gsa4555ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech—No Matter How Awful It Is.
Gradually_AdjustingPlatforms should, like how we had to shut down our shit posting community for CSAM.
ISPs are a privatized infrastructure and should really be run as utilities. Like trains or water should be.
The world has been treated as a for-profit endeavor and this has many regrettable consequences.
originaluciferexactly. switch my packets, and shut the fuck up.
the water company isnt trying to upsell me on premium water services, i would like the same from my isp thankyouverymuch.
I’d say “don’t give them ideas”, but they only have a few they like and that’s one of them already
think of how much money could be saved not having to advertise alone.
we literally have a pretend market for who owns the last mile to force competition into a market that shouldnt exist. insane
Nestle: “Write that down, write that down!”
MetarightBuy our premium package for 40% less microplastics, guaranteed*!
Check out the company Aqua, they have been buying public water companies across the country and running them into the ground with no government oversight since they are a private company.
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.
Onit 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.
For those who don’t know
Urban Dictionary: MAP
MAP stands for Masquerading Asshole Pedophile. It’s a new term pedophiles came up with to protect pedophiles from being identified as pedophiles. They claim it stands for Minor Attracted Person, but really it’s a sham of language. They use the word “minor” because it can evoke the image of a 17 year old when really they are talking about 4 year olds. They use the word “attracted” because it implies they might not act on it, but then they believe children can give consent (which would mean acting on it wouldn’t be immoral and thus they definitely WOULD act on it). Lastly, the biggest deception is using the word Person when they’re not really people, they’re pedophiles. It’s also not a coincidence it spells out MAP which is an innocuous, useful every day item when they are in fact the opposite of all those things (dangerous, useless, and a tiny disgusting subset of the population). It is a prime example of conflation, obfuscation, and Orwellian language .
phillaholicThey 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.
It’s just PR so they don’t feel weird about being pedos
They’re both immoral regardless of any mental health issues.
hoodatninjaI 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 without my knowledge. 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.
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 theie 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
They, like all apologists, are banking on you taking their word on face value without thinking about what they’re saying or asking for critically. 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
I think the problem that poster was trying to illustrate is that it is unpractical to shut down a site or force the site to spend a significant overhead just cause a user could post a certain sequence of bytes to the site. An analogy to the real world would be some guy paints some graffiti on the pavement and the response, every time, being the complete shutdown of the city for a month or complete surveillance on every cm^2^ of pavement plus cleaning crews standing by every 10m.
uiswhat 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.
Fuck off, you’re just a pedo.
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.
People wanting to possess it is exactly what encourages people to produce the material.
I’ll fix it for you: “People wanting to pay for it”
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 so 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.
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.
HanabieUsers need more control over the kind of content they want to see. The problem Lemmy has is very similar to the main problem with the internet as a whole: the current model is that of a “regulator” who controls the flow of information for us.
What I’d like to see is giving users the tools to filter for themselves, which means the internet as a whole. Not interested in sports, let me filter it all out by myself, instead of blocking individual parts piecemeal.
The problem is that no company has an incentive to work on something like that, and I wouldn’t even know where to start designing such interface tools on my own, but there is, for example, a keyword blocker for YouTube that prevents video that contain said terms from appearing on my timeline. I’ve used it to block everything “Trump”, for example. I’d like to see more of that.
NumbersCanBeFunI mean the tools are there but I get it. The layman doesn’t know or have the time to set it up. I put a lot of work into managing my online identity and the type of content I interact with to get the effect you’re speaking of; but I agree this should be a lot easier to do.
It takes me several dozen hours every 6-12mo to keep up with the arms race that is privacy. I can’t imagine what it’s like for people who are less technically inclined. It must be a completely impenetrable problem.
3 years ago everybody told me to get on Brave. Look what happened lol
The idea sounds nice in theory, but there is a reason people bring their car to a shop instead of changing their own oil. There are a lot of things we could/should take responsibility for directly but they are far too numerous for us to take responsibility for everyone of them. Sometimes we just have to place trust in groups we loosely vetted (if at all) and hope for the best. We all do it every day im all sorts of capacities.
I’m talking about internet content. Maybe this is where personal assistants can come into play at some point.
To put it another way: do you think we should have the FDA? Or do you think everybody should have to test everything they eat and put on their skin?
There is a middle ground. The FDA shouldn’t have the power to ban a product from the market. They should be able to publish their recommendations, however, and people who trust them can choose to follow those recommendations. Others should be free to publish their own recommendations, and some people will choose to follow those instead.
Applied to online content: Rather than having no filter at all, or relying on a controversial, centralized content policy, users would subscribe to “reputation servers” which would score content based on where it comes from. Anyone could participate in moderation and their moderation actions (positive or negative) would be shared publicly; servers would weight each action according to their own policies to determine an overall score to present to their followers. Users could choose a third-party reputation server to suit their own preferences or run their own, either from scratch or blending recommendations from one or more other servers.
That isn’t a middle ground. It’s the exact same status quo (without a regulatory body) with a state funded source of information added to the mix. Which already exists.
You misunderstood. It’s not a middle ground between “can regulate” and “cannot regulate”. That would indeed be idiotic. It’s a middle ground between “must judge everything for yourself” and “someone else determines what you have access to”. Someone else does the evaluation and tells you whether they think it’s worthwhile, but you choose whose recommendations to listen to (or ignore, if you please).
So you want a society based on “caveat emptor” and what to ignore the reality that people can possibly make fully informed decisions about everything they do daily, resulting in needless deaths and a collective shrug from society?
“Privilege” doesn’t even begin to describe your stance.
