Hacker News Reader

Comment by trompetenaccoun | Hacker News Reader

You claimed the problem got worse but if you've never seen it yourself, what data are those "well known" facts based on?

Also naming names of criminals is not illegal, I'm confident you know this.

View on HN

You're welcome to do your own research.

As for naming accounts, it's not just "naming criminals". It's effectively equivalent to sharing CSAM if I'm telling people specifically where to find it. Even if I knew where, which I don't, I'd prefer not broadcast that information. And I'm not sure why you're so eager to learn specific account names. It's a pretty weird thing to ask for on a public forum, honestly.

> You claimed the problem got worse but if you've never seen it yourself, what data are those "well known" facts based on?

Not everyone has solipsism at the core of their epistemological worldview. Even without knowing your jurisdiction, I would discourage you from seeking out CSAM; the laws do not have an exception for curiosity.

I hate commenting on downvotes, but I really, really hope I'm being downvoted for my first sentence, and not the second one.

Hard to know why people downvote, but I just want to reiterate how ridiculous it is for someone to make a claim, provide no data or other evidence, admit they have never personally observed this and finish it off with "do your own research" when someone questions it. It seems like a completely indefensible position to me but if you have a rational argument why we should believe the claim I'm open to it. It just has to have substance. Nothing to do with solipsism, it's just common sense. It would be stupid to simply believe every random thing people write online, don't you think?

Twitter has more lax content moderation - boosting blue-checks resulted in a torrent of OnlyFans porn spam that took several months to resolve (P-U-S-S-Y--I-N--B-I-O)

If Twitter didn't have a handle on porn in general, what makes you confident they had CSAM under control?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com