# Talk:Shut Up and Dance (Black Mirror)

An opening paragraph spoils the entire episode. Isn't that kind of a bad thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:641:200:2720:2968:9ea6:67f5:1753 (talk • contribs) 

what unsigned. MarkSewath (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:CENSORED and WP:SPOILER. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it would be improper for us to remove, alter or censor any relevant details from our pages. The lead section of an article should summarise the main facts of the subject, and the plot (including plot twists and endings) is a key part of the subject. While I can appreciate that some fans will be unhappy to have the episode spoiled for them, it should be common knowledge by now that you should stay away from Wikipedia articles, critical reviews, Black Mirror-specific fora etc. until you have watched the entirety of the show (or unless you do not mind spoilers). Wikipedia will not and should not alter its goals or violate its policies just to avoid spoilers. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The information was removed by me, not because it contains spoilers (read my position in this Westworld RfC), but because WP:TVLEAD nowhere mentions that a plot summary should be included in the lead. -- (Radiphus) 11:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, right. In that case, I still think it should be included, but with different reasoning. First of all, the guideline seems mostly to be referring to articles about television shows rather than episodes, which I think could account for the lack of mention of a plot summary explicitly. The guideline doesn't mention plot summaries, so we shouldn't draw conclusions either way – it neither prohibits nor encourages inclusion. So the most relevant guidance is then "Subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article", and WP:LEAD agrees: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". In the article as it currently stands, roughly 450 of the 700 words in the body are given to the plot description, and thus as a rule of thumb, I would expect the lead to spend half of its content covering the plot. The lead doesn't "stand on its own" if it omits content that makes up half of the article.
Now, the article is not particularly detailed at the moment, and there should be a lot more content in the production and critical reception sections. If this were the case, I would expect the lead to be a lot more rounded, but still for it to contain a plot summary. White Bear (Black Mirror) is by no means "finished", but it is a good article (deservedly so, I think), and thus a useful model or rule of thumb for how these BM episode articles should look. Its lead summarises the plot in the very first paragraph, and I think SUaD should too. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
White Bear describes the premise of the episode The episode follows Victoria (Lenora Crichlow), a woman who does not remember who she is and wakes up in a place where almost everybody is controlled by a television signal. Along with some of the few other unaffected people (Michael Smiley and Tuppence Middleton), she must stop the "White Bear" transmitter while surviving merciless pursuers. It says nothing about it all being part of a reality show, about the reason she is being tortured, etc. Shut Up and Dance does exactly the opposite. I believe the information i left in the lead after my edit is essential in describing the premise of the episode. You could add to that, that the blackmailed teenager has to follow orders, but anything beyond that would be redundant. The lead is meant to serve as a quick introduction to the article. Just like we are simply saying that the episode received very positive reviews and we are not going into specifics about critics reviews mentioned in the Reception section, we should not go into that much details about the plot summary in the lead section. -- (Radiphus) 12:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
As a compromise, then, would you be happy with this? Or could you make a counter-suggestion? I still feel uncomfortable that we (and the WB article, now you've pointed it out) might be violating MOS:DONTTEASE.
The episode tells the story of Kenny ([[Alex Lawther]]), a teenager who is blackmailed by a mysterious hacker who owns a video of him masturbating. The blackmailer forces Kenny and others to commit various acts which culminate in a fight to the death. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I would leave out the part about the "fight to the death", which does not serve as an introduction to the episode and could be considered a teaser, but others might think this is ok. I don't have a big problem with that, it's definitely an improvement. Perhaps something like: The episode tells the story of Kenny (Alex Lawther), a teenager who is blackmailed into committing various criminal acts by a mysterious hacker who owns a video of him masturbating. See also comments in the discussion i 've initiated in WikiProject Television. -- (Radiphus) 13:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that WP allows spoilers doesn't mean it requires them in the lede, especially when they aren't useful to understand "what is this episode about?" This isn't "teasing", it's just exercising restraint. Saying "fight to the death" is also undue emphasis, given that it isn't even depicted on screen. Character names are likewise not useful for understanding what the story is. And MOS suggests a sentence for each section, not a whole paragraph, so the deleted mini-summary was definitely overkill. On the other hand, the above suggestion leaves out the other main character. How about:
"The episode tells the story of a teenager ([[Alex Lawther]]) who is blackmailed into following cryptic and increasingly dangerous instructions from a hacker with video of him masturbating, joined by a middle-aged man ([[Jerome Flynn]]) being similarly blackmailed over infidelity, leading to tragic endings for each of them."
