8 ms·

Somehow, when the following two sentences are put together I lose all hope in the world's incentive structure: "Grapperhaus instituted a number of measures. [.

Somehow, when the following two sentences are put together I lose all hope in the world's incentive structure: "Grapperhaus instituted a number of measures. [...] Companies would have to respond to a notification from the child pornography hotline without discussion within 24 hours" "In 2015, Ecatel became embroiled in a lengthy conflict with the Premier League in the UK over claims of illegal streaming of football matches over Ecatel’s network. Streams must be removed by court order within 20 minutes of a notification."

sennight 6y ago
How fast does the ban hammer need to be to restore your hope? You know that "porn filtration", regularly used to justify state censorship, always ends up filtering speech that the state just doesn't want heard? I forget from where the latest porn blacklist leaked, either NZ or AU, but it was full of sites the likes of WikiLeaks.
- 0cVlTeIATBs 6y ago
  I believe GP's criticism is the imbalance in priority which hints at how money has leverage in the courts.
  - sennight 6y ago
    Which means very little in light of my criticism: "think of the children" is a pretense and there is no shortage of people who still fall for it. Complaining about the subterfuge not aligning with your ideals is just goofy.
alisonkisk 6y ago
Football streams are live events. Pornography files generally aren't. The harm from pornography isn't in the viewing (except in a very diffuse sense, not per marginal view); it's in the creation which already happened. Keeping a pornography video up a bit longer is actually positive for law enforcement, since that provides viewer logs that law enforcement can investigate and likely make more arrests.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  > since that provides viewer logs that law enforcement can investigate and likely make more arrests By that logic we should leave it up indefinitely? I find it hard to say that even a full illegal football stream hurts more people than even a second of leaving child pornography up.
  - charcircuit 6y ago
    >By that logic we should leave it up indefinitely? You probably don't want to continue hosting it as some visitors to your website might leave your site or it may cause PR issues if you keep it up. >than even a second of leaving child pornography up There is no harm do doing that. Child porn is a single internet search away and people into that kind of stuff probably already have those kind of sites bookmarked. A few random visitors seeing those kind of images is not going to hurt anyone. A full illegal stream is a potential lost sale where a second of child porn doesn't really do much since there already exist many free alternatives on the internet.
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      I don’t follow this logic either. You are saying that since child porn exists elsewhere we might as well leave up the stuff we find and have the ability to do something about?
      - charcircuit 6y ago
        I am saying the harm from child porn is not coming from a picture being up for a single second on a website. There exist websites where this content will stay up that are easily accessible. This is much more convenient to people who want to see that and it will attract a community of people who are into that kind of stuff. I also gave reasons why it would be in your best interest to remove the images even if you had immunity from the legal problems from doing so. It's similar how you might not want to host gore.
  - sennight 6y ago
Macha 6y ago
A similar example: > In the UK, ISPs are legally forced to block certain types of websites, such as those hosting copyright-infringing or trademarked content. Some ISPs also block other sites at their discretion, such as those that show extremist content, adult images, and child pornography. These latter blocks are voluntary and are not the same across the UK, but most ISPs usually tend to block child abuse content. https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-isp-group-names-mozilla-internet-villain-for-supporting-dns-over-https/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-isp-group-names-mozilla-int...

sennight 6y ago

How fast does the ban hammer need to be to restore your hope? You know that "porn filtration", regularly used to justify state censorship, always ends up filtering speech that the state just doesn't want heard? I forget from where the latest porn blacklist leaked, either NZ or AU, but it was full of sites the likes of WikiLeaks.

0cVlTeIATBs 6y ago
I believe GP's criticism is the imbalance in priority which hints at how money has leverage in the courts.
- sennight 6y ago
  Which means very little in light of my criticism: "think of the children" is a pretense and there is no shortage of people who still fall for it. Complaining about the subterfuge not aligning with your ideals is just goofy.

alisonkisk 6y ago

Football streams are live events. Pornography files generally aren't. The harm from pornography isn't in the viewing (except in a very diffuse sense, not per marginal view); it's in the creation which already happened. Keeping a pornography video up a bit longer is actually positive for law enforcement, since that provides viewer logs that law enforcement can investigate and likely make more arrests.

Aeolun 6y ago
> since that provides viewer logs that law enforcement can investigate and likely make more arrests By that logic we should leave it up indefinitely? I find it hard to say that even a full illegal football stream hurts more people than even a second of leaving child pornography up.
- charcircuit 6y ago
  >By that logic we should leave it up indefinitely? You probably don't want to continue hosting it as some visitors to your website might leave your site or it may cause PR issues if you keep it up. >than even a second of leaving child pornography up There is no harm do doing that. Child porn is a single internet search away and people into that kind of stuff probably already have those kind of sites bookmarked. A few random visitors seeing those kind of images is not going to hurt anyone. A full illegal stream is a potential lost sale where a second of child porn doesn't really do much since there already exist many free alternatives on the internet.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    I don’t follow this logic either. You are saying that since child porn exists elsewhere we might as well leave up the stuff we find and have the ability to do something about?
    - charcircuit 6y ago
      I am saying the harm from child porn is not coming from a picture being up for a single second on a website. There exist websites where this content will stay up that are easily accessible. This is much more convenient to people who want to see that and it will attract a community of people who are into that kind of stuff. I also gave reasons why it would be in your best interest to remove the images even if you had immunity from the legal problems from doing so. It's similar how you might not want to host gore.
- sennight 6y ago

Macha 6y ago

A similar example: > In the UK, ISPs are legally forced to block certain types of websites, such as those hosting copyright-infringing or trademarked content. Some ISPs also block other sites at their discretion, such as those that show extremist content, adult images, and child pornography. These latter blocks are voluntary and are not the same across the UK, but most ISPs usually tend to block child abuse content. https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-isp-group-names-mozilla-internet-villain-for-supporting-dns-over-https/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-isp-group-names-mozilla-int...