Kotaku posts article with rendered CP

Chittagong

Chittagong

Gold Member
Long story short, the geniuses at Kotaku decided to "explore video game porn" ie people using game characters to create porn.

Published an article. Decided to post some underage characters getting fucked.

Not going to link it because, well, it's CP.

I think all Kotaku threads should include the following disclaimer going forwards:

These articles are being published by Kotaku. For those who may not be aware or who may have forgotten, Kotaku had an article where it intended to gain attention using child pornography, as well as for support of harassment, doxxing, and other extremely damaging behaviours.

Kotaku provided no response to this fiasco except for an apology claiming they did not do enough research. As the website is unlisted by Google, they had spoken to the media owner about removing "nasty stuff", and content was viewable both before and during the campaign, this claim is beyond belief. The individuals responsible are known not to be rogue PR interns, but go up to Kotaku's board. Kotaku has not dealt with the individuals responsible.

Consider that by linking to their articles, you are supporting a publisher that is complicit with child pornography.
Click to expand...
 
This is the inevitable outcome when you base your entire existence on clickbait bullshit. You try and push it further and further until you're now posting articles with Misty getting mouthfucked by a Lickitung.
 
Last edited:
Why can't they just stick to making articles about video games? Notify the FBI or The Center for Missing and Exploited Children online if you find anything to report.
 
Last edited:
Lol it's not really that shocking. There is a ton of this on reddit and all around internet. It's something that almost nobody (i presume) looks at as "child porn" ffs....
People watching this does not equal child rapists
 
rofif said:
Lol it's not really that shocking. There is a ton of this on reddit and all around internet. It's something that almost nobody (i presume) looks at as "child porn" ffs....
People watching this does not equal child rapists
Click to expand...
That's not really the point. Kotaku, a supposed professional website covering video games, shouldn't be posting shit that's equivalent to what a random Reddit users posts.

Also the laws of many countries don't distinguish between animated or real porn involving minors. They're treated the same. You can argue the morality of that, but the fact is that it's still illegal in those countries, so putting that shit up on a, again, "professional" website is ridiculously stupid and irresponsible.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh, so they have people posting articles there from ResetEra now. Nice Kotaku.

They're officially on my blocked list. This was the last straw.
 
That final paragraph tho

I left my friend's house covered in dog hair, drunk from the beers, and potentially put off sex forever.
Click to expand...

She got drunk, watched porn, and left with dog hair all over her?

And she's a white woman?

🤔🤔🤔hmm


The ingredients are all there, but the cake is still a lie.
Click to expand...

This article is the perfect amalgamation of everything wrong with Kotaku. Useless blogpost about video game porn that says nothing of value, written by someone who probably doesn't even play video games, and ends with a meme that's been stale for a decade.
 
Editor's Note: This story originally included screenshots from the Harry Potter and Pokemon animated porn parodies. We've removed those images after readers expressed discomfort over some of the scenes, and believe that words can sufficiently explain the material.
Click to expand...
damn what the actual fuck. and these jackasses think they can call out bewbs and skin as a horrible thing. show some adult cleavage in a dark fantasy game and we won't hear the end of it.
NSFW Warning: Explicit scenes of computer-rendered sex.

We began with some extremely terrible Harry Potter porn. My friend and I are both into Harry Potter, as much as you can be now that the author has turned out to be a trans-exclusionary feminist who clumsily retcons diversity into her work.
Click to expand...
wait a minute, she is a "radical feminist" because she doesn't think men who wears dresses are literally women, but you are just a regular good old normal feminist, cos you are posting images of animated children having sex???

again what the actual FUCK with these people
 
Last edited:
73SL1o7.jpg


Is this the content they want to create? You have 15 million readers, access to a good chunk of the industry and you post about... machinima Harry Potter porn using low-poly models?
 
Fuz said:
Legally speaking, in some countries it is.
Click to expand...
I mean, I guess, but Kotaku's hosted in the US, no? They're fine.

I just think its dumb that people are getting up in arms over what is essentially an article about cartoon porn. Theres no children here. Just drawings and silly CGI props.
 
Pervtaku: Buzzfeed's weird friend that kinda likes video games but likes interjecting unwanted tangents about sex even more.
 
The Pokemon/Zelda pics are fine.. but the Harry Potter ones?

A lot of countries do rightfully not consider stuff with fictional "children" cp..
But using the likeness of real children (the actors), even if animated, is a completely different matter. Even in the US that might make problems..
 
Last edited:
#Phonepunk# said:
no, it's more dumb to be stanning for CP
Click to expand...
The moment you call cartoons cp is the moment you belittle the suffering of victims of sex abuse, equating content created involving their suffering to that of cartoons.
It also implies people actually see these characters as children in the same way one would see a child in the street, which is simply not how people interpret information. These arent children. Theyre characters. Cartoons. And that's all people see when they create or view such porn. It's why most porn artists drawing Pokemon characters or the hottest new anime arent pedophiles. They have no interest in children. Just these characters for being these fictional abstract ideas.
 
