Twitter thread for the lazy about the same. https://twitter.com/internetfreedom/status/1396743553905086466 https://twitter.com/internetfreedom/status/139674355

Twitter thread for the lazy about the same. https://twitter.com/internetfreedom/status/1396743553905086466 https://twitter.com/internetfreedom/status/13967435539050864... I don't agree with some points mentioned by the IFF org, Couple listed as example, I still think banning them would be a bad step. > Significant SMIs must enable automated tools (basically AI tech) to identify + take down child sexual abuse material. This can lead to function creep - extreme tech measures contemplated for a limited and serious use will start being utilized for other issues. How else would you take it down. Hire people to sift through messages? Don't companies already do this using? Are these companies limited now by anything from using these measures given their finances and scale? > SM platforms don't generate content - you do. They are simply intermediaries who host it. This distinction helps them avoid liability for your content. True, then why would SM butt in as arbitrator of truth.