They weren't appealing to authority though. An appeal to authority is "It's true because Snopes says so", they just linked to Snopes' reasoning as a shorthand for repeating the reasoning themselves.
If Snopes didn't provide their reasoning, it would be an appeal to authority.
The BBC is not government funded, and all television news in the UK, including Murdoch's Sky News is required by law to be unbiased.
If it's a choice between the BBC and the constant, blatant, society distorting lies you see in American "News", I'll take my Orwellian dystopia thanks.
They are only required to provide "balanced" coverage during an election, nothing more. The BBC is absolutely biased, as was made clear during the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum. The distortions and outright lies they continually produced were astonishing to me.
You can see plenty examples of this at Wings Over Scotland (which I know is biased, but is also scrupulously accurate)
Ah, I was thinking of the election rules where they are required to give a representative amount of time to each party, not the impartiality rules which, frankly, are vague to the point of uselessness.
> Can't find a link, but I swear I've watched it in a blockchain event in youtube.
This is a perfect example of "solution looking for a problem". You heard about the thing via Bitcoin channels, you only care about it because it's /Bitcoin/ solving a problem, not because the problem is solved, you can't actually find the thing now!
Normal people, people who haven't bought Bitcoin, don't really care /how/ their problems are solved. This is the fundamental reason Bitcoin hasn't gone mainstream. It doesn't solve any mainstream problems well.
That actually is often why they do it. Obviously, they are also sexually attracted to children and are evil. Those two are also requirements, but the third is the audience.
Consider this - how many people do you think make YouTube style vlogs then DON'T upload them to YouTube? Not many right - the audience is part of the inventive for making the video. Among paedophile communities first generation IIOC are highly prized.
Source: I am a criminal investigator who works exclusively on CSE
But if they are sexually attracted to children and are "evil", then the creation of the videos and photos are just a "side-effect", the abuse probably would have taken place regardless, right? I had people telling me that possession of child pornography leads to child abuse, what do you think? I watch gore videos[1] sometimes online and I don't want to hurt people. I watch them to remind me that there are many violent people and places out there, that not everything is butterflies and sunshine. It makes me introspect. It makes me value the society that I live in that shelters me, and makes me realize how lucky I am.
EDIT: Actually, I'm trying to come up with reasons that apply to child pornography but without any success. Not saying that they are not going to offer you a "reasonable" insight, but at this moment I can't think of anything. Perhaps something anatomy related? Medical value/curiosity?
On another note: yeah, people do crazy shit for the likes and subscribers, it's pathetic and sickening. All those challenges, etc. Ugh. I try to avoid that side of the Internet. Is it just me or is there really a decline? Yesterday I read how in UK schools they had to remove analog clocks because kids couldn't tell the time off it.
I don't know, I know so many parents who are doing a great job. Their kids don't care much about social media, they are not interested in getting likes, not interested in being YouTubers, know the potential dangers of the Internet, and so on.
[1] Albeit I don't download them, but at the same time you can probably do the same with child pornography, though from a technical point of view you probably have them cached which could be considered possession I guess.
If possession is not illegal, why is distribution? You point makes no sense.
Consider your argument with respect to privacy and data issues - obviously possession of information can be in and of itself harmful because it can be something that other people have a right to restrict your access to.
Whereas eye-witness testimony is incredibly unreliable, but laypersons typically believe it to be accurate, the opposite is true with DNA forensic evidence. The public generally believes it to be infallible, when in reality it's not always that clear cut.
It should be regarded as another tool in the toolbox, not the be-all and end-all of criminal forensic investigation.
The Laffer Curve makes a number of assumptions without evidence, most notably that tax revenue as function of tax rate is memoryless, when it obviously isn't.
This is ignoring the issue, even when accepting the Laffer curve as true, that the revenue maximising rate would surely be well above what would be morally acceptable to enforce (~75%)
It sounds like the parent is talking about validation, not specific psychiatric action. I think it should be OK as long as they don't present their child as professionally diagnosed as such.
Thanks. We're only acting on it insofar as we read about it and try to find practical ways to deal with it. We're not going to medicate her! And when we discuss the topic, we always start with: "We believe that..."
It's not standard to medicate for autism, FYI. The standard recommendation is therapy (Applied Behavioral Analysis, occupational therapy, and speech therapy are most common). One benefit of a diagnosis is that often your insurance company will cover more therapy.
The right next step is to get an actual diagnosis, in my opinion. You might be off-base in your suspicions, or it may turn out that your child is more affected than you suspect.
After diagnosis? There are no drugs specifically indicated for treating ASD. You might find people on the spectrum getting prescribed ADHD meds, say, but I understand that's more of the exception nowadays.
If Snopes didn't provide their reasoning, it would be an appeal to authority.