Last edited:
Battlechili said:
This isnt CP.
Cartoons can't be cp.
This is honestly one of the less offensive Kotaku articles out there and people are freaking out over nothing.
Click to expand...

In Germany it is. So while we can discuss whether cartoons can count as CP, legally you'd have a problem here.
 
These are the same people that will proselytize to you about how female characters having cleavage is an affront to mankind.

Shit, Jason Schreier posted an article insinuating that anyone who likes Dragon's Crown is secretly a pedophile because one of the (adult) characters has big tits.

It's the same website.
 
Last edited:
Battlechili said:
The moment you call cartoons cp is the moment you belittle the suffering of victims of sex abuse, equating content created involving their suffering to that of cartoons.
It also implies people actually see these characters as children in the same way one would see a child in the street, which is simply not how people interpret information. These arent children. Theyre characters. Cartoons. And that's all people see when they create or view such porn. It's why most porn artists drawing Pokemon characters or the hottest new anime arent pedophiles. They have no interest in children. Just these characters for being these fictional abstract ideas.
Click to expand...

I think the incriminating thing here was that some of the images weren't your typical "1000 year old dragon" loli characters but rendered realistic human characters. As renderings are becoming increasingly lifelike and hard to distinguish from real life, rendered CP is bound to be outlawed in the next decade.
 
Harry is 17 by the last book, so I think it's the Hogwarts scenes that would constitute child porn... but maybe in the author's mind it all takes place during their postgraduate education.

Hermione is a little older, so by year 7 you're probably in the clear.
 
Last edited:
Battlechili said:
I mean, I guess, but Kotaku's hosted in the US, no? They're fine.

I just think its dumb that people are getting up in arms over what is essentially an article about cartoon porn. Theres no children here. Just drawings and silly CGI props.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with you one whit - I do think the comparison cheapens the actual victims of sexual abuse.

But as for this being legal... This is a common misconception but it's actually not true. The PROTECT Act has very clear provisions against rendered images of CP. People have been prosecuted under this statute.

(a) Section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) so that subparagraph (B) reads as follows:
``(B) such visual depiction is a digital image,
computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or
is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct; or'';

That being said, it's considered legitimate and/or lawful to depict minors engaged in sexual activity if the depiction in question is deemed to have "artistic and/or intellectual value".

And, no, nobody at Kotaku is going to jail.
 
Last edited:
Child porn? Nah.

I dont like it or want anything to do with it but really what's the harm if it's just computer generated and fake and not real with no actual people? When it comes to something just created on a computer nothing should be off limits anywhere. Even sick fucks need some kind of outlet for whatever is they are into instead of just having to keep it pent up or having to resort to something where an actual real person is involved in something immoral or illegal. A written story made up, or a game, or a CG video are harmless.

Anyway. Kotaku is a joke of a bunch of kids with illusions of grandeur at being award winning and ground breaking writers for acting like a bunch of know it all alarmists. I miss when that site was run by people who wrote about fun things and niche nerdy stuff.
 
Whitesnake said:
These are the same people that will proselytize to you about how female characters having cleavage is an affront to mankind.

Shit, Jason Schreier posted an article insinuating that anyone who likes Dragon's Crown is secretly a pedophile because one of the (adult) characters has big tits.

It's the same website.
Click to expand...
That's because SJW are always projecting
 
iconmasterX said:
Kotaku are screwed.
Click to expand...

There's wide prosecutorial discretion when it comes to these things - it's not widely or effectively enforced. But, as I said, the law's there and people have been destroyed over it.

I'm a bit of a first amendment absolutist and don't think people should go to jail if no minors were harmed, but Congress thought differently.

Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. But that's not the case with the PROTECT act, which still stands.
 
The article complains that Harry Potter and Pokemon porn is not exciting and sexy enough. Specifically, the porn that includes images of underage characters, not the Brazzers parodies.
Do they even have editors working there?
 
Komatsu said:
The PROTECT Act has very clear provisions against rendered images of CP. People have been prosecuted under this statute.

(a) Section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) so that subparagraph (B) reads as follows:
``(B) such visual depiction is a digital image,
computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or
Click to expand...
That section of the Protect Act was deemed unconstitutional in US v. Handley actually. It bears no power in US court today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kotaku X account hacked
12
1K
MrTroubleMaker replied
The Switch 2's Battery Life Is Worse Than The Original - Kotaku
2
71
4K
TheRaidenPT replied
  • Poll
Kotaku: The Console Wars Are Over And Nobody Really Won
3 4 5 6 7
303
15K
FubukiJ replied
  • Locked
[Article] Video Games Have Become Rife With DEI and Some Fans Aren’t Buying It
34
2K
thefool replied
The Witcher 4 Trailer was rendered on the RTX 5090, Nvidia confirms
News Hardware 
46
3K
hyperbertha replied
Top Bottom