This identifies the main characters, the actors, the central conflict, and the nature of the resolution. Magic9Ball (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That looks like a good summary. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the lead to read "The episode tells the story of a teenage boy (Alex Lawther) who is blackmailed into committing criminal acts by a hacker, who possesses a video of him masturbating. The boy is joined by a middle-aged man (Jerome Flynn), whom the same hacker is blackmailing over infidelity." Please make any further changes in the article. -- (Radiphus) 14:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone disagree with this wording:The episode tells the tragic story of a teenage boy ([[Alex Lawther]]) who is blackmailed into committing inexplicable and criminal acts by a mysterious hacker possessing a video of him masturbating. The boy is joined by a middle-aged man ([[Jerome Flynn]]), whom the same hacker is blackmailing over infidelity. I 've moved "tragic" to the beginning of the sentence, where i believe makes more sense, and i've used "mysterious" to describe the hacker instead of the acts, which could be described as "inexplicable".   -- (Radiphus) 15:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Mostly fine. I'd take out the word "tragic" because that's an imposition of an opinion onto the description. There are elements of tragedy in the episode, sure, but it's very complex and there are a lot of different descriptors that could be used. "Tragedy" limits it and its use implies that's the correct interpretation. I'd also take out "inexplicable" because it means that there's no explanation. Alex doesn't know the explanation, but there is an explanation. Something like "seemingly random" or "bizarre" or "mysterious" would I think be better word choices.QuizzicalBee (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@QuizzicalBee: Thanks for your input. I am from Greece so my english are definetely not flawless. What i meant to say with "inexplicable" is that he is being forced to follow orders without him being given an explanation regarding their purpose. I believe that's what "mysterious" (which is currently being used instead of "inexplicable" in the lead) is referring to. To be honest, i 've included "tragic" to hint at the ending of the episode, in case anyone thinks i am deliberately trying to avoid spoilers which would be against WP:SPOILER. -- (Radiphus) 17:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus: your English is excellent. I think "unexplained" is a better word than "inexplicable" because "unexplained" means you haven't gotten an explanation, while "inexplicable" means there *is* no explanation. I still think it's the right move to remove "tragic". There are plenty of spoilers in the description anyway.QuizzicalBee (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've used "bizarre" which you suggested earlier and i believe fits better. If you think there are further improvements to be made, go ahead and make them directly in the article. -- (Radiphus) 21:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the clause "the video of him [Kenny] masturbating to pictures of children is now public" because the blackmailer's video of Kenny is taken by the camera on the monitor at which Kenny is looking, therefore doesn't show what is on the monitor (even if it did, it would be a very easy thing for someone with the blackmailer's hacking/computer skills to alter).

Only what is actually shown unambiguously in the episode should be stated in the article.--Philologia (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty unambiguous. The interview from the production section (this one) is overt about it. I have seen fans try to interpret the episode in different ways – certainly what you're saying would be possible – but that's not really what was intended by the writers or seen by almost all viewers. I've reworded the plot slightly, while still not explicitly saying what happened (using a direct quote from the episode), but then I don't think it's an accurate summary of the EW interview if we don't make it clear that Brooker and the interviewer were explicitly saying Kenny was watching child porn (at least in the final version that made it to air). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, Bilorv, I'm sorry you don't see the ambiguities, but they are there. (In the article you mention, Charlie Brooker actually says "It’s ambiguous, isn’t it?") Perhaps watch the episode (and read the article) again more carefully and pay attention to what is actually shown or substantiated in some way as opposed to what is just suggested (and/or assumed).
