You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

bdmthrfkr ago

I am actually sorry that I tried that but can confirm. Fucking sick.

DOVahKiiN7 ago

I didn't so a bit of detailed description is appreciated.

bdmthrfkr ago

just Very obviously Very underage girls that are scantily clad and in Very suggestive poses.I didn't scroll down for more images but the thing that struck me was that this innocuous search term bought up a whole hell of a lot of the same thing. Fucking sick people out there.

the_magic_man ago

You mean stuff like this? https://voat.co/v/youngladies

bdmthrfkr ago

That sub should be nuked. It's not illegal content but is so close to the line that it pushes Voat's dedication to free speech to the limit.

I'm not surprised, however, that you are familiar with that little backwater.

the_magic_man ago

Just pointing out that if you're worried about legal pics of underage girls dressing provocatively, you should take a look a bit closer to home. Inconvenient for users here, I suspect I'll be downvoted and ignored

bdmthrfkr ago

I won't ignore you for this (or DV) but the point of my horror wasn't that there are pictures of young girls on the internet, it was that an obscure search term (which has no relation to any keywords about young girls) turned up so many results. DDG basically just repackages jewgle search results so the cancer begins with them, it's hardly surprising that their CEO quit on the day that President Trump signed an EO which would seize the assets of any company which employed anybody involved with human trafficking.

Schmidt resigned on that day with no explanation. Think about it.