5 ms·

You want me to share CSAM accounts? You realise you're asking me to commit a crime, right? I don't know any such accounts because I don't go looking for such t

You want me to share CSAM accounts? You realise you're asking me to commit a crime, right? I don't know any such accounts because I don't go looking for such things. It's just a well known fact that Twitter has a CSAM problem. A quick google search will show you plenty of media coverage on that fact. It's also well known that moderation on Twitter has suffered under Musk due to massive layoffs. Of course, most of this porn stuff is never seen by most users because it's not favoured by The Algorithm. I'm just pointing out it's definitely all there. As far as legal porn I'm generally in favour of it being allowed on most platforms.

trompetenaccoun 2y ago
You claimed the problem got worse but if you've never seen it yourself, what data are those "well known" facts based on? Also naming names of criminals is not illegal, I'm confident you know this.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
  You're welcome to do your own research. As for naming accounts, it's not just "naming criminals". It's effectively equivalent to sharing CSAM if I'm telling people specifically where to find it. Even if I knew where, which I don't, I'd prefer not broadcast that information. And I'm not sure why you're so eager to learn specific account names. It's a pretty weird thing to ask for on a public forum, honestly.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > You claimed the problem got worse but if you've never seen it yourself, what data are those "well known" facts based on? Not everyone has solipsism at the core of their epistemological worldview. Even without knowing your jurisdiction, I would discourage you from seeking out CSAM; the laws do not have an exception for curiosity.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    I hate commenting on downvotes, but I really, really hope I'm being downvoted for my first sentence, and not the second one.
    - trompetenaccoun 2y ago
      Hard to know why people downvote, but I just want to reiterate how ridiculous it is for someone to make a claim, provide no data or other evidence, admit they have never personally observed this and finish it off with "do your own research" when someone questions it. It seems like a completely indefensible position to me but if you have a rational argument why we should believe the claim I'm open to it. It just has to have substance. Nothing to do with solipsism, it's just common sense. It would be stupid to simply believe every random thing people write online, don't you think?
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        Twitter has more lax content moderation - boosting blue-checks resulted in a torrent of OnlyFans porn spam that took several months to resolve (P-U-S-S-Y--I-N--B-I-O) If Twitter didn't have a handle on porn in general, what makes you confident they had CSAM under control?

trompetenaccoun 2y ago

You claimed the problem got worse but if you've never seen it yourself, what data are those "well known" facts based on? Also naming names of criminals is not illegal, I'm confident you know this.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
You're welcome to do your own research. As for naming accounts, it's not just "naming criminals". It's effectively equivalent to sharing CSAM if I'm telling people specifically where to find it. Even if I knew where, which I don't, I'd prefer not broadcast that information. And I'm not sure why you're so eager to learn specific account names. It's a pretty weird thing to ask for on a public forum, honestly.
sangnoir 2y ago
> You claimed the problem got worse but if you've never seen it yourself, what data are those "well known" facts based on? Not everyone has solipsism at the core of their epistemological worldview. Even without knowing your jurisdiction, I would discourage you from seeking out CSAM; the laws do not have an exception for curiosity.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  I hate commenting on downvotes, but I really, really hope I'm being downvoted for my first sentence, and not the second one.
  - trompetenaccoun 2y ago
    Hard to know why people downvote, but I just want to reiterate how ridiculous it is for someone to make a claim, provide no data or other evidence, admit they have never personally observed this and finish it off with "do your own research" when someone questions it. It seems like a completely indefensible position to me but if you have a rational argument why we should believe the claim I'm open to it. It just has to have substance. Nothing to do with solipsism, it's just common sense. It would be stupid to simply believe every random thing people write online, don't you think?
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      Twitter has more lax content moderation - boosting blue-checks resulted in a torrent of OnlyFans porn spam that took several months to resolve (P-U-S-S-Y--I-N--B-I-O) If Twitter didn't have a handle on porn in general, what makes you confident they had CSAM under control?