Your last change (& choice of quoted material) to the plot section elides the issue of whether or not our article should present potentially altered/manipulated material/data as if it's trustworthy, i.e. whether or not people should trust everything they are shown or told by a dubious source (in this case, the hacker/blackmailer).
"...a hysterical call from his mother saying that his sister has seen a video of Kenny "looking at kids"... again begs the question of how is there a "video of Kenny looking at kids" when the blackmailer had only the camera on the monitor pointing at Kenny? The points that Kenny's mother and sister (and many real-world audience members, apparently) are missing is that (1) the hacker/blackmailers are obviously skilled at manipulating data and that allows them to easily convince ordinary (less IT-savvy) people of almost anything and (2) (keeping 1 in mind) what was actually on Kenny's computer screen is a matter of unproven, undemonstrated allegation. Quoting material of uncertain veracity & provability (within the world of the episode) is really not a good idea when trying to give an objective break-down of the plot. The previous wording was better but I'll change it to an actual quote if that helps.
Your change to the Production section, again, states things not actually shown or proven within the episode (i.e. "the story went through many different iterations, and some did not have Kenny looking at child pornography when the blackmailers filmed him"). In fact, neither does the screened episode "have [show/demonstrate] Kenny looking at child pornography". Whether or not it was in the minds of the makers at some point during production, it is not shown on film. All that it has (shows/demonstrates) is him masturbating to something we are not shown on a computer screen. Whether one chooses to believe it was child pornography or not is totally subjective, and based entirely on suggestion and assumption. And of course we should not be stating as if they are facts things that rely so completely on suggestion and assumption.
--Philologia (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
p.s. What an interviewer says in an article cannot be used to direct Wikipedia content. The interviewer's agenda is very different from ours. They are attempting to create a piece of entertainment, not to present information in as objective and encyclopedic a manner as possible.--Philologia (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
p.p.s. It's not clear what you mean by " what you're saying would be possible ". All I have said is that our article should stick to presenting as fact (within the fiction of the story) what is actually shown in the episode. It sounds like you've assumed that, like you, I've taken a side on the 'was Kenny or wasn't he looking at child porn?' issue. I have not, in fact, done that. Part of being objective is not giving in to the compulsion to take a side (particularly when there is so much ambiguity, such a lack of reliable, conclusive evidence, and so many unknowns around individual psychology & behavior at play).--Philologia (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought you might use the "It's ambiguous, isn't it?" quote. You've taken that completely out of context; Brooker is answering the question "Should we feel better?", and he then goes on to say "Your empathy for him drains away. You look at him fresh. And it's not to condone what the hackers have done. [...]" – he's clearly talking about morality rather than the plot point. This is Brooker here, not the interviewer, that I'm using as a source. I also don't appreciate your tone to me: this is my favourite ever piece of television, I've watched it multiple times and know quite a bit about it; telling me to rewatch it more closely is something I find incredibly patronising. "I'm sorry you don't see the ambiguities" is a clear strawman argument, because I made it very clear that I did understand that people do interpret it your way. Your reversion of my edits also goes against the WP:BRD process, but you're not going to lure me into an edit war.
I'll AGF and assume you skim-read the interview, and are not trying to be rude. Your logic behind the hackers being able to manipulate footage is a completely valid argument in the context of literary discussion, but it is original research when used as an argument on what to write in a Wikipedia article, unless you can find reliable sources (critical reviews, I imagine) proposing the same idea.
The version of the Production I submitted was completely in line with what was in the interview – I think your argument is that Kenny's masturbation to child pornography is a non-diegetic occurrence ("it is not shown on film", as you put it). This does not mean that it does not exist in the context of the fictional universe (fiction is not an exercise in pure experientialism), and Brooker's response in the interview I linked makes it demonstrably clear that the final version of the episode does feature Kenny as a paedophile. (What other twist could, "It was such a horrible reveal it was irresistible, and it helped explain why he was going along with everything," be referring to?)
