Why are you bringing up the creepy comments attached to the images? Those thumbnails seem to be of clothed children not engaged in explicitly sexual behavior. Cropping and making inappropriate lewd comments is exploitative but it's not pornographic.
Someone raised that very point in the linked reddit thread (paraphrasing) "you can see pics like these in the Sears catalogue". Presentation and intent make it pornography.
One of those images as a picture in a family album (assuming they've not been posed sexually) - not pornographic. Same image with sexualising content and presented alongside similar images in a forum intend to pander to the salacious nature of those who get aroused by sexualised images of children - pornographic.
Or do you think that there is no such thing as pornographic image of a human because you could see those same parts of the body in an anatomy book? If you do go that far, then presumably you'd also not find anything to be erotic? Would you also say that intent is not important?
I believe that the intentions of the subject and photographer matter. I do not believe that the intent of any distributor matters. A photograph is a moment of time set in stone, and cannot be changed by appendices.
So if someone posts your picture on the front page of your local paper with a headline "rapist at large" then you're fine with that because it's just an image and context doesn't matter?
