buisi

I think it may be that people feel someone is trying to deflect away from a crime by being overly pedantic. When someone commits a crime and people scream "pedophile!", it is really strange when someone shows up and say that pedophilia technically means x.

There is pedophilia (the clinical definition), hebephilia (the clinical definition) which is when someone is into young teenagers, and then there is the social concept of pedophilia, which is committing a sexual crime associated with people who aren't of age.

Many people who commit such crimes don't meet the clinical criteria, but socially, they are considered such due to the last definition.

Many people who are clinically pedophiles (clinically significant being that it is sensually predominant and everything else they do is going to feel sub-optimal compared to that stimuli and may even feel nothing at all to adults) don't commit pedophilia related crimes.

Disgruntled employees can be risky. Like Stamos, and the way the NYTimes took Facebook's efforts to tackle abuse in 2019 as evidence of their previous "indifference". If anything you do can be twisted against you, why bother?

I want to see more information about their background. If they've been fired already, they're not going to lose much from going public with this.

Might this have something to do with people using Cloudflare to share child pornography a couple of years ago? They've been talking about it again recently.

Is his problem being fixed? I know support were looking into it, but is it in their hands?

What if it's a specific browser with a specific TLS stack, or something weird?

What sort of traffic patterns do you have? Are they dispersed between a large number of Cloudflare datacenters? Or few?

In my opinion, the biggest problems with sources is that journalists often fail to provide them.

They will often make sure assertions without named sources to back them up. And they will fail to provide citations and links when the source is present on the internet, so you can confirm and verify it.

This is sometimes the case for things like scientific research, where you're just expected to know which specific paper it is they're talking about, or where to look for further information.

Is it really that obvious? If a company gets a bad rap for being insecure, is it rational to go for them? Sure, you should do your due diligence, when picking any solution, but it's certainly a factor which could discount someone from a shortlist.

You're not always the one to make a decision. When you are, there are a number of stakeholders who can influence your course of actions, and when solutions are similar enough, it is easier to take the path of least notoriety.

Contextual accountability is hard.

Real names / pseudonyms tend to be sweeping across a service, particularly large goliaths like Facebook where you could do things like political activism in a group. You either get more exposure than you're comfortable with, or more privacy than other people are comfortable with.

Real name policies also tend to be cultural where usage of real names tends to encourage more usage of real names, even when it might make sense not to use a real name.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/can-child... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299657027_Non-Offen... According to Dr. James Cantor (a world leading pedophilia expert), and The Atlantic here, child sex dolls may be able to serve as an outlet to prevent pedophiles from acting out on their desires.

Who defines what constitutes "reasonable effort"? How would you even know without having them go through a legal process like a court? Is it just up to any angry journalist to make this determination?

I personally wouldn't use PornHub, as I have a negative impression of their moderation standards. Being exposed to child porn could put me at serious legal risk, if I were to inadvertently view the wrong thing. But, that is a simple risk calculation on my part. And I am already surprised so many people would put themselves at risk, of using a website which lets anyone to submit content.

Are we talking about producers or distributors (platforms) here?

Where did they say they have absolutely zero illegal porn?

If we had a law on the books that PornHub must verify the identities of all the people uploaded in their videos, you might have a point about them knowingly abetting a crime. But, there isn't such a law, as far as I know. And Visa / Mastercard shouldn't be in the business of writing their own "laws".

Wouldn't this apply to any social media site? Any of them might have illegal activity / content, and they certainly do.

Don't gay people make up at least 5% of the population?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/visa-and-mastercard-ar... Not the most sympathetic target, but it goes to show how much power they have. If they can do it against such a big target, can't they do it against anyone?

I don't think it would make much of a difference. Are there pedophiles who publicly post controversial views without the cover of anonymity? How would you even know what their views are?

The Internet Watch Foundation has made questionable calls in the past, like the one where they blocked Wikipedia for having a controversial (yet legal and historically relevant) image of a naked child.

Despite this, the IWF might be one of the more reputable "trusted flaggers", and this system may open the door for far worse ones to enter into the scene.

The GDPR is good in spirit as it forces a certain standard of privacy, but it is extremely vague (which means countries can effectively neuter it, or it could be over-enforced), and there is an extraterritorial component which set the precedent for global take-downs of content.

Let us say the internet was created 50 years ago, and Facebook decided to eradicate all homosexual content. Perhaps, not even maliciously but as collateral damage for another goal. Would it have been as shocking or obviously bad?

Right-wing ones too. Both factions of politics are likely to step in here.

This makes it very difficult to host any sort of "borderline" content in the E.U. If someone decides they don't like your decision on a contentious matter, and a court agrees with them, you're the one who'll take the fall for making the wrong call.

It's weird how politicians never talk about regulating Visa and Mastercard. They too can pick and choose who they do business with (freedom of expression). There are a lot of middle-men with a lot of power who get ignored in favor of chasing the most popular target of the day.

> The focus of the Digital Services Act is to create a single set of rules for the EU to keep users safe online, protect their freedom of expression and help both them and local authorities hold tech companies to account.

You can either have freedom of expression or safety online. You can't have both. And the second might be an impossible goal regardless.

What views are these pedophiles espousing? How common is this? I see many people who would be considered bigots, but I have yet to encounter truly pedophilic views on any mainstream media.

What I see, rather are experts being accused of being pedophiles, for pushing controversial ideas about how to prevent pedophiles from committing crimes, and being censored accordingly.

Studying microbes / organisms might also help us discover useful biological and chemical properties which we might be able to use in other disciplines.

What if we could program cells to perform desired tasks? Or find some way to employ a novel form of photosynthesis in solar panels? These are very random examples, and it is likely to be something very different, but with the right technology, who knows what could be possible in the future.

Posing as an "anti-pedophile" would be a good way for a pedophile to deflect attention away from themselves, or as a way for them to project the negative feelings they receive outwards.

There have been cases where child rights advocates have been arrested for multiple counts of child rape. I don't think every activist is one, or even most. They probably genuinely feel for the victims, and their suffering.

While I'm of the opinion that people should be able to grow up with the mindset that their bodies are nothing to be ashamed of, it might be best for someone to decide if they want any particular naked photo published after they're of age.

If anyone should be holding them to account, it should be the courts and / or society. Credit card companies shouldn't be able to play judge, jury and executioner. If our laws are insufficient to deal with the problem of major tube sites, we can enact new ones.

Related: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/visa-and-mastercard-ar...