> I mean you're basically saying "they only murdered like 3 people ... and were pretty good about making sure they didn't murder more... hardly 'numerous.'" And

> I mean you're basically saying "they only murdered like 3 people ... and were pretty good about making sure they didn't murder more... hardly 'numerous.'" And if you don't think that child sexual exploitation is on a similar level in terms of severity of the crime then I don't want to know you. This is absolutely insane logic. Pornhub didn't commit the crime. Did you know murder happens every day? A lot more than three times. Perfect moderation is impossible. You're saying that they would have to have a success rate of 99.99+% at catching this, when again, it can be nearly impossible to actually tell just by looking. What exactly do you expect them to have done? What exactly do you think Twitter does? Are you really suggesting that because this stuff exists and is impossible to prevent with 100% success, no website should ever allow user generated pornographic content without having some rigorous and highly invasive process for validating each video's provenance? (Not that it matters: doing this kind of thing will just make backchannels the defacto channels. Not a good outcome for improving enforcement overall.) (Come to think of it, if this is the actual logic of someone who worked in the adult entertainment industry, then I no longer have any difficulty understanding how dystopian chat/encryption/social media legislation manages to continue to be proposed and sometimes even become law.)