Legal Subreddit Bans All Ex-Twitter Links Due To Safety Risk
from the time-to-move-on dept
Speech has consequences.
Elon Musk has decided to reenable accounts suspended for posting CSAM while at the same time allowing the most basic of CSAM scanning systems to break. And, that’s not even looking at how most of the team who was in charge of fighting CSAM on the site were either laid off or left.
And, that’s made Ex-Twitter a much riskier site in lots of ways, including for advertisers who have bailed. But also for anyone linking to the site.
r/law, a popular subreddit about the law announced last week that it was completely banning links to Twitter for this reason.
Since Musk took control of Twitter, he mostly eliminated the Trust and Safety group and stopped paying the vendor that scans for CSAM. As a result, CSAM (child sexual abuse material) has apparently been circulating on Twitter recently (from what I’ve read elsewhere, the same notorious video that the feds found on Josh Duggar’s hard drive).
Musk also recently reinstated the account of someone who posted CSAM content.
As a result, we’ll be removing any content here that leads to Twitter, or, as he now calls it, X. Whether it’s an embed link or a direct link to a tweet. Don’t care what outlet is doing it. If you’re a reporter or editor, stop embedding links to Twitter in any of your content.
Note that they’re not just banning links that go directly to Twitter, but also links to news stories that link or embed Twitter content. As that final sentence notes, the subreddit is encouraging journalists to stop linking to Twitter entirely (remember, at Techdirt we banned Twitter embeds last year).
I’m not sure it’s reasonable to ban any news article that merely links to or embeds a tweet, but it’s certainly interesting to see how this subreddit, in particular, is handling the increasing liability that Twitter (er… Ex-Twitter) has become.
I had wondered if the members of that subreddit would be upset about this, but skimming the comments and it seems like they’re pretty overwhelmingly in support of the move. Again, this is, perhaps surprising, but a real indicator of just how much damage Elon has done to Ex-Twitter’s brand, let alone to “X.”
Filed Under: csam, elon musk, links, r/law, tweets
Companies: reddit, twitter, x
Comments on “Legal Subreddit Bans All Ex-Twitter Links Due To Safety Risk”
X bans the spot
er link
Re:
Or, X marks the pedo spot.
Elon!
It’s not profitable! It’s passed on! This website is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late Twitter! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life! It rests in peace! If you hadn’t used it as your personal soapbox, it would be pushing up the daisies (because of the 13 billion dollars of debt)! It’s run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! THIS IS AN X-PARROT!
With all due respect and love for the original tweet…
Elon Musk: [destroys 15 years’ worth of brand recognition for an attempted “take that” aimed at Peter Thiel]
Musk fanboys: Masterful gambit, sir.
Elon, the freeze peach absolut-ist will not like this new development.
Something something Kazaa had problems like this, people would change the names of things and ut oh you got porn or csam or other horrible things instead of what you were after… so I am told.
Re:
Or a virus.
I think I remember the MPAA and RIAA let loose virus packages masquerading as mp3s once.
Oh, and there’s always the remote chance you might get a nasty drive wiping virus as well on its successors…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You're lying again Masnick.
One account, that may or may not have actually uploaded kiddie porn, and if did so very definitely did so to shame the pedos in question.
As allowed under the policy, btw, even though you tried to pretend otherwise (i.e. you lied). But you’re lying and trying to pretend this is a routine thing.
So some of the notoriously lefty mods of reddit made a political virtue signal? This is what you’re writing a post about? Must be a slow news day for Musk hate, I guess.
Ditto. This is sad.
But go ahead, tell us how, even though Twitter lost money over the last 5 years prior to Musk buying it (the last 10 years too, as well it’s whole lifespan) it somehow didn’t lose money cuz it was profitable in 16 of those quarters? Even though, y’know, it lost money.
You are a liar. Day in, day out.
Re:
I hate to tell you this, but legally speaking the intent doesn’t matter – even if it was done to condemn it, it is still very much illegal to post. This is a matter that’s literally been discussed in rulings on cases where people shared material for reasons that aren’t meant to be titillating.
Re: Re:
I shame bank robbers by robbing banks. I’m the good guy .. really!!!!