I've already compromised in the Plot section by avoiding explicit mention of the fact that Kenny was watching child porn, only insinuating it (fair enough, as the episode does the same). I don't understand what your recent edit adds – it removes the (important) fact that his sister has watched the video (surely you don't dispute this) and replaces clear paraphrasing with a verbose, ineloquent quote. Your change to the production section violates WP:ALLEGED – the interview mentions nothing about a "suggestion" or any ambiguity in the plot, so what you wrote is an inaccurate summary of it. If you concede your most recent edit, and we restore this version (plus this change), I think we've reached a fair compromise. There are far greater problems with the article if you want to work on it further (adding more critical reviews and production details will be my next task when I get around to it, unless someone else does first). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry you were upset by what I wrote. Bilorv. I can understand why you feel so strongly about this episode - it is thematically rich and its ambiguities, like with many great works of art, just make it richer.
No, I am not trying to "lure [you] into an edit war". I think some of what we're discussing goes beyond the article itself and might be better discussed on one of our user pages. On the other hand, I can see these argument going on infinitely, and that's not what I want (or have time for).
You wrote "people do interpret it your way" - you seem to keep missing the point that it is possible to be agnostic about the whole 'what Kenny looked at' thing (based on lack of reliable evidence). Unlike viewers in general, writers of articles, and producers being interviewed, we are under an obligation to attempt objectivity without imposing anyone's subjective interpretation.
Also not sure why you're assuming I "skim-read" the article. Have you got something significant to add from parts of it that don't deal with this episode?
I'm also very curious what (if anything) you think Brooker meant (in the interview) by "it's ambiguous" after the interviewer asked him about "the twist"? (And I disagree with your claim that I've taken it out of context - I have taken it completely within context. And I'm also not at all clear on what your saying you thought I might quote this is supposed to add to the discussion.)
You wrote "the episode does feature Kenny as a paedophile" - again, no it doesn't. The episode itself demonstrably (see Plot) does not unambiguously commit itself either way. The makers of the episode had several opportunities (onscreen) to make 'Kenny looked at child porn' an unequivocal (unambiguous) fact, and every time they chose not to. This can be seen simply by watching the episode, which is of course our main source. External interviews made after the release of the episode don't and cannot affect what is actually shown (and also what is deliberately not shown) in the episode.
When reading what Brooker went on to say in the interview, it needs to be taken into account that he's responding on the spot to questions posed by an interviewer who has made one particular subjective interpretation of the Kenny question. If the interviewer had made a different subjective interpretation and asked a different question, Brooker would have responded differently. Anyhow, I think the problem around this could be fixed by using direct quotes from that article rather than presenting it as background/integrated narrative.
You wrote: "I think your argument is that Kenny's masturbation to child pornography is a non-diegetic occurrence. This does not mean that it does not exist in the context of the fictional universe". Bilorv, of course I am very far from saying or arguing "it does not exist in the context of the fictional universe". It is strongly suggested in the episode. That doesn't mean we need to push readers towards that interpretation. There is such a thing as suspending judgement due to lack of sufficient evidence. Sometimes uncertainty just has to be tolerated. And differing interpretations of a work of fiction can be equally valid. Again, our article doesn't need to take sides on this.
As for my edit to the quote of Kenny's mother on the phone, I'm sorry but I don't agree with your opinions at all here (i.e. that your choice of quote is "clear paraphrasing" and mine is "verbose and ineloquent"). This edit means we include the fact that Kenny's mother is reacting to what "they are saying", which preserves some of the ambiguity to which Brooker refers in the article, around themes such as the manipulation of information and perception and the power that the hacker/blackmailers have. I also can't agree with your opinon that it is an "(important) fact that his sister has watched the video" - "the video", again, is just a video of Kenny masturbating to the viewer knows not what except what the hacker/blackmailers tell them. Your choice of quoted material here expresses a desire to elide ambiguities in the story around proof and evidence. Mine shows the opposite. However, if not deemed too long, perhaps we should include both. It's an important point in the plot so I don't see why not.
