It was banned with a bunch of other pedophilic subreddits (spez calling them all “animated CP”). Here’s someone complaining about it at the time

For fucks sales I thought I was blessed when I found Reddit Loli community, I’ve spent far to much time on the darker parts of the web to find that stuff, and far to often its thrown in with material that none of us a r/lolicons or r/pomf ever wanted, the real disgusting vile poo poo. it was safe here. Had it been a quarantine I would have understood, We get it out fetish is creepy as gently caress! But we were not hurting anyone. I mean those were probably two of my favorite communities because we understood one another, no one got harassed or attacked like on 4chan or 8chan, were weren’t being flooded with referral links to actual CP by robot spammers, it didn’t feel like some dark alley where I had to do shady deals for a fix, for once were safe and I didn’t feel ashamed, I didn’t hate myself, And you took it away because you don’t like it! That’s your only reason, you clumped us together with a bunch of racist, hate mongering assholes because you found our fetish morally objectionable. And don’t act like your doing some great deed by getting rid of it, it still exists, you’ve just forced us back to the places where were going to abused and harassed to find it, you’re helping no one, your just hurting us, me and my fellow lolis. You’ve left us to fend for ourselves against a horde of trolls. I’ll never leave reddit, I’ve invested to much, but as a company I’ve lost all faith in you, your saving face, not your community. [EDIT] fixed auto correct mistake and added a sentence for clarification

Stop defending Drew DeVault’s pedophilia.

Have you looked at any of the claims yet?

Read it, instead of wasting time defending a pedophile.

You’re literally doing the same thing MAGAts do.

Trump is opting not to validate accusations made by bad faith actors. Neither of us knows.

We do know that the liberal media is full of scum and filth that would likely make asinine accusations for the lawls

☝️You, literally right now

You’re entitled to put your head in the sand.

If anyone else is actually curious, spend a few minutes reading Drew’s response. Lots of words apologizing over a minor detail. Zero response to the facts of his pedophilia. Just read his words. Classic shitbag strategy.

He wrote that response so that people like you can defend his pedophilia in exactly the way you’re doing now.

Kiwifarms is full of terrible people. The site still lists factual claims of his pedophilia.

The list of subreddits he programmed his bot to run on includes one, “r/pomf” so pedophilic that it was banned by Reddit, along with many other pedophilic and racist subreddits

His rebuttal curiously doesn’t dispute the facts of his pedophilia. It’s included in a blanket denial and then ignored.

Are you claiming those pedophilic accounts aren’t his? Why?

And he did more than “deny” his involvement in the report

Speaking as someone who has done a lot of my own research on Stallman’s bullshit, the depth of this report is astonishing.

That was his report. He can’t be trusted and will openly make bald-faced lies. He’s full of shit and best left in the dustbin of history.

Those are probably terrible people too. Drew DeVault is still a pedophile that stirs up shit to benefit himself.

Reminder that Drew DeVault is a pedophile.

https://dmpwn.info/

He also wrote a smear piece about Stallman and then pretended it wasn’t him.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124

He is the problem. Ignore him.

Why do you think that’s an insult, given the comment you replied to?

How so? This particular instance causes that harm, or the concept in general?

Why can’t they analyze anything? A sufficiently advanced predictive text keyboard is indistinguishable from intelligence.

Why do you have such strong opinions on this?

I didn’t make that claim. AI and humans clearly work differently, but you need to do more than point out the difference to make the claim that they’re incapable of critical thinking. Why are you asserting that?

Yeah, they’re different, but so what?

Order of magnitude doesn’t really affect the argument. Do you think LLMs will be smarter than humans when they have more neurons/complexity/whatever? Probably not, so just because humans have more of whatever for now doesn’t mean anything.

That’s not how the burden shift argument works. Making demands to defend oneself creates the burden.

Anyways, why not? You seem to think there’s a reason not to.

Can humans actually think critically? Or are we just pattern matching, using trillions of dice rolls as our neurons zap each other?