Re: Re: Re:
Running around robbing banks
All whacked off of Scooby Snacks
Re: Re:
Yep, the way the laws are written simple possession of child porn is illegal and it doesn’t matter how you came in possession of it. I’ve always thought that deters reporting. After all, the police could arrest and charge you for possession of it, since you had to have a copy to report it, thanks to how web browsers work. It’ll be in the browser’s cache and most people don’t know how to clear that. Plus if you have a platter hard drive, clearing the cache won’t delete the file. It’ll still be recoverable from the slack space.
Re: Re: Re:
There is a carveout in the law: if you have fewer than 3 files and you reported them as soon as you became aware that you possesses them, you won’t be prosecuted for it.
Re:
Whether they’re trying to “shame pedos” is ultimately irrelevant to the fact that they posted CSAM (or links to it). How do you even need that shit explained to you? Also, the fact that the account was unsuspended—presumably on orders from Elon Musk, if not by Musk himself—after posting CSAM (or links to it) sends an implicit message: Anyone Musk likes can break even the one rule that every other social media service agrees is The Line That Can’t Be Crossed and not be punished for it. (See also: Kanye West’s recent return to X-Twitter, also presumably on orders from or by direct action of Musk.)
If X-Twitter actually allows people to post/link to actual CSAM without punishment so long as they justify that act with “I was trying to shame pedos”, that says a lot about X-Twitter. Not a single syllable of what that says is good.
Prove the mods of r/law are all “lefties”. And even if this is a virtue signal: What, you’d rather they vice signal like you by being a complete asshole?
His site, his choice in content. Don’t like it? Door’s to your left.
You literally tried to justify someone posting/linking to actual CSAM. You don’t get to high-road anyone when you’re already in Hell.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Supposedly. I have no idea what they posted and neither do you. I refuse to accept some anonymous censors characterization. (much like when media claimed Rittenhouse used a “white supremacist hand gesture”…..by which they meant the OK sign.)|
And yes, intent matters, even when specifically written out of a law, because it’s part of common law and matters for ALL law. Otherwise I could make you guilty of kiddie porn by emailing you some. Leave a thumb drive on your front porch, etc.
Nevermind that what is or isn’t child porn is subjective. Are pictures of your toddler naked child porn? Almost universally agreed not, but then you have to get into the question of “if not, why not”?
Musk believes people shouldn’t be banned forever based on saying something politically unpopular. He’s been very open about it.
It’s not complicated.
The policy is 3 years old and well predates Musk, dumbass. Masnick was just lying about it. (again)
Oh I love these rocket powered goal posts of yours. I feel no need to prove it (and I’m quite sure there is no proof you’d accept), they’re notorious as such for a reason. Also, see super obvious political virtue signaling.
Nah, still going to point out how dumb the post is, get fucked.
Might as well saying I’m “defending white superracist hand signals”….meaning the OK gesture. Sure man, whatever. You’re insane.
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve read a brief description of what they linked to. I wouldn’t recommend reading even that.
Not when it comes to posting CSAM. You’re trying really hard to justify someone posting/linking to images of children being raped by adults, and that’s fucking frightening.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, MATTHEW.
Read that shit out loud to someone close to you and see if it makes you sound sane and well-adjusted to them. I don’t like any of this site’s regular troll brigade—you included!—and I have never so much as insinuated that I have ever thought about doing to them what you’re talking about doing to me.
Are…are you actually trying to say that “posting video/images of child rape” is the same thing as saying the N-word? I mean, are you seriously trying to justify someone posting/linking to CSAM by comparing to someone talking shit about immigrants? WHAT THE FUCK.
And yet, Musk refuses to do anything about a policy that—under your interpretation—allows for the posting of CSAM without punishment. That says a hell of a lot about Elon; ain’t none of it good.
If anything, I moved the goalposts closer by limiting the request to r/law instead of the entirety of Reddit. You’re the one trying to make a claim and back out of proving it.
Your choice, but think about how you’re wasting your time on a site you hate replying to people you hate. Do you really want to spend your one wild and precious life mired in a muck of hatred (and self-loathing) so deep that you literally can’t stop yourself from drowning in it?
Not everyone who does the “okay” hand gesture is a White supremacist. But White supremacists do use that hand gesture as a coded signal to their racist brethren. And you’re…well, let me header-emphasize this:
You’re still defending the posting of/linking to images and video of children being raped.
Like, I don’t know how the fuck you can ever be anything else but the “pro-CSAM” guy after this comment thread. Hell, given how you were talking about framing me for possession of CSAM, Mike and the Techdirt crew should probably hand whatever info they have on you to the FBI.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Fuck, you’re being dumb than usual so I’m not gonna spend much time on this:
Incorrect.
