3 ms·

I think the reverse is too naive. We see the exact abhorrent results that occurs when hosters are made liable. Look at youtube for example. There is no novel co

I think the reverse is too naive. We see the exact abhorrent results that occurs when hosters are made liable. Look at youtube for example. There is no novel content any more. Everything that could offend someone is removes or demonitized. What good does forcing a hoster to police their content? Do you think child porn will suddenly not exist anymore? Do you think child porn producer think "oh no, my website was taken down. Oh well I better stop doing this and get a stand up job."

tgv 6y ago
The good it does is spreading it less. Demanding that a measure has to eradicate child pornography in order for it to be acceptable is ridiculous. Hosting companies take responsibility, because they knowingly and willingly host content that's beyond the jurisdiction of the company's country's legislature. It can't be that a string of copper wire across a border is enough to remove liability.
- FDSGSG 6y ago
  ISPs and computer manufacturers should be held liable for enabling their customers to access child pornography too, right? Lets not forget about camera manufacturers either, they're the real villains here.
- rowanG077 6y ago
  It's not spreading less. Besides I never said a measure has to eradicate child porn for it to be acceptable. Compare it to having acne. It's not recommended to pop the abscesses because it does nothing to treat the underlying issue and a week later you have them again. What you need to do is treat the underlying condition. Attacking hosters for hosting child porn is the same thing as popping acne ascesses. Sure you have taken down a few servers. But next week they will be back. It's just not effective. What you need to do is find the people that are making and spreading child porn.
  - tgv 6y ago
    Of course it will spread less. How much do you hear of Trump these days? How often does he tweet? > What you need to do is find the people that are making and spreading child porn. They're somewhere too corrupt to care.
    - rowanG077 6y ago
      Yes not being President of the USA does make a person less in the spotlight. Not sure what your point is.

tgv 6y ago

The good it does is spreading it less. Demanding that a measure has to eradicate child pornography in order for it to be acceptable is ridiculous. Hosting companies take responsibility, because they knowingly and willingly host content that's beyond the jurisdiction of the company's country's legislature. It can't be that a string of copper wire across a border is enough to remove liability.

FDSGSG 6y ago
ISPs and computer manufacturers should be held liable for enabling their customers to access child pornography too, right? Lets not forget about camera manufacturers either, they're the real villains here.
rowanG077 6y ago
It's not spreading less. Besides I never said a measure has to eradicate child porn for it to be acceptable. Compare it to having acne. It's not recommended to pop the abscesses because it does nothing to treat the underlying issue and a week later you have them again. What you need to do is treat the underlying condition. Attacking hosters for hosting child porn is the same thing as popping acne ascesses. Sure you have taken down a few servers. But next week they will be back. It's just not effective. What you need to do is find the people that are making and spreading child porn.
- tgv 6y ago
  Of course it will spread less. How much do you hear of Trump these days? How often does he tweet? > What you need to do is find the people that are making and spreading child porn. They're somewhere too corrupt to care.
  - rowanG077 6y ago
    Yes not being President of the USA does make a person less in the spotlight. Not sure what your point is.