3 ms·
I believe the point is that it denies them the tools they could use to put an end to the sort of behaviour SV is actually boycotting. You'll see in the 'screed'
by copperwater69 6y ago
I believe the point is that it denies them the tools they could use to put an end to the sort of behaviour SV is actually boycotting. You'll see in the 'screed' they referred to PhotoDNA by microsoft which is used to detect, disrupt and report child abuse material.
Can you defend denying Gab the tools it needs to efficiently remove material of that nature?
- John23832 6y agoNobody owes Gab. It’s owners saw what they saw was a gap in a consumer need, and decided to fill it. With that come responsibility. If they can’t moderate or fulfill all their legal responsibilities, with help or at worst on their own, they shouldn’t exist.
- Karunamon 6y agoForget "legal responsibilities" - they meet them in whole by deleting CSA (and other literally illegal material) when it's found and ideally alerting the proper authorities. Now, let's talk about CSA in general. Microsoft and friends might not have any legal obligation whatsoever to help Gab out, but I'd argue they have a moral one.