So YES, Facebook should need to give the person the right to defend themselves before acting taking action because of _alleged_ child porn.
Let's turn your boogie man around. What should happen if your small business page that you were using to drive revenue out of which you're paying a small payroll were taken down due to false or otherwise incorrect claims that you're violating the hosting company's ToS? You'd take that lying down and say "well, I must have done something!"? Obviously not, not if you knew you hadn't "done something".
I don't like your approach to debating these things. It feels like it's not in good faith. I put effort into my replies and you come back with boogie man retorts.
Also, not all of the things described even count as "forced to keep serving child porn". For instance, civil liability for acting on false reports doesn't force Facebook to keep serving child porn.
I'm responding to this part:
> First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
The terms of service under discussion are about copyright infringement. The content itself is not illegal, and the dispute is about the rights to post it. Two very different things.
And, maybe the child porn isn't actually child porn. Maybe it is totally legal, consenting adults having sex on video, but the adult just looks like a child. Yes, this has actually happened (article in Spanish): https://archive.ph/20140811233956/http://www.eldia.com.ar/ed...
The porn star had to travel to the court to testify that she was 19 during the filming of the scene, otherwise the person may have received 20 years in jail for possessing "child porn". Posting that video on facebook wouldn't be illegal, it would just be against the ToS.
The proposed system is about who has the rights to post something, and a delay while that's figured out. However /nobody/ has the right to post cp, as it is /always/ illegal.
It is possible for something to mistakenly be identified as CP, so you're right there. I'm arguing based on your original supposition that it /is/ CP.
Also regarding
> I'm responding to this part:
>> First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
Nobody says it has to stay up during the appeals process, just that account suspensions and punishment have to wait. It's possible to have different takedown policies based on the level of accusation.