeling confident they're still on a site where the rules state they love children. This trend of claiming to love while at the same time turning a blind eye to certain extreme content is a relatively new trend. In the past, sites for child lovers did maintain lists of girls who couldn't be posted. If anyone is claiming that my sites are depicting violent assaults, I have a problem with it. I will never be okay with such content on my sites.

This is different to my understanding (based on reports from those familiar with such sites). It's also somewhat at odds with Wikipedia's screenshot of a defunct boy porn site named Boystown; that indicates a prohibition on categories considered harmful (for example, penetration of toddlers). While this would hardly be enough to win the Boystown administrators a Nobel prize for popularity among the general public, it does illustrate that other sites have maintained at least some standards. That said, the interviewee describes the erosion of restrictions as a fairly new problem, and Boystown was reportedly shut down in 2019. Perhaps the closure of the old sites, and the arrests of their admins, has led to replacements that are actually more harmful to children?

In a follow-up, our interviewee adds:

The Boystown site you mention is an exception. There used to be a group of boy lovers who applied similar rules to us and I believe the people involved with Boystown were those guys. I've never been close to boy lover administrators and during the years I've been around there's a divide between us. I currently stay in touch with one former administrator who somewhat support our cause but he informed me he's busy moderating another site and is unable to collaborate with us.

AiW [defunct site] ran with a list of banned content for 5 years, they did quite a good job keeping their users from bad sites and we ended up collaborating for a while due to our common belief in child love. The end of AiW was a mess there they descended as people from the hurtcore site [redacted] started being part of their top users and among their staff. A few months following that it was revealed hackers and LEA were both running AiW and tried to get as many arrests as possible. I believe the hackers decided to remove the child love related rules and ban me and the sites I was responsible for so they could attract more users which would bolster their numbers once they shut it down.

Question 3. What are your thoughts on AI images/videos, and how popular are they on your sites?

I'm a supporter of AI images/videos. I even have a site dedicated to AI content. My personal belief is that we'll see more AI content as the AI models mature and more individuals will be interested in seeing what comes from that space.

The situation with AI is very frustrating. Should AI models be allowed to develop uncensored, it would be possible to make entirely lifelike images that would kill demand for new content involving real children. Instead, governments and policymakers around the world are pushing to criminalize AI material and the models used to make it, in part because "it's disgusting."

There exists the technology to watermark images as AI-generated, so law enforcement claims of being unable to distinguish between real and fake images are false. Furthermore, a model may be trained on existing content, but that does not mean its output represents any real person. And claims that AI images lead to criminalized acts with real children are simply not supported by evidence.

There really is no good argument for criminalizing AI images, models, and tools. As I explained in a Mu article around a year ago, the real motivation has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children. Indeed, as I argued in that article, those pushing such prohibitions actually stand to gain from the continued production of real child pornography. The UK's Internet Watch Foundation is a particularly egregious monstrosity.

Our interviewee responded:

Recent censored models like [removed] doesn't require training a LoRA model based on children. On its own the model is unable to generate nudity but the text encoder is uncensored and the model does allow 10 input images where the model is able to look at the images and understand what it's looking at. If you prompt it stating [removed] it will be able to fill in the blanks for the image generation phase.

So, it sounds like AI is now able to make images without involving the use of real child pornography (or even nudity) at any stage of the process. Any claim that images of real children must be used is nothing more than intentionally misleading conflation.

Question 4. What steps do your sites take to reduce harm to children, to the extent that such is possible?

We analyze all content that involves a certain individual and ask ourselves if the actions to which that individual was subjected were reasonable and what the motive was. There are several cases where we decided that what happened was not fair to the child, and their images or any discussions involving them are not welcome at our sites. I listen to others. For example, we received information that zoophilia is linked to a higher rate of sexual sadism. We evaluated the situation and decided that such content does pose a problem in our case, so we decided to ban such content. We collaborate with outside sources, like researchers, to give them the tools required to help users who feel they have a problem. We have users who like to change certain aspects of their lives, and we should provide proper support. By making sure individuals who participate in our sites get a realistic view of children and a life they're comfortable with, we increase their chances of making the right decisions when faced with a relationship towards a minor.

This may well seem a bit righteous to many, and still 'not enough' by those outside of the community. Indeed, to the non-MAP community, even sharing pictures of children in swimwear might be labeled sick and disgusting. There are also questions of consent in production versus distribution; a young person may have been happy to have their photo taken, but not for it to be distributed.

And yet, despite these many shades of grey, I think what our interviewee is doing is a fascinating moral experiment. Sexual politics and sexual morals are not neat and tidy. No matter how much the public may wish to carve a deep gorge in the rock between sex and minors, to do such is a denial of the realities of youth sexuality in general. Children are not asexual, and teens especially not so. I know from being a teacher that rather than adults imposing sexuality on young people, those who work with children do their very best to suppress youth sexuality to protect themselves from censure and liability. It's all so silly.

