261–270 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their DNS is great. Removing websites without a good reason would quickly ruin everything for them.
I'm not well-versed in this: is AdGuard roughly equivalent to Pi-hole?
It's worth trying on devices where you can't install ad blocking software, but can change the TCP/IP settings.
I don't know anything about Adguard, but good on the team for doing the extra digging instead of just going along with the claim. Even better that they're sharing what they've found with everyone else.
Their DNS is great. Removing websites without a good reason would quickly ruin everything for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But apparently there was actual CSAM there, since the article mentioned that archive.is removed it within a few hours. So the claim was real. Why did they make up such a story around it?
>They replied within a few hours. The response was straightforward: the illegal content would be removed (and we verified that it was), and they had never received any previous notifications about those URLs. They never notified archive.today of the illegal material, instead they chose to demand blocking actions of archive.today from a DNS provider. I would be interested to know whether any other DNS service provider…
Its interesting that being unable to find a legal route to dig up dirt on archive.is, they're going the route of CSAM allegations. I first heard of this technique on a discussion on Lowendtalk from a hoster discussing how pressure campaigns were orchestrated. The host used to host VMs for a customer that was not well liked but otherwise within the bounds of free speech in the US (I guess something on the order of KF/…
https://saucenao.blogspot.com/2021/04/recent-events.html Mildly related incident where a Canadian child protection agency uploads csam onto a reverse image search engine and then reports the site for the temporarily stored images.
[0] https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/SECU/Brief/B... [1] https://protectchildren.ca/en/press-and-media/blog/2025/tor-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/25/tor-netwo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know why you are downvoted, this is absolutely what happened semi-frequently until Reddit was finally forced to crack down on it. The same thing happened on Twitter/X for a while where bots would mass reply to targeted users with gore and CSAM.
I downvoted it because it's commonly said by people who do bad things, as a red herring. "People from your subreddit keep killing people" "Well at least we're not infected by the woke mind virus"/"You can't accuse us of that just because we don't agree with the hivemind"/etc. It's no different from "but her emails" etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know why you are downvoted, this is absolutely what happened semi-frequently until Reddit was finally forced to crack down on it. The same thing happened on Twitter/X for a while where bots would mass reply to targeted users with gore and CSAM.
Because even though it definitely happened, it's one of those things you cannot prove and that don't really get recorded anywhere. It also doesn't help that there is not even a time reference here. I want to say somewhere around 2018? Maybe earlier? Gamergate era? CTR? There are pieces of internet history which are a "either you were there or you weren't" kind of deal. Like how the implementation of image posts in Re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their DNS is great. Removing websites without a good reason would quickly ruin everything for them.
I'm not well-versed in this: is AdGuard roughly equivalent to Pi-hole?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have plausible deniability, but the fact of the matter is: this also erases evidence of past crimes from public records. If bad things already happened then we should keep the evidence that they happened. The root problem of CSAM is child trafficking and abuse in physical space. But for whatever reason enforcement efforts seem to be more focused on censoring and deleting the images rather than on curbing the act…
Great point. I guess one is just a better anti-privacy boogeyman.
https://www.gsmarena.com/hmd_fuse_debuts_with_harmblock_ai_t...
How can you even sue without any legal identity? This website and an organisation does not happen to have any. Might as well be some shell company in the Carribeans with no legal standing in France. It's not even good enough for public prosecution, as the tip would then go through French services. This law is completely backwards, and worse than a SLAPP. If you cannot respond to a report in any way, it should be null…
If you can sue shark fins, why not a website? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...
Some good ones: - United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster - United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness - South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats