5 ms·
Stop with the allegedly it was a anonymous service that was reachable from onion. There is no question at all that there was CSAM shared over it. I don't care a
by xulres 3y ago
Stop with the allegedly it was a anonymous service that was reachable from onion. There is no question at all that there was CSAM shared over it. I don't care about the rest but all this "allegedly" shit in regards of CSAM gets on my nerves. I actually thought people here either work in bigger corps or have experience in running services themselves and would know about the real size of the CSAM problem. But I guess not, ignorance is bliss.
Also it's only their hosted for profit service. Use the fsf instance if you feel violated by a user account. https://jitsi.member.fsf.org/ https://jitsi.member.fsf.org/
- ComputerGuru 3y agoI personally think it was likely/almost certainly the case. That doesn’t change the fact that without sufficient actual evidence it remains “allegedly.”
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zozbot234 3y agoWell, the announcement talks about clear-cut ToS violations. Maybe it was about illegally streamed soccer matches - that's a bit of a plague as of late.
- lnxg33k1 3y agoPiracy is still the best way/our best chance to get rid of soccer and all the nothingness that it involves in terms of drama, gossip, etc
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Vinnl 3y agoI mean, it could also be beheadings, revenge porn, doxxing, etc. Lots of clear-cut violations that are more serious than illegally streamed soccer matches. But the true answer is probably "all of the above".
- pengaru 3y agoNot all porn is CSAM... Are we just assuming it's CSAM because non-CSAM would be on OnlyFans? Is there not an appeal for the anonymity and zero-cost Jitsi offered vs. OF-like services, for consenting adults? I've never used OF but assumed they take a cut. Through Jitsi a performer could arrange for payment via crypto, protect their identity, and not pay a cut to any middle-men beyond the crypto fees. What am I missing?
- yieldcrv 3y ago“allegedly” aside, is this the only way to tackle the CSAM problem? I get a whif of a false dilemma here but I’m not sure if I have a blindspot is requiring Oauth from Facebook, Google or Github for hosts something meaningful, necessary or the obligation of Jitsi Meet to do at all
- xulres 3y agoIn every thread someone comes with "but is this the only way to tackle the problem?" Noone ever even makes a suggestion so I guess yes it's the only way.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yieldcrv 3y agothat’s mentally negligent. the only people that have to identify problems and solutions are founders that are grifting for capital or customers. and that’s sad. the rest of rational actors can see a false dilemmas from afar without knowing what the third and fourth and fifth possibilities are. in this case its pretty obvious that “privacy for hosts, or not via FAANG Oauth and an unaccountable change in the terms of service to further distance from privacy” is a false dilemma while also not preventing anonymous CSAM rooms on their service.
- bradleyjg 3y agoIt’s only a false dilemma if there’s a third, etc. possibility. You can’t just assume that every problem has a magical happy solution that requires no tradeoffs.
- yieldcrv 3y agoI agree, so here are several 3. the same signup requirements for the participants instead of just the host 4. phone number verification for the host and participants 5. a credit card for the host and participants 6. some kind of deposit for the host and participants 7. discriminating against Tor users 8. including Apple ID in the list of auth services 9. it actually not being Jitsi Meet's obligation at all and authorities continue to prosecute the criminal action of the participants by doing actual investigations 10. ...
- MagaMuffin 3y ago[dead]