ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech—No Matter How Awful It Is.

gsa4555@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.world – 786 points –
ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech—No Matter How Awful It Is.
eff.org
126

You are viewing a single comment

It’s an unpopular opinion, but crippling platforms due to CSAM is a lot more harmful than what would happen if we did not have such draconian laws around it. Do people think there would be some dramatic explosion of CSAM? I don’t buy that for a second and the act of producing such material has always and will always be illegal, so like everything else, it seems ridiculous to prosecute the particular crime of posession.

Seize all funds received for distributing it, throw anyone involved in producing it in prison and throw away the key, and stop holding threat of social death over anybody’s head if some idiots throw a bunch of digital gunk at them.

it seems ridiculous to prosecute the particular crime of posession

what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn't be charged because they're not distributing it?

Do people think there would be some dramatic explosion of CSAM?

Yes, this is not your local backwater town where you know there are a few visibly shitty & disgusting people and people tell their kids to stay away and everyone becomes safe. And if you think shit doesn't explode on the internet, you might be living under a rock last 2 decades.

That's stupid on a whole new level and your made up scenario doesn't make it any better. No one is threatened for having been sent some questionable content. The person who sent those however might be and the tech today makes it incredibly easy to prove where anything came from since everyone is being tracked.

Seize all funds received for distributing it, throw anyone involved in producing it in prison and throw away the key,

How about we prevent such things from happening by discouraging it in the firat place? Sure, they won't be down to 0, but your solution starting after the distribution has already started is highly disturbing.

what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

He's just a dirty MAP apologist. Ignore him.

They claim it stands for Minor Attracted Person

… and that’s better? There are already separate terms for those attracted to under age people vs prepubescence people. The latter is a serious mental condition that needs help. The former is something society has largely agreed upon being morally wrong. In what world is “MAP” sufficient cover? Weird.

3 more...

what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn't be charged because they're not distributing it?

This means that current prosecution violates principles of criminal prosecution: namely requirement of intent.

3 more...

As a CSA survivor, who had images taken of me while I was abused... Fuck you.

People wanting to possess it is exactly what encourages people to produce the material. If you let people possess it with no consequences you will let the demand shoot up and basic economics should tell you what happens next with the supply part.

That is disgusting. Seriously. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

It seems I'm going into really wierd conversation.

If you let people possess it

I think you are missing the point or are a troll. Person above said that creating and/or buying is always be illigal anyway. Or you want to make easier for abusers to collect information about their future victims by destroying privacy?

Oh look, another shithead pedo apologist.

Creating and buying is exactly what they're trying to get people to accept, incrementally, by attacking possession first. Exploiting the warped way Americans have been taught to think about morality to do it. And your sorry ass is helping him. You doing so is not acceptable AT ALL and neither is any notion of getting rid of CP possession bans.

You will not make pedophilia socially acceptable and you will not lie to me and say that you aren't, and then go back to doing it like I know you're gonna do.

You're evil.

Dear Faust, another one. It is so much easier to call opponent Hitler/pedophile/terrorist than counter-argue.

This is discussion about ISP's surveillance. This is not just attacking posession. This is attacking computer that relayed data stream. Technically it is message sequence, but the fact we have discussion speaks that you doesn't care. Should postman go to jail if delivered letter contained child pornography? You say that postman should open and read every letter.

Your only option to not look like complete troll is to somehow define posession in a way that excludes postman(ISP).

Here's my take on your manipulation:

You will not make espionage socially acceptable and you will not lie to me and say that you aren't, and then go back to doing so like I know you're gonna do.

No. You're a pedo apologist. No one owes you a counter argument and you're not going to get the legitimacy you seek from a debate. Fuck off.

Fuck off, you're just a pedo.

Edit: I angered at least 6 pedos!

Edit 2: We're up to 8 angry pedos now!

3 more...