3 ms·
> given they advertise themselves as resilient to government requests (not as trigger-happy when it comes to legal threats as other hosters) That does not mea
by KomoD 3y ago
> given they advertise themselves as resilient to government requests (not as trigger-happy when it comes to legal threats as other hosters)
That does not mean they're ok with illegal things... such as CSAM which was the case here. They're not a bullet proof registrar, they're meant to be private, they're not even a registrar
- sodality2 3y agoOf course, but presumably they would look into these requests to investigate for validity. According to the thread, zedeus says the URLs reported are not even valid and don't work.
- KomoD 3y ago> zedeus says the URLs reported are not even valid and don't work I don't see him saying that. He said > A funny thing to note here is that the image link, which first points at nitter.it, is a /enc/ link which only gets created by Nitter if the instance admin enables base64 link encoding for media proxying. This is not enabled for nitter.net, so I know for a fact someone copied an image from another instance (presumably nitter.it), changed the domain, and sent a complaint to Njalla. nitter.net returns images from tweets as something like "/pic/orig/media/DP5UreOXcAEz6EI.jpg" another instance with "base64 link encoding for media proxying" returns images from tweets as "/pic/enc/bWVkaWEvRFA1VXJlT1hjQUV6NkVJLmpwZw==" That just means whoever got the link went to another instance first, copied the path and replaced it with nitter.net I tried this myself, I went to another nitter instance which had "base64 link encoding for media proxying", copied the link, replaced the domain with nitter.net and it loaded the image just fine.
- sodality2 3y agoAh, I stand corrected. Thanks!