Unfortunately I don't have a lot more time to give this at the moment, but may come back to it later.--Philologia (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right that the only relevant part of the interview is the paragraph about Shut Up and Dance but you have ignored my already given answer to your question, "I'm also very curious what (if anything) you think Brooker meant (in the interview) by "it's ambiguous" after the interviewer asked him about "the twist"?" I have already said, "Brooker is answering the question "Should we feel better?", and he then goes on to say "Your empathy for him drains away. You look at him fresh. And it's not to condone what the hackers have done. [...]" – he's clearly talking about morality rather than the plot point." I don't know how I can make my stance clearer - the interviewer asks, "How does the twist that the protagonist was looking at child porn change the story's impact? Should we feel better?", not "Does Kenny watch child porn?", and Charlie Brooker, rather than saying "actually, the twist is not meant to be definite", goes on to answer the question and talk about the morality of the hackers blackmailing an offending paedophile. Yes, he is thinking on the spot, but he's also not going to lie just because he's been given a loaded question, and subconscious bias from the subjective phrasing is not going to cause him to outright contradict the largest plot point of something he's spent months working on. It is wrong to summarise the interview with the idea that the plot point was a "suggestion" and "(may have been)" what occurred, because there is no expression of doubt in that interview; it is editorialising, shying away from what is actually said and violates WP:ALLEGED. I'm not asking for this interview to affect in any way what is written in the Plot section, only in the Production section in which the interview is discussed. Quoting would be (IMO) clunky and verbose (which brings in issues of due weight – it's only one of many interviews).
The reason that no-one in the episode says explicitly, "Kenny was watching child porn," is because that's how narrative exposition works – one of the central rules of television is that you don't just get characters to describe the plot as that's clunky and wastes time. Nevertheless, an explicit mention of this is not what my stance is. The sentence I'm proposing is, "He receives a hysterical call from his mother saying that his sister has seen a video of Kenny "looking at kids"." The sentence you're proposing is, "He receives a call from his mother hysterically crying that "there's some video of you... they're saying it's kids... that you've been looking at kids"." My version merely paraphrases what his mother says, making no judgement on whether she has understood the situation correctly, whether the video has been manipulated etc. You've added part of his mother's rambling speech (an excellent moment in context but not really fascinating to quote), and doing so removed the information that his sister is one of the viewers of this video (a key point of humiliation and devastation for Kenny), replacing it with an ambiguous "they". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, this interview corroborates Brooker's account, with Lawther saying things like "The audience might be thinking, "Oh, come on. You haven't done anything that wrong." And then we find out exactly what he has done.", "For Kenny, it's life or death, really." (in response to "[...] we learn that Kenny was actually watching child pornography [...]") etc. It's assumed in the interview throughout as a basic, uncontroversial plot point. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Philologia Sæculārēs: any further thoughts? For what it's worth, of the critical reviews I've added to the article, not one (as far as I saw) contains any doubt of whether Kenny is supposed to be a paedophile, and many talk explicitly about how the twist affects the perspective of past scenes, of what the moral is etc. If there's no objection, I'll reword that line in the Production section soon. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shut Up and Dance (Black Mirror)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 14:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments very good.

Image caption in the infobox is a fragment, so no full stop.
"Whilst series one..." sentence contains a few too many run-ons...
Is it worth noting somewhere that all six episodes are technically unrelated to one another?
Added As Black Mirror is an anthology series, each episode is standalone. to the end of the first production paragraph. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Having recently written series three episode "San Junipero", which was about a story set in the past, Brooker was wondering whether he could do a story set in the present" firstly San Junipero was really not "set in the past", it was a future reality episode with a 1980s artificial reality setting.  Also, I'm not sure "whether he could do a story" is encyclopedic writing.
