5 ms·

Or maybe they don't want to subject their employees to having to police child pornography.

by dgzl 8y ago

balt_s 8y ago
Oh please, so they're suddenly far more moral than snap/insta/insert-photo-share-site-here? What an absurd reach
- dgzl 8y ago
  The absurd reach is pretending that a company shouldn't take every measure possible in preventing its platform from hosting some of the most abusive and criminal content on the planet. What makes you think they're not more moral than the other platforms? What makes you think this has anything to do with morality at all?
  - BethGagaShaggy 8y ago
    I agree. I too think that the internet shouldn't exist.
    - dgzl 8y ago
      I seriously don't understand what connection you're trying to make. It might help if you were less sarcastic and more straight forward.
      - renholder 8y ago
        >...shouldn't take every measure possible in preventing its platform from hosting some of the most abusive and criminal content on the planet. If you want to genuinely prevent the most abusive and criminal content on the planet, then - as the comment you're replying to suggests - the only sure way to prevent it is to not allow it to be hosted/connected to/shared/etc. anwyhere across the internet but since you can't ensure that, then we default tothe internet being the medium that makes that possible/happen, so...
rhizome 8y ago
You mean they didn't want to pay enough for people to want to police it.
- dgzl 8y ago
  No, that's not what I mean.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  In Comments Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. ... Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
madeofpalk 8y ago
...child pornography was previously banned (duh), and it's still banned (duh). Their employees still need to moderate their platform and ensure there's no child porn. Banning regular, legal porn has zero bearing on this.
- dgzl 8y ago
  I imagine it would take careful and meticulous observation to differentiate between legal porn and almost-legal porn. Dissolving the platform of porn entirely would streamline this process and potentially be automated. Banning regular porn has a greater than zero bearing on moderating child porn, and you're being disingenuous in pretending otherwise.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > I imagine it would take careful and meticulous observation to differentiate between legal porn and almost-legal porn. Dissolving the platform of porn entirely would streamline this process and potentially be automated. Banning regular porn has a greater than zero bearing on moderating child porn, and you're being disingenuous in pretending otherwise. Why do people keep repeating this? No, it's much more difficult to ban all pornography than it is to ban only child porn. One requires analyzing the content of photos and the other doesn't.
    - dgzl 8y ago
      > No, it's much more difficult to ban all pornography than it is to ban only child porn. One requires analyzing the content of photos and the other doesn't. Since it's easier to spot pornography in general than differentiate between very disturbing types of pornography, the work load is lessened and overall less stressful. Not to mention the amount of work ai could automate. That's your point, right?
      - chimeracoder 8y ago
        > Since it's easier to spot pornography in general than differentiate between very disturbing types of pornography, the work load is lessened and overall less stressful. Not to mention the amount of work ai could automate. That's your point, right? No, detecting child pornography by matching photos to known datasets and then extrapolating rings dedicated to sharing child porn from the social graph is already a solved problem. NCMEC already provides the tools to do this. You don't need to do any image analysis. There are no effective tools for detecting porn more generally. That's a much harder problem.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jonathankoren 8y ago
What about violence? What about torture photos? Child porn is just part of objectable content, and content that is illegal in many jurisdictions in the markets they serve. You still need people to review that, even if only as part of the the appeals process.
nemothekid 8y ago
Then they should shut down Tumblr. Every platform that generates UGC has to police their platform to remove child pornography, full stop. If they don't want to moderate their platform, then they should shut the whole thing down. They have to "subject their employees to having to police child pornography" regardless of the fact that they host legal pornography. Twitter has plenty of legal porn without butting heads with this issue. Facebook doesn't allow porn and have to deal with the child pornography issue. Taking the stance of "we banned all porn because of child porn" is lazy and deflects responsibility and agency of their actions. They banned porn because the suits higher up said they didn't like it, full stop. Trying to save face with the community and blame child porn is dishonest when every platform, from 4chan to Facebook, has to police and report child porn.