And the murkiness applies not only to minors, but also to adults, and even to those who fully consented to have their images and videos distributed online. Indeed, one famous adult porn star has expressed massive regret over what she did as a legal teen, and condemned the adult porn industry as exploitive. Stripped of ownership of the recordings made of her, she is unable to have the videos deleted despite now feeling ashamed. This is hardly any different to arguments that minors may consent to reveal themselves to the camera, but not to the distribution, without knowing any better. And while this doesn't make anything fully virtuous, it does beg the question... if the informed consent of both adults and minors in pornography is questionable, why the black and white distinction between adult and child porn?

Our interviewee is at least attempting to make a meaningful change, no doubt facing the scorn of virtually everyone in the entire world. His intention is impossible to fulfill to the point of perfection, and it would be so if he were a purveyor only of adult porn. And this really cuts right to the fucking chase. MAPs are expected to be saints, and under-18s entirely sexless, while any person over 18 may be thrown to a pack of wolves for all anyone could care.

Question 5. Do you think there are any ways in which hysteria about criminalized content, and the law itself, increases the risk of harm?

Yes, in the sense that anyone who is aware they are not doing well is unable to receive help. Asking for help these days is like turning yourself in; nothing good can possibly come from it. We are currently unable to offer any help resources to our users because it is not done in a way that respects the privacy of the individual according to our security rules. Also, the way the legal system classifies content is unreasonable, since there is no legal difference between the content you download; it really doesn't matter how sadistic the content is.

I agree with the interviewee here, but I think there's a lot more to consider. I already discussed some of these thoughts above, and will elaborate below.

Question 6. You mentioned that you think sites offering criminalized images/videos should help users to seek therapy. Why do you believe this, and how might it work?

Yes, I believe it's right because I have heard statements from people who are feeling suicidal. They don't wish to consume certain material, and they're not sure if they can handle having a child over without losing their self-control. The right thing to do is to offer them help. Currently, we dedicate a section where people are able to express their concerns, which does help to a certain degree. We have also built this expectation that we will make sure professional help is available in a way that works for our users. The therapy we would be able to promote must be anonymous and usable in TorBrowser set to the Safest mode. The specific details of the resource should be decided by professionals who should base their decisions on our feedback.

The security issue is a major one, because TorBrowser set to 'safest mode' rules out most options. There are solutions, like running Whonix or TAILS, but these require a degree of technical literacy. If you're a MAP who actually does need help in refraining from harmful behavior, but you're not great with computers, what the hell are you supposed to do?

B4U-ACT works with therapists and life coaches who offer counseling for MAPs, and the latter may operate outside of the mandatory disclosure framework. But these therapists and life coaches aren't cheap. And while they have been vetted, coming out as a MAP (and especially as someone addicted to child pornography) is still far from 'safe'.

If MAPs weren't treated as inherently criminal, and the private possession of child pornography were not illegal, those who actually do need help controlling their behavior toward children would be a hell of a lot more willing to get it.

Question 7. What motivates you to operate sites that will inevitably be major targets for law enforcement around the world? Are you not afraid?

My main motivator is a sense of disappointment towards the community. It seems like no dark web administrator is doing this for a good cause; it's all about money and power. What I'm most disappointed by is people who want users to pay for CSAM and have no concern for their users or the children. It's a case of making money with no limits on what's being shared. As far as I'm aware, two guys are operating 70% of all sites, including the false child lover ones, where they also accept donations. Greed has ruined many parts of this community over the past years.

I'm afraid that some of my past statements and actions have caused a fair bit of frustration among users and administrators. What decreases my fear is knowing we're not a big target.

My understanding was that most darknet site operators were not profiting financially, so I'm surprised to hear this. Based on evidence collected by the researchers associated with Yesmap, it must be a new development? Absent of any moral concerns, it sounds incredibly foolish to monetize such a thing, as even crypto can ultimately be traced.

Such monetization may be a result of a scarcity of new material, caused partly by the recent problematization and attempted eradication of self-generated content, as well as by the prohibition of material featuring fictional children. But I do not have good evidence for that, and I would like to hear the thoughts of our interviewee when he receives this article for review.

Follow-up:

I used to be the single administrator for [darknet site] and every month I received a complaint from the server owners about how the site wasn't generating enough money to cover the server fee and how if I don't increase the revenue they will shut it down.

In our case we were forced to advertise a paid Telegram channel which features no limits on the content for a month, that created a lot of friction between me and the server owners. I resorted to writing a guide on how to obtain Monero and I added a button which users could press for details on how to donate to the site.