Incorrect. I don’t even know if that’s what happened, nor do you. I don’t even suspect that is likely to be what has happened. We’ll never know. At least when someone says “Rittenhouse used a white supremacist symbol” I can look for myself and I can find out no, it was just a fucking OK hand gesture, and the journalist is purposefully trying to misrepresent what it was.
So you’re upset that I pointed out that you’re wrong and that intent is CLEARLY part of the law, it literally always is, Ok.
Also incorrect on all counts, but I really love how according to you, even if it did, the policy Musk didn’t write would be his fault, somehow. I was really just pointing out that Masnick was lying about the policy.
Again, you have no fucking idea if that was even what it was, nor was I defending any such thing you stupid fuck. But I get that you’re extra excited to have something to scream at people beyond “Racist”, “bigot”, etc when you’re losing an argument.
I know you’re not a deep thinker but this is dumber than usual.
Re: Re: Re:3
Please, by all means, explain a context where posting/linking to CSAM on social media can ever be a morally and ethically righteous act instead of a re-victimization of the victim in that material (in addition to being the illegal possession and distribution of evidence of child abuse).
I’ll wait.
If it ain’t his fault for writing it, it would be his fault for not fixing it. He’s owned X-Twitter for nearly a year and painted himself as a genius above all; if you want to claim incompetence on his part now, you’re gonna have to admit that he hasn’t been playing 5-D chess all along.
As I said, I’ve read a brief description of what the content he supposedly linked to was, and I wouldn’t recommend reading it unless you don’t mind reading a description of horrific child abuse. But even so: You still came in here and tried to defend the idea that posting/linking to CSAM is a morally righteous act so long as the intent of that act is to “shame pedos”. YOU LITERALLY DEFENDED THE DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SEX ABUSE MATERIAL. I don’t have a word strong enough to describe the utter depravity of such a position.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Does watching the 9/11 terror attacks or any other crime involve “re-victimization” of the person who was a crime victim?
The FBI has done exactly that.
Re: Re: Re:5
Prove it, lolcow.
Even the fucking clown farm you should return to thinks CSAM is bad.
Re: Re: Re:5
Can you prove that the FBI posted/linked to CSAM on Twitter with the intent to “shame pedos”?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
It’s called a sting operation. Happens all the time, actually. How dumb are you?
Re: Re: Re:7
Oh, that I believe. You would speak from a wealth of experience. Cousin intermarriage eventually got too vanilla for you rednecks.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Cousins? I wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole. Not nearly as good-looking as me and far too individualistic to be compliant.
Re: Re: Re:9
Bratty Matty is nothing if not terribly unclassy.
Re: Re: Re:7
So that’s a no, then.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/02/27/a-new-study-shows-one-in-four-teens-are-sexting-relax-experts-say-its-mostly-normal/
I just wanted to remind you, that 1 out of 4 teens makes child pornography, which is odd because that implies they are victimizing themselves, and under strict liability laws are sex offenders for victimizing themselves. I don’t propose we start locking up millions of teenagers for thought crimes.
Re: Re: Re:5
I am willing to grant that this happens, and that the law shouldn’t punish an underage teenager for voluntarily sending a nude selfie to another underage teenager. But that’s not what this specific situation we’re talking about is about, and that minor exception isn’t and shouldn’t be taken as a defense of CSAM—or of the distribution thereof, regardless of any attempted justification.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Literally happens all the time. Cuz laws are written by politicians in best “protect the children” mode….you fucking inbred moron.
Re: Re: Re:7
Hey, not all of us need to fuck relatives just to get off like you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
See, this is funny, because I believe a few dozen teenagers have actually been charged with making porn of themselves (or their age-appropriate SO’s). It prompted a round of rewrites of laws to cover for that (by no means complete).
AFAIK none of them were convicted (cuz juries exist) but it kinda shows how fcuking smoothbrain Stephen’s approach is.
Re: Re: Re:6
This is about what the law says, not what it should be.
The carve-outs you mention were narrow and were about the age of the perpetrator, whether the victim and perpetrator were the same, and/or private text messaging. They were also exceptions to child nudity, not CSAM that involves physical abuse (CSEM, not CSAM). They simply are not relevant here.