Replaced with Having recently written series three episode "San Junipero", which was conceived of as a 1980s period piece, Brooker was interested in writing a present-day story. (And added an EW source to explicitly verify "1980s period piece".) — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
" was originally America" do you mean "the United States"?
Yep, I do. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"was previously known as the director" -> "had previously directed"
"episodes "Nosedive" and "San Junipero"" no need to relink San Junipero.
"during shooting, in the car scenes" do you mean "during the shooting of the in-car scenes?" I'm not clear on what this means as it stands.
That is what I mean, so I've changed it to that wording. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
" Kenny is constantly uncomfortable in his own skin." this doesn't read very encyclopedically to me.
Changed it to He [Lawther] also believed that Kenny feels constantly uncomfortable. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"pedophile" Brit Eng spells is "paedophile".
"They got permission f..." who are "They"?  and "received permission" is more encyclopedic in tone than "got".
Changed to The producers received permission from Radiohead ... — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No need to relink the A.V. Club or The Daily Telegraph.
" which is crucial to the twist" this isn't a quote but it reads very much like an opinion.
Changed to which she found crucial to the twist. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Ref 20 has spaced hyphen, should be en dash.
A few things to think about so I'll put it on hold. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed everything, I think, in this edit and responded inline where the change was non-trivial. Let me know if there's anything that still needs work, and thanks for the review! — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No worries.  I'll take a look again in an hour or so.  FWIW, I'm just watching every episode from scratch again, and thoroughly enjoying it. I'll take a quick diversion into this episode just to make sure your plot synopsis is spot on, although it's such a memorable episode I'm sure it's fine.  More soon.  Thanks for getting onto it so quickly. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
At 22:30 (ish) in, when they're leaving the hotel, there's a young man standing by reception, and he and Hector "recognise" each other.  Is this perhaps Mindy? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Boring answer first: this is not suggested in any critical reviews (or at least, not a major part of critical commentary) and so it doesn't have a place in the article.
Onto the real analysis: if by "Mindy" you mean the blackmailer/hacker, who watches Kenny and webchats to Hector, then yes, the man is most commonly inferred by fans to be a/the blackmailer, who has come to watch his victims suffer. It may be the same blackmailer or a different one to the person who Hector later gets scared by when Kenny is robbing the bank, causing Hector to drive off for a minute. However, we can dig a level deeper. Hector's reactions to these situations seems to indicate that he's thinking about the boy(s) being the hacker, like we do, but this could just be his paranoia playing up, and the boy(s) might be hanging around for completely innocuous reasons. The episode wants to set a certain tone of constant discomfort with these choices.
We might do well to take note of this line from the "Production" section of this article: In a different draft, the hackers were shown in an internet cafe in Eastern Europe, having blackmailed the characters for fun. There's a reason this was removed in the final draft and it was a conscious decision to have the hackers be invisible and unrevealed. One great ambiguity of this episode is who the hackers are and what their aim is, and we get several hints—such as this boy's stare at Hector and the revealing morality about who the hackers target and what punishment they inflict to what crimes—but in the end, it's up to the viewer to interpret what they want, and one major interpretation certainly is that this boy is the sole blackmailer, and he gets a sick enjoyment from the situation. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually,  what I meant was that the boy standing in the reception area was the  prostitute that Hector was waiting  for. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I did wonder, but I've never heard that suggestion before. You can interpret that he is but I don't think anyone writing/directing/acting in the episode planned for that to be an interpretation. "Mindy" is a girl's name, Hector has not much reason to lie about the gender of the prostitute he was talking to online (and there's no age problems—the boy in the lobby definitely looks as old as the age of consent of 16) and I feel like the boy might have spoken up were he waiting for Hector. I say above that I think the look shared is related to Hector being paranoid, rather than consciously recognising the boy, and what the beat is instead most likely intended to be interpreted as. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that Mindy's a girl's name, but never mind, it was just a very odd moment, there's a clear instance of recognition between the boy and Hector.  This wouldn't mean the boy was the blackmailer, but someone who Hector knew or had seen before.  Anyway, speculation (interesting stuff though).  I'll take a last look at the article later today and confirm it's fit for promotion.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Last sentences of the first para of Production section need references.
