@thisismissem @jdp23 I wrote about this before. I can go further, if you like.
This "study" is absolute garbage.
For instance, it scans around half a million posts to find 100 "potential" hits, and on sites which don't use one particular tool.
He then acts as if this faux pas is the "end of the world", even though mainstream social media is known to be objectively worse than the fediverse in sheer number of cases.
He also uses Google's algorithms which have been known to misclassify computer generated images. While that might not be to your liking, it is extremely misleading to suggest that this is that.
It is also not unlikely that some of these posts might be spammy / automation based and which hit a large number of hashtags.
Also, he cherry-picks one *particular site* (which has recently been under heavy fire from fediverse admins) when other similar sites, even with similar policies, aren't seen to be troublesome in the same way.
Also, some cherry-picked posts shown in screenshots are labelled as having been posted almost a year ago, and statistics are ever so conveniently missing on this.
Also, if he wanted to help admins with a pertinent issue, he could have reached out to them privately, rather than cherry-picking posts here and there to try to humiliate them.
Also, this very same person has previously made tweets in opposition to Facebook deploying end-to-end encryption in FB Messenger.
He also seems to want Facebook to essentially run the fediverse in the name of "saving the children", or to run every image through a Microsoft hosted service (a PRISM / NSA partner).
Problematically here, some of these services are not even based in the U.S., even if they were, services have First / Fourth Amendment rights, and the argument is in the quality of moderation / communications, not a lack of moderation.
It's not tenable to hold every service liable for a small amount of misuse, nor it is proportionate to do so, especially when someone's free expression is taken into consideration.
Also, a bad actor could just run their own dedicated service in violation of the law. If they're so determined to flout the law, they could well do so.
Also, these services are known to take actual child porn down, he admitted as much, often within hours, however, because it wasn't taken down "immediately", it becomes a "scandal".