The only way that those changes involved intent at all was in terms of the intended audience, not the reason for sharing them in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:4
raises hand
I’ve seen a screenshot of the actual tweet he posted, and he posted the same material on Instagram and I’ve seen it there. It was a screenshot taken from a video that is so vile that I can’t watch more than half a second of it, and that’s with the “basilisk” filters that T&S software includes (blur, forced black and white desaturation, and the image/video displayed upside down). I have been doing Trust and Safety work for 24 years and I am not disturbed by a lot of things that most people find incredibly, massively disturbing. This one gives me nightmares.
The video is so extreme that FBI agents, when they heard descriptions of it circulating among the CSAM trading underground, thought that the description was fake or exaggerated. You cannot obtain a full copy of it (as opposed to the shorter preview version that is circulating more widely) without producing a new video recording of an act of child sexual abuse that has never been recorded before and trading it for access to the video. It is widely considered one of the most sought-after videos in these trading circles because of how extreme it is. Most trading groups will restrict even the preview version to those who provide a new video recording of an act of child sexual abuse that has never been recorded before, and at the very least providing a new series of images depicting an act of child sexual abuse that has never been recorded or traded before. Anyone who possesses even the shorter preview version of the video has very likely either traded a memorialization of a never-before seen act of child sexual abuse for it, or has obtained it from someone who did.
There is absolutely no doubt in the slightest that this video memorializes an act of child sexual abuse that is so vile that people in the industry who deal with this sort of thing regularly find so far beyond the “normal” level of awfulness we deal with as to be grievously upsetting to people who are not upset by much, and there is no doubt that a person who possesses it is at the most a single step away from having commissioned an act of child sexual abuse that would not have happened without the desire to obtain and view the video. The trading practices of the groups that possess this sort of video inherently mean that possession of the video implicates the possessor — morally if not in actual deed — in the commission of new acts of child sexual abuse, over and above the act of child sexual abuse that is memorialized in the video.
There is absolutely no circumstances under which someone can possess this video and post screenshots from it without having committed morally abhorrent acts or received it from someone who did. Those of us who have seen it for work-related purposes not only wouldn’t take screenshots from it and distribute it because we know that every time someone sees the video it is a revictimization of the children involved in the original act of child sexual abuse, the software we use for it literally will not let us.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
I literally do not believe you.
Re: Re: Re:6
The screenshots of the now-deleted tweet were both in the Internet Archive and being widely circulated on Twitter on the night in question, and the same post was up on his Instagram for about 18 hours after Musk reinstated the Twitter account. I had to spend a great deal of that night teaching a lot of my friends how Trust and Safety people handle exposure to horrifying things, actually, because the screenshots were being so widely circulated that a lot of people saw things they really didn’t want to see. The version of the tweet in the Internet Archive was recorded with the page view counter over 1,000,000. A lot of people saw it, and both the poster and Musk accurately described it and exactly what was in it. Why do you think Elon is lying?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
You fucking idiot this has not even been verified to have happened.
I’m done, you’re too dumb to argue with, go bake a cake.
Re: Re: Re:5
Irrelevant. Please explain a context where posting/linking to CSAM on social media can ever be a morally and ethically righteous act instead of a re-victimization of the victim in that material (in addition to being the illegal possession and distribution of evidence of child abuse).
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re the one saying, “Even if it happened, it’s not that bad,” more or less. As far as that statement is concerned, the veracity of the original accusation is irrelevant.
Notably, even Elon Musk agrees that that’s what happened, so I honestly have no idea why you’re even contesting this, but ultimately, it doesn’t really matter here. The point is that you defended the action, even if it was as a hypothetical.
Re: Re: Re:6
Because he’s not here for honest discussion. He’s here to shit on everything and act like an oppositionally defiant teenager who just disagrees with everyone else. If the truth doesn’t matter to you, you’re free to say anything and pretend that disagreeing with others, including verified evidence, makes you smart.
Re: Re: Re:3
Please point to the law or court case that allowed for intent to be a defense to an offense. Not knowledge, but intent.
The fact is that, for better or for worse, intent simply is not relevant to CSAM under the law.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’ll reply to you, because I’m not going to reply to Matthew, but this part:
Indeed, you can. Possession of child porn is a crime, regardless of how you came into possession of it. If the police are interested in scoring easy “we’re doing something about child porn points!”, they can arrest and charge you for it and not bother investigating to find who sent it to you. And you can end up in jail for it.
So yes Matthew, you could indeed do that and ruin someone’s life by being an amoral, sociopathic asshole.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
So refusing to reply to me directly isn’t going to change how wrong you are.
Incorrect. Cuz Judges exist. Like you know section 230? Part of this whoolllllleeee much bigger law that effectively doesn’t exist anymore. Cuz it was unconstitutional af. It doesn’t matter what law they write, congress can’t actually decide what you say online.
Similarly, several laws attempt to remove a requirement of consent…and they can’t. Mens rea exists. You Have to do something on purpose, or at least very negligently (essentially, you should have known that would happen) to be guilty of something. You cannot be guilty without intent. (you can be liable, that’s a whole separate thing)
This statement is, actually, completely wrong. You are an idiot who does not understand the law if you think this is the case. (Masnick does!)
Just think on that: I email you something (so it’s on your hard drive) so now you (and google, probably) are guilty of child porn? That would be perfect legal assassination, effectively. You could put anyone you want away for what, 15 years? (no idea, but it’s a lot) But lol, *that’s not how fucking anything works, ever,
Re: Re: Re:4
Given how you talked about framing me for possession of CSAM, I’d say that proves intent if you ever make the attempt to do exactly that. You should really try to avoid posting something that could be presented as “Exhibit A” at a trial, you dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:5
Hey man, i didn’t intend to run over that guy with my car, gimme a break.
Re: Re: Re:4
“You cannot be guilty without intent.”
Are you providing legal advice?
Are you a licensed attorney? Where is said license valid?
I did not intend to defame you when I called you a worthless piece of shit and therefore I am innocent of all charges you or your cronies may or may not level against me – lol, I got a get out of jail free card! woohooooo
Re: Re: Re:3
He is that amoral and psychopathic.
Herd mentality is the cause, and he’s convinced we all should be shot for the crime of not supporting Trump.
So yes, he would mail a storage device full of child porn to fuck someone over.
Re: Re: Re:
How about what they told Musk:
I’m sure you now are going to argue that Musk’s employees lied to him and those who actually saw the pictures must have been hallucinating or something.
I’m sure you’ll be happy if some pedo posts CSAM-pictures on social media they can just claim the intent was to highlight the plight of the sexually exploited children, right? Because they child in the picture doesn’t actually matter then, right?
Considering your track-record, you claiming something is a lie can be taken as evidence it’s most likely true.
Refuses to provide any proof of what you are saying is the same as admitting you are lying. It’s what you always do, say some made up shit and when called on it you try to deflect with some lame ass excuse which only further proves it was a lie to begin with.
It’s amazing how low you will stoop to defend Musk and his actions, in this instance trying to argue that posting CSAM on social media isn’t a big deal. It is a big deal, regardless of whatever intent you think is acceptable – and very much illegal no matter what inane excuses people like you come up with.
Re: Re: Re:
“He’s not a Nazi, it’s a Hindu peace sign!” – Matthew M. Bennett, regarding any Neo-Nazi flying a Swastika.
This is the wrong crowd to try to gaslight.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
The closer analogy is if it was that Israeli group that was hunting nazis in 60’s and they used a pic of one of them with a swastika flag in WW2 to show he was a nazi.
Re: Re: Re:2
The Buddhists and Hindus would like thier windmill of love and peace back.
Back to its intended meaning and NOT its connotations with the extermination of an ethnic group.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
OK? Yes, I would assume so. (I thought it was more a fertility symbol?) Has nothing to do with the point though.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
The US supreme court indicated that “virtual child porn” was legal, and child porn was illegal, because the latter involved proceeds from the commission of a crime (the rape of a child). Moreover that the financial revenue from the content, is what funds sex traffickers who are engaging in the illegal conduct.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That literally has nothing to do with anything that I said.
Re: Re: Re:
Just a suggestion, Matty: maybe don’t rely on grifter defense lawyers posting that kind of nonsense on the web looking for clients, and speak to an actual lawyer about CSAM liability.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
also i have no idea how to do formatting right sorry about that. only the first line was supposed to be a quote
Re: Re: Re:2 A Brief Markdown Lesson
For the record, with Techdirt’s markdown parser…
…results in what you got, whereas…
…gives you the formatting you wanted. It’s all about the empty line between the two. For formatting multiple quoted paragraphs together, you’ll want to do this:
(I don’t think you need to quote-mark the empty line between the two quoted paragraphs, but that’s how I do it.)
