Where on Earth did you get that idea? Every library I've ever been to has offered all kinds of events geared to "socializing," from Group Crochet, to Book discussions, to AA. Not to mention how common it is for libraries to offer "teen spaces" where kids are free to hang out, work on homework together, etc.
It wasn't worded in the clearest way but I believe the author is talking about AA in the context of Ivy leagues specifically, and that AA at those institutions has done nothing to offset the % of (mostly white) elites who gain access through athletics/legacy admissions, etc. How this benefits those same elites is that by having universities push AA as a part of their public image (i.e., we're doing our part in fixing the damage done by our slave-owning founder) it draws attention away from the privileged forms of admission that actually impact who attends Ivy Leagues. Basically AA at those schools is a smokescreen that does very little while allowing those schools to pretend like they're helping fight for anti-racism, social equity, and so on.
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.
>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?
"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.
"Later, after Sokal revealed the hoax in Lingua Franca, Social Text's editors wrote that they had requested editorial changes that Sokal refused to make, and had had concerns about the quality of the writing: 'We requested him (a) to excise a good deal of the philosophical speculation and (b) to excise most of his footnotes.' Still, despite calling Sokal a 'difficult, uncooperative author", and noting that such writers were 'well known to journal editors', based on Sokal's credentials Social Text published the article in the May 1996 Spring/Summer 'Science Wars' issue"
