There's a Twitterstorm brewing about a Daily Mail article. I won't link to the article itself.
Basically, Amanda Platell looked for "child porn" websites, watched a video of the same nature, and then wrote an article about it for the Daily Mail.
Not sure if the DM commissioned her to do it (i.e. asked her to do this specifically)or not, but isn't that illegal?
The Daily Mail's war on child porn is bizarre and, in their typical fashion, misleading as hell.
I have been on the internet for over fifteen years and you do NOT stumble upon child porn by accident as the Mail regularly claim can happen. In all my years online I have never come across child porn, because you HAVE to go looking for it manually. Have I come across adult porn? Sure, more than I wish. There is a genuine problem when it comes to adult porn being thrust in the face of those who wouldn't have gone looking for it - usually via pop-ups and advertising links - and that does need to be cracked down upon.
Child porn is a heinous crime that needs stamping out but the way the Mail are reporting on it should get them in trouble for lies and misinformation. Rather than go on an honest quest to try and do something about child porn, they'd rather scare the heck out of everyone and act like it's lurking around every corner ready to jump out at you when the truth is you'd not find it unless you wanted to - as they've just admitted via this Amanda Platell person. They want to push their own censorship agenda and are going about it in their usual vile, trollish way by using one of the most emotive topics to get people on board.
How do the Mail get away with their reporting style? They need banning.