111–120 of 238 posts
I have to say, I don't quite understand why services find it so difficult to remove this material. This has been a long standing problem with Twitter. They've improved a bit, but there's still problems. Young people approach these platforms and say "here are some images of child sexual abuse that you're hosting. I know they're CSE because I'm the subject of the photos and I was We need to help young people understand…
So we're posting sensationalist, hyper-inflated claptrap from the Murdoch-rag NY Post on Hacker News now? Let's not, instead. If this is really a story, and if that headline is really justified, then a more reliable source can be found. Set phasers to flag and fire.
Besides that, the lawsuit is readily available: https://www.scribd.com/document/491614044/Doe-v-Twitter
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole deplatforming thing is mostly virtue-signalling. PornHub is an easy target and the people & companies involved in its deplatforming do not need it in any way (at least not in a way they would publicly admit - I'm sure some of them do consume its content) so it's an easy call to make and can gather significant support from certain conservative and religious circles. Twitter on the other hand is near-essentia…
Is virtue signaling being a good person through your actions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering that this is NYPost, its quite possible. I don't really consider NYPost to be a very respectable institution.
Do you think the NYPost fabricated the existence of the lawsuit? As far as I can tell, the lawsuit really does exist. Given the nature of the lawsuit, concerning material that is illegal to view, I don't think any journalists, whether from a fishwrapper like the NYPost or a venerable institution like the NYTimes, would be able to verify the claims made by the lawsuit.
Straight up fabrication is not the only way to disinform, and it's in fact it's a pretty shitty way to do it, since it means your disinformation collapses at the slightest scrutiny. To make fabrication effective, the fabrication needs to be laundered to give it credibility (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_6dibpDfo), which takes time and effort.
A more effective way to disinform is to pluck out a true story that's not representative and amplify or twist it. That will seem more credible to those who give it just a little scrutiny, even if it's just as wrong as a fabrication in some ways.
In this case, if the NY Post has a bone to pick with Twitter, it could troll through lawsuits against it until it found one that made scandalous claims, then report those as hard facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Start reading a single (non porn related) message from one these creeps and your Twitter timeline will be inundated with illegal porn content in no time. Twitter is absolutely rife with that horrible stuff, and Twitter certainly does the minimum to remove any of that, as demonstrated by that article. Why even give the benefit of the doubt? Someone reports CP, remove it, period. Of course, Twitter makes money off it..…
"People claim Twitter can't possibly moderate content at scale, except that Twitter makes money at that same scale." I'm sorry, but is that supposed to be a logical argument? Because it doesn't actually make any sense. Twitter is a platform that allows pretty much anyone with an internet connection to post content. There were, on average, 500 million tweets posted per day last year. So on one side you have the set of…
How many of them had photos and were reported as crime?
During all the recent debates regarding Parler, much was said about how Parler needed effective moderation like Twitter. This article is an important reminder that there is a lot more room for improvement in the moderation space and even companies that "do it right" are still making glaring mistakes. > We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time Thi…
Maybe it's the headline that is misleading you, or it's a symptom of our times. In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor. The insinuation that it's Twitter policy to distribute child pornography is laughable. They have absolutely nothing to gain from it. As to liability: Section 230 is about exactly that situation: tryin…
They were given government id. This point is invalid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think the NYPost fabricated the existence of the lawsuit? As far as I can tell, the lawsuit really does exist. Given the nature of the lawsuit, concerning material that is illegal to view, I don't think any journalists, whether from a fishwrapper like the NYPost or a venerable institution like the NYTimes, would be able to verify the claims made by the lawsuit.
> Do you think the NYPost fabricated the existence of the lawsuit? As far as I can tell, the lawsuit really does exist. Straight up fabrication is not the only way to disinform, and it's in fact it's a pretty shitty way to do it, since it means your disinformation collapses at the slightest scrutiny. To make fabrication effective, the fabrication needs to be laundered to give it credibility (see https://www.youtube.c…
I remember a story about someone getting arrested for "child porn" going through an airport when some TSA agent found a video of a mans kids taking a bath on his phone. I'm not sure what happened in that case, but it has made me a) hesitant to take similar video and photos of my kids (even though bathtime is really fun and I want memories! My parents have plenty of bathtime pics of me as a kid, and I'm glad!), and b)…
It seems pretty clear you did not read the article, so here The federal suit, filed Wednesday by the victim and his mother in the Northern District of California, alleges Twitter made money off the clips, which showed a 13-year-old engaged in sex acts and are a form of child sexual abuse material, or child porn, the suit states. The teen — who is now 17 and lives in Florida — is identified only as John Doe and was be…
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the other stuff I hear about, like teenagers getting charged with child porn for sending dick picks, or rape charges because 2 16-year olds had (consenting) sex.
All of this is insane, and if not for the systemic insanity around sex in America, this kid would not have been coercable.
During all the recent debates regarding Parler, much was said about how Parler needed effective moderation like Twitter. This article is an important reminder that there is a lot more room for improvement in the moderation space and even companies that "do it right" are still making glaring mistakes. > We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time Thi…
Maybe it's the headline that is misleading you, or it's a symptom of our times. In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor. The insinuation that it's Twitter policy to distribute child pornography is laughable. They have absolutely nothing to gain from it. As to liability: Section 230 is about exactly that situation: tryin…
Or the moderator was [pick as many as you like]: Lazy, overworked, incompetent, or a scumbag.