If a model could predict a human’s output throughout their entire life, how could it not be considered at least as smart as the human?

I haven’t asserted it’s good. The other poster has a strong opinion that it’s bad, I’m wondering why.

Why do you think it’s bad?

AI analysis

Verdict: Mostly misleading. The tweet contains a real but narrowly framed statistical result, then overstates what that result proves and presents disputed interpretations as settled fact.

Claim-by-claim

• “The Boston Globe published” the piece and cited the report: True. The linked item appears to be a guest opinion piece by David Mastio, not a reported news investigation. It cited the Manhattan Institute researchers’ data and reported that HRC had not responded at the time. The Globe itself said the piece represented the guest author’s views.

• “The genocide supposedly targeting the transgender community is nonexistent”: Misleading. The post conflates several different claims. HRC and similar organizations generally describe an “epidemic of violence” or heightened vulnerability; that is not the same as alleging a legally defined genocide. The legal and academic use of “trans genocide” is contested, while documented violence, discrimination, and policy disputes are separate questions.

• “The murder rate is lower for trans-identifying people than for the general population”: Partly supported, but overstated. A 2017 peer-reviewed study estimated that the overall homicide rate for transgender people was probably lower than for cisgender people, while also finding that young Black and Latina transfeminine people likely had higher homicide rates than comparable cisgender women.

  The Manhattan Institute figure—about 3.66 versus 25.8 homicides per 100,000—is not a direct official measurement. It is calculated from a limited victim list, an estimated transgender-population denominator, and the assumption that no transgender homicides were missed. Researchers have specifically warned that death certificates, police records, and national homicide systems generally do not reliably identify transgender status, creating a substantial undercount problem.

• “Therefore the epidemic narrative has no basis in reality”: Unsupported. A lower overall homicide rate does not disprove elevated risk in particular subgroups or forms of violence. The available research reports substantially higher rates of nonfatal violent victimization among transgender people—86.2 per 1,000 compared with 21.7 per 1,000 for cisgender people in the cited 2017–18 survey. Other tracking projects also document dozens of transgender and gender-expansive homicides annually, while acknowledging that the data are incomplete.

• “Most killings are not hate crimes and intimate-partner violence is the leading identified circumstance”: Plausible within the report’s coding, but not definitive. The report examined 304 cases from 2015–24 and classified only 3.3% as confirmed hate crimes, with intimate-partner violence the leading identified circumstance. That is a useful finding about the cases the authors could verify. But “not confirmed as a hate crime” is not equivalent to “not motivated partly by anti-trans bias,” especially when official systems often fail to record gender identity and motive.

• “The racial composition of suspects disproves white supremacy as a cause”: False or seriously misleading. The report says 65.1% of identified suspects were Black and 18% were white. That may challenge a simple claim that most killings are committed by white supremacists, but suspect race alone cannot establish motive, rule out anti-trans bias, or measure the role of structural racism. It also excludes unsolved cases and cases without known suspect information.

• “The report is irrefutable”: False. It is a retrospective analysis built from advocacy-group lists and publicly available case records, not a complete national homicide registry. Its conclusions depend on victim identification, case inclusion, population estimates, classifications of motive, and assumptions about undercounting. The underlying question is difficult precisely because national crime and death databases generally do not consistently record transgender identity.

• “HRC’s failure to respond shows it has nothing to say”: Unsupported argument from silence. The Globe reportedly offered HRC an opportunity to respond, and the organization did not reply before publication. That does not demonstrate that the report is correct or that HRC has no substantive rebuttal. The tweet turns non-response into evidence, which is not logically justified.

Bottom line: The strongest defensible version is: A retrospective analysis of HRC-listed cases, using one set of population estimates, produces a lower estimated overall transgender homicide rate than the general population and finds that many verified killings were not officially classified as hate crimes. The tweet goes much further—declaring the data “irrefutable,” dismissing all “epidemic” claims, and treating suspect race and HRC’s non-response as proof. Those broader conclusions are not established by the evidence.