Entrusting our speech to multiple different corporate actors is always risky. Yet given how most of the internet is currently structured, our online expression largely depends on a set of private companies ranging from our direct Internet service providers and platforms, to upstream ISPs (sometimes...
I don’t know man. The reason I haven’t set up an instance, which I am perfectly capable of doing, is because I don’t want people posting child porn on my drives/servers and having to deal with it (notice that an instance just had this happen). I am absolutely legally accountable for that and I can’t spend every day rolling around my instance and digging through files to see if anyone is pulling that crap. Nor do I want to. If I am putting in a reasonable effort to keep that stuff out, that should be enough.
At least that’s how I am reading the above. I don’t see him saying anything about hoarding it/having it on purpose. I think he’s talking about being liable because others are pushing it through to/on you. We have seen plenty of accounts of people spamming people with child porn to get them in trouble. A cursory Google search will show you that.
If he’s actually defending people who collect it but don’t distribute it, then yeah that’s gross. But that is definitely not how I read it. Mostly because the last sentence he wrote.
You just don’t understand that they’re using the possession argument to get their foot in the door to convince you to accept pedophilia.
It’s an incremental approach often taken by evil people and organizations and it’s been done before to great effect, e.g. everyone accepting government surveillance, to the point where we carry surveillance devices wherever we go, when back only 30 years ago it would have been considered unconscionable.
The possession argument is their strongest one because the possibility of affecting non-pedos makes people feel more sympathetic toward actual pedos and convinces people to accept removing one of the most important social guardrails we have against them.
The truth is that the possession argument is a nothingburger anyway because
Feds are not stupid and know the difference between actual pedos and who is not, and will acknowledge their victims – of which websites like .world are in a serious way
The possession problem can be got around through official CSAM filters that major corporations already use and can be built by the feds, who can create an open API for everyone to use. Meaning there’s no excuse for someone to just have CP on hand unless it’s obvious they’re being victimized with it like .world is
The risk of some hapless website owner getting caught up in possession laws are worth the risk to ensure as close to an absolute ban on CP as we can get. CP is too dangerous and pedophilia is too harmful for humanity for everyone in society to not be willing to accept that.
They, like all apologists, are banking on you taking their word on face value without thinking critically about what they’re saying or asking for. CP is like social nuclear waste; just being exposed to it at all extremely damages people. Don’t fall for their shit.
Good to know, appreciate it