5 ms·

who decides what is harmful? That's going to be like letting a Bible thumping Moral Majority zealot decide what's Art and what's pornography.

mikeyouse 9mo ago
And under which jurisdiction is this going to be prosecuted? So some random Nazi on Twitter makes CSAM of an Irish actress - is Musk going to comply with the subpoena to help the Irish authorities find the user? He’s already said he won’t be punishing users for ‘free speech’ as he defines it.. so then what?
- saubeidl 9mo ago
  Then we prosecute Musk.
- yxhuvud 9mo ago
  The images would be published by Grok, which is part of Twitter. They are responsible for what they themselves publish. Hence Twitter is the obvious choice of where to direct the subpoena.
- pjc50 9mo ago
  Note that the bill includes "distributes", so Twitter clearly counts as "distributor". More interesting question: if the Twitter app is made available through the Apple App store, then would famous Irish-based multinational company Apple be liable as well?
idiotsecant 9mo ago
The courts. Just like if you sue someone for anything else. Demonstrating harm is part of the process.
- vaadu 9mo ago
  The law's definition of harm is massively subjective. It will have judges who think words are violence or make the process the punishment. This is a law that will be used to censor.
  - idiotsecant 9mo ago
    OK? Law is subjective to a degree because it has to be. We write tests and rules and then a judge figures out the specific outcome. That's how law works.
lm28469 9mo ago
Who defines what a crime is anyways right?
uyzstvqs 9mo ago
Nudity, including artistic nudity, is in itself the complete opposite of pornography. One is human nature, with art depicting its beauty and purity, while the latter is about the gratification of lust. As a Christian, pornography is clearly sinful and harmful. But if you wish to use your free will to partake in it, then you do you. Non-consensual pornography (which is what this is about) causes harm to another person, which is why it cannot be tolerated. This should be obvious IMO.

mikeyouse 9mo ago

And under which jurisdiction is this going to be prosecuted? So some random Nazi on Twitter makes CSAM of an Irish actress - is Musk going to comply with the subpoena to help the Irish authorities find the user? He’s already said he won’t be punishing users for ‘free speech’ as he defines it.. so then what?

saubeidl 9mo ago
Then we prosecute Musk.
yxhuvud 9mo ago
The images would be published by Grok, which is part of Twitter. They are responsible for what they themselves publish. Hence Twitter is the obvious choice of where to direct the subpoena.
pjc50 9mo ago
Note that the bill includes "distributes", so Twitter clearly counts as "distributor". More interesting question: if the Twitter app is made available through the Apple App store, then would famous Irish-based multinational company Apple be liable as well?

idiotsecant 9mo ago

The courts. Just like if you sue someone for anything else. Demonstrating harm is part of the process.

vaadu 9mo ago
The law's definition of harm is massively subjective. It will have judges who think words are violence or make the process the punishment. This is a law that will be used to censor.
- idiotsecant 9mo ago
  OK? Law is subjective to a degree because it has to be. We write tests and rules and then a judge figures out the specific outcome. That's how law works.

lm28469 9mo ago

Who defines what a crime is anyways right?

uyzstvqs 9mo ago

Nudity, including artistic nudity, is in itself the complete opposite of pornography. One is human nature, with art depicting its beauty and purity, while the latter is about the gratification of lust. As a Christian, pornography is clearly sinful and harmful. But if you wish to use your free will to partake in it, then you do you. Non-consensual pornography (which is what this is about) causes harm to another person, which is why it cannot be tolerated. This should be obvious IMO.