Re: Re: Re:3
Noted. Thank you.
Re: Re: Re:
Even /b/ hates CSAM and manages to mock pedophiles WITHOUT resorting to posting actual CSAM.
You may not always like what they post when those threads come up, though.
Re: Re: There's having low standards and then there's having no standards
You literally tried to justify someone posting/linking to actual CSAM. You don’t get to high-road anyone when you’re already in Hell.
Of all the hills to die on ‘It’s okay to post CSAM if you are doing it to shame people who post CSAM’ and ‘giving a pass to someone who posts CSAM is fine if you like the person who did it’ really shows just how utterly vile their character is and the depths they are willing to sink to in order to avoid saying anything bad about Elon.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah I’m always going to die on the hill of being right, shithead.
Otherwise Truth becomes ever more subjective.
Re: Re: Re:2
In which case, you’re doing a terrible job of it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Bold of you to claim that “defending the posting of/linking to CSAM on social media” is “right”, but let’s see if that strategy pays off, Mr. Pro-CSAM.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s not right, but it’s Right.
Pretty much complete opposites, nowadays.
Re: Re: Re:3
Their battle map is just all kinds of fucked-up.
Re:
Looking at the last 5 years up to Q2 2022, Twitter made a net profit of ~1.5 billion dollars.
I guess being an angry troll makes you stupid as evidenced by all the stupidity you come here to spew, especially the above since all information about Twitters net profits are publicly available:
Re: Re:
Matthew cannot demonstrate a single comment he has ever made that’s backed by real-world facts.
Re:
Rule of Goats.
Re: Re:
T, FTFY
Re:
First time I’ve seen the narcissist’s prayer come out in defense of kiddie porn. You really are a special kind of fucked in the head, Matthew M. Bennett.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Sociologically, I find this an interesting phenomenon, but personally I’m frightened by it’s implications.
A: This guy is a murderer.
B: We have no evidence of that, only hearsay. It might’ve been self-defense. We can’t even verify anyone was killed.
A: Why are you defending murderers?
Perfect
Re: Re: Re:
Elon Musk himself said Twitter employees saw the posts in question and practically confirmed that the posts linked to CSAM. Will you go on record as calling Elon a liar?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Incorrect
Re: Re: Re:3
Next time, maybe say that about a claim that doesn’t have the equivalent of Exhibit A on a publicly viewable website.
Re: Re: Re:4
Matthew really picks weird hills to die on.
Re: Re: Re:5
Too bad he’s too stupid to just stay dead.
Re: Re: Re:
The butt plug that is your brain has fallen on the floor yet again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I forget, are you the older catlady, or the younger danger-hair soon to be catlady?
Re:
Even Baghdad Bob is giving you the side eye on that one.
So you are in fact a goat fucker.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The difference being that everyone could see Americans taking Bagdad, block by block, making this comparison not just inapt but also tone-deaf.
I have been given no proof that this happened and also I know I will never be given such proof.
I have only the word of others and I trust absolutely none of those people. Why should I?
Don’t you know, Rittenhouse used “a known white supramacist gesture” (Meant, no doubt, to make you think Nazi “heil!”)…..except it was “OK” hand signal. Which lol, no, despite 3-4 years of media pretending that was the case, is nothing of the sort.
You can’t just make accusations, no evidence, and expect guilt to be assumed. This isn’t 16th century Spain.
Re: Re: Re:
But it’s something you love to do the whole time, but that’s different somehow…
Re:
Matthew.
So, is it okay to post CSAM or not?
I don’t care WHY. All I know is that every country in the known world now has laws against the posting of such things, the ownership of such things, and the making of such things, because, and every country agrees, that sexually exploiting children is a bad fucking thing.
And I’m not sure if you’re arguing FOR the posting of such a thing or not. Your argument is confusing and muddled.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
>
Re: Re: Re:
I’ll take your silence as you defending the right to post what 4chan calls “cheese pizza” then.
And I’ll still trust the criminal codes of the entire world over a violent white supremacist any day.
And until you can convince me that the asshole who posted that vile thing has an actual FBI warrant authorizing him to do so as part of a sting operation…
And considering your antipathy to the FBI, I doubt you can dredge up evidence.
Re:
No matter how much you simp for him, em so will never know you exist.
Re:
So, you’re a fan of CSAM. Figures.