There is a middle ground. The FDA shouldn’t have the power to ban a product from the market. They should be able to publish their recommendations, however, and people who trust them can choose to follow those recommendations. Others should be free to publish their own recommendations, and some people will choose to follow those instead.
That’s putting too much responsibility on the average person, who doesn’t have the time to become educated enough in biology and pharmacology to understand what every potentially harmful product may do to them. What if they never even hear the FDA recommendation?
Also, though you’d like to think this would only harm the individual in question who purchases a harmful product, there are many ways innocent third parties could be harmed through this. Teratogens are just one example.
This kind of laissez-faire attitude just doesn’t work in the real world. There’s a reason we ban overtly harmful substances.
What if they never even hear the FDA recommendation?
Then the FDA isn’t doing a very good job, are they? Ensuring that people hear their recommendations (and trust them) would be among their core goals.
The rare fringe cases where someone is affected indirectly without personally having choosen to purchase the product can be dealt with through the courts. There is no need for preemptive bans.
I am ok with preemptive bans on mercury in products we make contact with. Are you not?
No, I am not okay with bans like that. You should be able to knowingly buy products with mercury in them. Obviously if someone is selling products containing mercury and not disclosing that fact, passing them off as safe to handle, that would be a problem and they would be liable for any harm that resulted from that. But it doesn’t justify a preemptive ban.
they would be liable
How? We have no bans or restrictions on it. Who is enforcing this and how?
If you knowingly sell me a card with an engine about to fail, you are in no way accountable. Are you going to seriously expect every single American to become a mechanic overnight? To be able to diagnose the condition of a modern engine in 2023?
Who is enforcing this and how?
Liability would be decided by the courts or another form of binding arbitration. Obviously. Harming someone through action or negligence is a tort, and torts are addressed by the judicial branch. Both sides would present their arguments, including any scientific evidence in their favor—the FDA or similar organizations could weigh in here as expert witnesses, if they have something to offer—and the court will decide whether the vendor acted reasonably or has liability toward the defendant.
If you knowingly sell me a car with an engine about to fail, you are in no way accountable.
If you knew that the engine was about to fail and didn’t disclose that fact, or specifically indicate that the vehicle was being sold “as-is” with no guarantees, then you certainly should be accountable for that. Your contract with the buyer was based on the premise that they were getting a vehicle in a certain condition. An unknown fault would be one thing, but if you knew about the issue and the buyer did not then there was no “meeting of the minds”, which means that the contract is void and you are a thief for taking their payment under false pretenses.
Anyway, you continue to miss the point. I’m not saying that everyone should become an expert in every domain. I’m saying that people should be able to choose their own experts (reputation sources) rather than have one particular organization like the FDA (instance/community moderators) pre-filtering the options for everyone. I wasn’t even the one who brought up the FDA—this thread was originally about online content moderation. If you insist on continuing the thread please try to limit yourself to relevant points.
I am not missing the point. I completely understand what you’re saying. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they “missed the point.“ I hate that accusation, it’s basically a meme at this point and it’s one of the most tired Reddit habits I really wish would not be carried over here.
My issue is simple: Reality does not and will not play out the way you’re envisioning.
If you insist on continuing the thread please try to limit yourself to relevant points.
Yeah I am not going to continue a discussion with someone who is this dismissive/snarky. I hear your sneering through my screen.
Fuck those fucking fuckers.
BassaForteISPs shouldn’t be doing anything other than providing internet service.
And it should be a utility.
We keep seeing Moral Guardians create more problems than they solve
Dizzy Devil DuckyIf you ask me (and nobody ever does for good reason), one of the only times an ISP should be pulling the plug on online speech is when you start linking actual malicious links that have a good chance of your grandma losing her retirement funds or your tech illiterate uncle getting a crypto miner installed on his laptop.
Your ISP should have no insight in your traffic at all. Therefore unable to make any judgement on what traffic to block and what not to block. With the exception of volume of traffic and to where it is going.
Although I do agree they should have no insight, I’d rather the insight they currently have be used to actually block sites from bad actors.
Flying SquidI remember getting a warning years ago from an ISP I don’t use anymore that my service would be cut off if I downloaded a pirate torrent again. Why the fuck were they paying attention to what I was doing? Even if it was piracy, it was none of their fucking business and they wouldn’t be implicated. I’ve used a VPN ever since.
You’re IP didn’t care. The production companies are the ones finding out your IP address. Your IP is just passing the message along.
I don’t know why people are disagreeing with you.
This is like someone setting up a fake stop on a public road to mug people.
You’re telling me that the state shouldn’t have the right to police the road to prevent that from happening?
Lemmy.people, are you high?
ISPs are private, they can do whatever they want with their service. Create a state run ISP if you want to impose free speech on an ISP.
Also fuck USA’s definition of free speech that lets people share hate.
Bring in the downvoted!
Why wouldn’t you want free speech protection to be regulated to private companies as well
Free speech is guaranteed in public space, not private space.
wizardbeardJust because you get to a public park in a privately operated taxi doesn’t mean the park is suddenly private. It would also be absurd for the taxi to have a say in how you spend your time in the park.
I also refuse to trust that any private corporation would have my best interests at heart, or that they would not use the excuse of policing hate speech to also interfere with discussion against their corporate interests.
The taxi has a say in how you spend your time in the taxi, however
If you enter the taxi and the driver sees that you’ve got a shirt with a swastika the driver can tell you they’re not taking you for this reason.
I didn’t ask that, I asked why wouldn’t you want that?
When did I say I didn’t want it? Just stating a fact.