Or maybe they don't want to subject their employees to having to police child pornography.

by dgzl 8y ago

Or maybe they don't want to subject their employees to having to police child pornography.

balt_s 8y ago

Oh please, so they're suddenly far more moral than snap/insta/insert-photo-share-site-here? What an absurd reach

dgzl 8y ago
The absurd reach is pretending that a company shouldn't take every measure possible in preventing its platform from hosting some of the most abusive and criminal content on the planet. What makes you think they're not more moral than the other platforms? What makes you think this has anything to do with morality at all?
- BethGagaShaggy 8y ago
  I agree. I too think that the internet shouldn't exist.
  - dgzl 8y ago
    I seriously don't understand what connection you're trying to make. It might help if you were less sarcastic and more straight forward.
    - renholder 8y ago
      >...shouldn't take every measure possible in preventing its platform from hosting some of the most abusive and criminal content on the planet. If you want to genuinely prevent the most abusive and criminal content on the planet, then - as the comment you're replying to suggests - the only sure way to prevent it is to not allow it to be hosted/connected to/shared/etc. anwyhere across the internet but since you can't ensure that, then we default tothe internet being the medium that makes that possible/happen, so...

rhizome 8y ago

You mean they didn't want to pay enough for people to want to police it.

dgzl 8y ago
No, that's not what I mean.
dredmorbius 8y ago
In Comments Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. ... Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

madeofpalk 8y ago

...child pornography was previously banned (duh), and it's still banned (duh). Their employees still need to moderate their platform and ensure there's no child porn. Banning regular, legal porn has zero bearing on this.

dgzl 8y ago
I imagine it would take careful and meticulous observation to differentiate between legal porn and almost-legal porn. Dissolving the platform of porn entirely would streamline this process and potentially be automated. Banning regular porn has a greater than zero bearing on moderating child porn, and you're being disingenuous in pretending otherwise.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > I imagine it would take careful and meticulous observation to differentiate between legal porn and almost-legal porn. Dissolving the platform of porn entirely would streamline this process and potentially be automated. Banning regular porn has a greater than zero bearing on moderating child porn, and you're being disingenuous in pretending otherwise. Why do people keep repeating this? No, it's much more difficult to ban all pornography than it is to ban only child porn. One requires analyzing the content of photos and the other doesn't.
  - dgzl 8y ago
    > No, it's much more difficult to ban all pornography than it is to ban only child porn. One requires analyzing the content of photos and the other doesn't. Since it's easier to spot pornography in general than differentiate between very disturbing types of pornography, the work load is lessened and overall less stressful. Not to mention the amount of work ai could automate. That's your point, right?
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > Since it's easier to spot pornography in general than differentiate between very disturbing types of pornography, the work load is lessened and overall less stressful. Not to mention the amount of work ai could automate. That's your point, right? No, detecting child pornography by matching photos to known datasets and then extrapolating rings dedicated to sharing child porn from the social graph is already a solved problem. NCMEC already provides the tools to do this. You don't need to do any image analysis. There are no effective tools for detecting porn more generally. That's a much harder problem.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jonathankoren 8y ago

What about violence? What about torture photos? Child porn is just part of objectable content, and content that is illegal in many jurisdictions in the markets they serve. You still need people to review that, even if only as part of the the appeals process.

nemothekid 8y ago

Then they should shut down Tumblr. Every platform that generates UGC has to police their platform to remove child pornography, full stop. If they don't want to moderate their platform, then they should shut the whole thing down. They have to "subject their employees to having to police child pornography" regardless of the fact that they host legal pornography. Twitter has plenty of legal porn without butting heads with this issue. Facebook doesn't allow porn and have to deal with the child pornography issue. Taking the stance of "we banned all porn because of child porn" is lazy and deflects responsibility and agency of their actions. They banned porn because the suits higher up said they didn't like it, full stop. Trying to save face with the community and blame child porn is dishonest when every platform, from 4chan to Facebook, has to police and report child porn.