Re: Not unexpected
I should have had “defending people who post screenshots of CSAM to Twitter” in my bingo card for you. More fool me that I didn’t. Loudly and repeatedly bragging that you don’t understand how profitability works is a good one too, we love to see that.
/r/law is being smart by avoiding even the possibility of being associated in any way with the nefarious activities on the website formerly known as twitter. There is nothing wrong with what they have done in their own self defense. AFAIK, some of the posters there are lawyers and they would know.
Subreddit all about discussing the law blocks any and all links to the-site-formerly-known-as-twitter after it’s king decides to give a pass to someone who posted CSAM in direct contradiction to his own rules(among other things)…
… I wonder if they know something he doesn’t?
If it wasn’t for CSAM, Matthew M Bennett’s kind would not have means of spreading their genetic material.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
….did you think kiddie porn is a method of reproduction? This doesn’t even make sense.
I am in fact married, with children. Multiple decades, boring af.
Re: Re:
You backwater wastes of space will try anything.
Citation needed.
Which would explain why you’re that desperate to play fantasy football fucking with imaginary Mike Masnick instead of actually doing it with your alleged spouse.
Re: Re:
Well that’s fucking concerning, considering how hard you’ve tried in this comments section to justify someone posting CSAM on social media.
Re: Re:
You are in fact, married, with children?
Al Bundy, is that you?
Re: Re: Re:
Al Bundy was never an asshole.
Re:
When abducting Jewish Children and gassing their parents don’t work…
And no, I do not fucking endorse this. The Nazis actually did this heinous thing, and I don’t doubt the insurrectionists will not try this once they’re done murdering the rest of us.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
When it comes to link taxes and copyright violations, TD carefully explains that a link to material is not the material itself. But when it comes to Elon Musk, no such explanation about the silliness of the r/law ban is forthcoming, because TD is angry that X no longer provides the censorship of viewpoints that TD hates.
Re: Of all the hills to plant a flag on...
Willing to defend Elon even if it means defending those posting CSAM and/or giving it a pass… well I’ve give them this, you certainly can’t accuse Elon’s fans of half-assing their willingness to defend him at any and all costs, no matter what that requires them to defend or make excuses for in the process.
Re: Re:
That is the sort of citizen Nazis train their population to be, and that is people who will follow the leader straight through the gates of hell if that is where the leader goes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It is the hatred for Musk’s taking away the censorship you loved that blinds you to the ridiculousness of shutting down access to a valuable resource because of the minuscule chance that something evil may briefly show up. This is “safety” culture taken to its idiotic apotheosis.
Re: Re: Re:
CSAM isn’t a valuable resource but I do wonder why you think it is…
Re: Re: Re:
JFC, Hyman, are you actually going to defend someone using Twitter to post/link to CSAM? Are you really going to complain about Twitter “censoring” CSAM until Musk came along?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Who would you rather support, a vore-specializing furry lesbian, or Hyman Rosen?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
As usual, you argue with illusory versions of me who say things that you hallucinate. (What happened to your only posting a one-line curse as commentary to me? Didn’t seem to last very long.)
Regardless of whether X failed to competently police a posting of child pornography, it is ridiculous posturing to ban links to all posts on X, because with probability 1, they are not going to be child pornography.
The simple fact is that liberals are all a-twitter because Musk has removed the censorship of viewpoints that they hate, and they will use any, or no, excuse to lash out at him for that. Their claims of “safety” are always false fronts.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Say goodbye to your penis, Hywoman. You’re going to enjoy having a useless little clitty and you’re going to like it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Hyman.
Even being NEAR what 4chan calls “cheese pizza” will get your ass arrested. Every country in the world has laws dealing with this. (And no, you’re not allowed to list exceptions.)
There is a massive difference, Hyman, between removing gun safety videos on Youtube (which IS stupid and blocking off access to a useful source of safety), blocking access to abortion information (something YOUR SIDE is trying to do) and removing CSAM (which, btw, is so fucking illegal EVERYWHERE one will get arrested regardless of context).
But that’s the hill you want to die on, Nazi. Defending the right to post child porn.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
It is amusing that you think you get to tell me what I may not do, and even more amusing when I do it anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography
According to this entry, possession of child pornography is not illegal in Angola, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Somalia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Laos, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Russia, San Marino, Cuba, Dominica, Guatemala, Haiti, Saint Lucia, Marshall Islands, Guyana, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
And of course, child pornography may appear anywhere on the web at all, even on sites determined to remove it, because automated detection mechanisms are far from perfect. Choosing to ban links to one specific site is performative. It has nothing to do with child pornography and everything to do with liberal fury that Musk refuses to continue the censorship of viewpoints they hate.