"Brooker was interested in writing a present-day story.[9][10] Brooker " just "He" on the second sentence to avoid repeated Brooker.
Otherwise I think we're good to go now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Done and done. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
All good.  Please do ping me if you choose to nominate any of the others.  I've just revisited the entire series (well,  up to "Hang the DJ") so would be happy to help wherever I can.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Amazing, thanks again for the review. I'll take you up on that if I get around to the next one anytime soon. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am not under any circumstances defending Kenny's actions or anything like that. I'm simply outlining the facts presented in this fictional TV episode as they are.
There seems to be a disagreement between Bilorv and an IP editor regarding the subject of whether or not Kenny did indeed look at images depicting child sexual abuse. This is because a few weeks ago I revised the last paragraph under the "plot" heading to preserve the ambiguity of what Kenny was looking at. Yes, the intended implication is most likely that Kenny was watching child pornography, but it has to be said that the episode never really makes it clear. At no point is it ever mentioned that Kenny was looking at illegal videos; the most explicit confirmation we get is his mother screaming, "They're saying it's kids! That you've been looking at kids!" With that in mind, it could've just as easily been "normal" images of children that he was looking at while masturbating (however normal such a thing can be, I suppose). Furthermore, all utterances of "child pornography" in interviews come from the interviewer; Charlie Brooker and Alex Lawther never said the images Kenny was looking at were illegal per se, only that Kenny is a paedophile. Moreover, in Stuart Joy's book he actually goes out of his way not to use the term "child pornography", using the more nebulous term "images of children". Whatever the case may be, it's made abundantly clear that the hackers were threatening to expose him as a paedophile. Considering paedophiles are some of the most universally reviled types of people in the world, it would be life-ruining if it came out that you were masturbating to images of children, regardless of what the images were exactly, which is why the twist explaining why Kenny was going to these lengths still works even if the images he was looking at were not necessarily illegal. He might not be arrested for it, but he knows the kind of social stigma he will face if he's exposed.
That being said, I will agree there is some circumstantial evidence that Kenny may have been looking at illegal content. For example, he briefly does a double-take when his sister mentions that his laptop froze up when she tried to open "some film thing," and becomes visibly upset in the car when Hector mentions that the hackers were able to clone his hard drive, suggesting that Kenny has some pretty awful stuff stored on his own hard drive that he’d much rather keep secret. But again, there's no explicit mention of CP, and like I said before, he would still be a paedophile even if the images did not depict abuse. Whatever the case, per Bilorv's edit summary, if it was indeed child pornography that Kenny was masturbating to, then saying "images of children" is still accurate. The reverse does not hold true. Hmm1994 (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the comments Hmm1994. I have always interpreted it as being child pornography but the slightly more vague "images of children", which would include child pornography, sticks more literally to the text of the episode. So I'm a bit more in favour of saying "images of children". (Both, of course, are revolting and dangerous behaviours and that's what makes the episode's twist so powerful.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Anything that isn't shown but is "abundantly clear" is, by definition, subjective, not objective, and doesn't belong here. If it's that clear, then the reader of the article can just as well be left to reach all these clear conclusions themselves from the write-up of the plot as the viewer is left to reach them from the show. Sharing your own conclusions—implying "this isn't shown, but I'm telling you it's what you can infer from it"— no matter how obvious you or I judge them to be, is original research, not permitted. And, honestly, why do we need to be telling people explicitly that which is already clear and obvious to them? It's kind of insulting. Largoplazo (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you’re right. I wasn’t trying to insult anyone; my goal was simply to clear up a dispute between two editors. I might try rephrasing some of the plot details to stick closer to what’s seen and heard on-screen. Hmm1994 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)