791–800 of 1001 posts
> "the only country in the world that is criminally persecuting all social networks that give people some degree of freedom" Sounds like he's never been to Russia. Which is weird, given that he's Russian
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I remember when CSAM meant actual children not computer graphics. The "oh its photoshop" defence was an early one, which required the law to change in the uk to be "depictions" of children, so that people who talk about ebephiles don't have an out for creating/distributing illegal content.
There still needs to be sexual abuse depicted, no? Just naked kids should not be an issue, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how would we bring down our political boogieman Elon Musk if we take that approach? Everything I read from X's competitors in the media tells me to hate X, and hate Elon. If we prosecute people not tools, how are we going to stop X from hurting the commercial interests of our favourite establishment politicians and legacy media?
People defending allowing CSAM content was definitely not on my bingo card for 2026.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also just very basic police work. We're investigating this company, we think they've committed a crime. Ok, why do you think that. Well they've very publicly and obviously committed a crime. Ok, are you going to prosecute them? Probably. Have you gone to their offices and gathered evidence? No thanks. Of course they're going to raid their offices! They're investigating a crime! It would be quite literally insane…
that's kinda the normalization argument, not the reason behind it "it is done because it's always done so"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> EU regulation isn't really there to be followed, it's there to extract cash from foreign companies Compare the DOJ fines on European banks and automakers with European fines on tech companies and you'll realize how ridiculous this claim is.
If you're arguing that DOJ fines on European banks are more unreasonable than EU fines on US tech companies that's fine with me. But that wouldn't make either reasonable or my comment "ridiculous".
Until the EU gets their act together on free speech, it's high time the united states hits them with aggressive economic sanctions.
Until the EU gets their act together on free speech, it's high time the united states hits them with aggressive economic sanctions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If X/Twitter was to be banned in the EU, and some of its citizens still wanted to access X/Twitter, let us say for the sake of getting alternative points of view on politics and news, would it be a good or a bad thing if accessing X/Twitter by IP was stopped? As in, a citizen of an EU country types x.com/CNN, because he or she wants to know the other side of some political issue between the EU and the USA, and he or…
there's a push to end with VPNs in the UK and in the EU because it's clear that this is a very plausible endgame currently VPNs are too easy to use for the leadership of autocracies like the EU or the UK to be comfortable with them, so at the very least they will require for backdoors to see which citizens are watching what, and have them visited by fellows in hi-vis jackets
No there isn't.
Governments discussing such things doesn't _remotely_ mean there is a political will for them, or that they will be voted into law.
Governments are expected to research and discuss paths of legislation (and in this case, come to the conclusion banning VPNs is both harmful and ridiculous). This is how our democracies work!
Reporting government discussions as approved legislation is, at best ignorant, at worst trolling.