I am a bit uncertain. I have no real sympathy for people caught in such stings, and the prognosis isn't good for people once they cross this particular Rubicon and start seeking out minors to have sexual relationships with. The immorality here is that minors aren't capable of informed consent, and there's a power imbalance. Predators seek out these situations where the deck is stacked in their favor.

However ... there's a grey area when it's, say, an 18 or 19 year old with a 16 or 17 year old. The age of majority is, after all, arbitrary and it doesn't take into account the actual maturity of the parties, etc. Also I think it makes a difference if the assignation is being presented as just that, nothing more, vs an ongoing romance or relationship. I also think there's a lot more personal responsibility for a 16 or 17 year old's role vs, say, a 12 year old's role. As a child gets older, it has more independence and the extra responsibility that goes with it. So to me, the mark's age makes a difference in the severity of the offense. Note what I am and am not saying here -- it's never right, it's just more wrong the younger the mark.

As such, I think such operations should steer clear of people under, say, 22 who are NOT willing to target a "victim" that is >= 5 years younger or something along those lines. Because for the operation to be credible it has to avoid wrongly fingering anyone and it has to avoid even the appearance of causing a suicide where it is simply a misguided youth who could still potentially be set right.

It would be hubris to be cavalier about these edge cases and there's no shortage of less murky scenarios to pursue -- so why not stick to those, given the richness of the target environment?

Finally ... and more generally ... there's something about the whole approach here that seems off. For the viewers, it's hard to deny that some part of the appeal to supporters / viewers is that it feeds their schadenfreude. No matter what the provocation, it's not healthy for people to be gloating over the misfortune and ruin of others -- because they are dehumanizing fellow humans, and that never ends well. Moral outrage is one thing, arrogance and self-aggrandizement under the guise of moral outrage is another. The point of this exercise is NOT to demonstrate that viewers / consumers of this content are "more human" or better people. When you can show me that most people are not watching this to feel morally superior and thus ignore their own moral failings, I'll feel better about the concept. In other words: when the primary reaction of viewers is deep sadness at the wasted life of the perp, rather than gloating about the perp's depravity or stupidity or comeuppance. Society should always mete out punishment with both reluctance and humility.

Then from the victim's standpoint ... there's no actual victim as the victims are simulated. Are they simulated so accurately that there's NO question the person would have behaved toward a real victim in exactly the same way? Is that even an answerable question? This is exactly the reason we have laws against "entrapment". So .. there are some moral uncertainties there, too.

At the end of the day I don't feel these operations should be shut down because they address such a great moral harm, but if they're going to continue to do net good in the world, they should be engaged in with far more epistemological humility and should avoid a focus on pandering to viewer's egos and keep the focus on taking predators out of the game. Some will argue that this is already the case, but a basic understanding of human nature makes it hard to take that claim entirely at face value.

When a victim reports a crime, should they feel guilty too. Hell no. The guy committed suicide because he got caught. He wasn't bothered by doing something wrong, but by ppl knowing the truth. Meantime, Cyntonia is spending her life in prison for killing the man who abducted and raped her...she was only 16 years old. I support this group 100% and they are not responsible for his suicide.