Those guys ended up leaving me behind and their current sites offer things like buying/selling content and asking for donations. The Telegram thing is still active but they're not advertising it actively, I believe one of the owners is operating that Telegram group.

If making money is the goal for site operators and producers, those who download images without paying - essentially pirating them - are not 'contributing to a market'. It would make sense not to criminalize simple possession of child pornography, but to focus instead on situations where money is changing hands.

Question 8. Is there anything else you'd like to say?

Yes, I want to make sure people who read this don't get the wrong ideas. Outsiders have a difficult time understanding the difference in content and may falsely believe we're not dealing with sexual material.

Personally, I believe it's okay to engage in sexual games with minors as long as it's on their terms, and it's an idea most of us support. We are no saints, and the expected outcome of the therapy isn't to make people stop viewing such material.

To me, the help we wish to offer should help people process their thoughts and put them in a position where they're less likely to do something that a child may not be okay with. This is a sexuality, and there's nothing wrong with loving children. We wish to promote love and make it so that the most hurtful content isn't available.

Also, perhaps it would be interesting to know about my preferences and what our sites deal with briefly. I'm a girl lover who prefers the ages 4-12. I'm mainly interested in children who are in that all-too-familiar playful mood where they like showing their bodies and getting up to things which they find naughty. I also enjoy professional studio images.

My sites welcome boy and girl lovers, but the majority are girl lovers. The preferred ages range from 0-17, which is rare since the guys who run most dark web sites have long decided to blame nepiophiles on a false assumption that such people are evil. This is very funny coming from the group who openly allow content where children cry in pain. Nepiophiles are not what's wrong in this community.

First of all, I want to reiterate that I encourage readers to follow their local laws. Not because I think the laws are just, or that the social contract could be applied to MAPs (it couldn't), but due to the sociolegal consequences of not doing so. And it is not just the adult who is harmed, but also the young person who is groomed into believing they are a victim of abuse. But speaking philosophically, I agree with the interviewee that consensual AMSC is not necessarily harmful. In cases where no harm has occurred, there should be no involvement of the authorities.

Thoughts

There is so much to say on the subject of criminalized images, but in this summary I will only focus on matters directly relevant to the interview.

Back in the 1970s, child pornography was legally sold as magazines in a number of developed countries. Produced by 'legitimate' companies that also sold adult pornography, any content depicting violence against children would have been out of the question. Of course, history happened; child pornography was criminalized, and it is now made by those who are committing a serious crime should they even take a photo of a child posing too provocatively in a swimsuit. Much like the war on drugs has led to gentler substances being replaced with those that are ever more dangerous, so has the blanket criminalization of child pornography seemingly led to adult producers making more harmful content.

Many will yell that drugs are a matter of an adult making their own choices for themselves, while child pornography is produced with 'children who can't consent'. But while the legal age for being depicted on film is a very global 'eighteen', the age of consent is far from uniform. In many developed European countries, the age of consent is 14 or 15, suggesting that teenagers at least are deemed quite capable of giving consent. Furthermore, we know from those who participated in adult pornography that their consent was not always free and informed. This really begs the question as to whether child pornography truly exists in some separate sphere of moral darkness, and one might reasonably argue that it does not.

The reality is that children are not asexual, and teens are typically more sexual than a regular middle-aged man. Unsurprisingly, there are many adults attracted to these highly sexual beings, and as such there will always be a major demand for pornography that depicts them. Much like drug laws need to focus on harm reduction rather than some impossible attempt at eradication, so should child pornography laws focus on regulating rather than outright criminalizing. AI could be a new frontier that would protect real children and teens from harm, but instead it's being legislated into the same category as real child pornography.

The relentless war on child pornography is ultimately not about protecting children, but about its utility in justifying abuse of government power, keeping police departments funded, and enriching those who sell 'solutions'. The Chat Control proposal is an excellent example of how this intersects. These proposals are often supported by a public who are prohibited from verifying the claims under threat of prosecution for a child sex offense, and terrified of even questioning the narrative should they have any doubts. Meanwhile, low-rank lawmakers and policymakers toe the party line, likely also 'absolutely disgusted' by something they've never even seen.

The men and women holding the blindfolds should be thoroughly ashamed.

I really appreciate the time our interviewee has taken to discuss these issues with the MAP activist community. He came across as such an incredibly decent guy, an extreme contradiction of the narrative. We, and the wider public, can all learn from what's going on behind the curtain. And a perspective that does not come from law enforcement, or from questionable 'charities' whose funding depends on mass hysteria, is very refreshing.

If you have a unique insight on a MAP-related issue, or even something not directly related to minor-attraction, please reachout to me at contact (at) brianribbon (dot) com. Absolutely no topic is off limits, as long as you don't ask me to do anything legally questionable.