Re: Re: Re:5
Dude, you really sound like a NAMBLA member right now.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
As always, the opinions I post are my own (although in this case, I’m just quoting from a Wikipedia entry), and it is of no concern to me whether other people who share some of my viewpoints also have other viewpoints with which I disagree.
Re: Re: Re:7
Given that you’re quoting Wikipedia on which countries have no laws against possessing CSAM, your post reads a lot like someone trying to defend the possession of CSAM (i.e., one of those NAMBLA freaks). And you’re also complaining that r/law doesn’t want to associate itself with X-Twitter after X-Twitter literally decided to unban someone who linked to CSAM. If you really didn’t want to sound like someone trying to justify the raping of children (or a forced association with CSAM), you’re doing a terrible job of it.
Feel free to keep shoveling if you really want to die on this hill. After all, your grave ain’t gonna dig itself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
As always with liberals, you regard the quote of plain facts from a neutral source as an attack against you. And as always, your feelings could not be of less concern to me.
Re: Re: Re:9
Dude, you quoted a list of countries where CSAM is legal to possess—what the fuck am I supposed to think of someone who thinks that is a fact worth quoting in a discussion where someone literally tried to justify linking to CSAM via Twitter? If you don’t want to be associated with NAMBLA freaks and Matthew “linking to CSAM on Twitter is okay if you’re trying to embarass pedos” Bennett, that’s your fucking problem to solve.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
I do not care what you think, or more appropriately, what you hallucinate. My post was in response to this:
Every country does not have such laws, and I am not interested in obeying someone who thinks they can tell me what to do.
You may associate me with whomever you like; it’s not my business what you do, and I have no “problem to solve” if you make such associations. My opinions are my own, and I do not care whether other people who share some of my opinions hold other opinions with which I don’t agree.
Re: Re: Re:11
And yet, here you are.
That you seem to care more about that instead of Elon Musk unbanning someone who linked to CSAM via Twitter is sayin’ something, but it ain’t sayin’ what you want it to be sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
You do if you ever want to be taken seriously instead of treated as a harassment-happy trans-genocide-desiring troll. That you’re on the edge of trying to justify the posting of/linking to CSAM via Twitter like Matthew “it’s okay if you’re trying to shame pedos” Bennet is your problem, not mine.
And yet, here you are.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Of course. Correcting your errors is a never-ending source of mild amusement for me.
In fact, I am taken seriously by you, which is why you ignite in such fury at the true but displeasing to you things I say.
As always, you argue with illusory versions of me that say things you hallucinate. Banning all links to posts on X with a child pornography excuse is not credible. A link to a particular post on X in r/law is not going to be child pornography unless the person posting on r/law has deliberately sought out child pornography to link to, in which case r/law should freak with that person directly. It is obvious, including from the r/law moderator’s other posts, that he is simply a liberal who resents Musk for not being one, and is simply using this as an excuse to lag out at Musk.
It is all even more laughable given that Reddit itself is well known for hosting repulsive content; anyone seeking to sanitize link content with a broad brush would be far more likely to ban links to r/law than to X.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
For what it’s worth, NAMBLA is, in fact, akin to pederasty practices committed by the Greeks, who believed that women were a curse sent by the gods as punishment for being gifted fire by Prometheus. Men were thus qualified to not only teach other men, but bond and love them in a way that no woman ever could. Which is what gay folk like myself have been saying all the while. Eventually a time will come where this demonstration of love and wisdom will be predominant across the world.
Re: Re: Re:14
Women are the best at loving women. Men are the best at loving men. This is truth that will never be taken away from us, not least by fascist men who think they have the right to rape babies into existence.
Re: Re: Re:13
And yet, given that Musk literally unbanned someone who linked to CSAM via X-Twitter, that argument has at least some merit. If Musk is willing to unban someone who did that because he likes/follows them, that doesn’t say much for how well X-Twitter is handling its CSAM problem—but it says a lot about whether that problem stands to grow in the wake of Musk’s decision.
Okay but Elon Musk did unban someone who linked to CSAM. That was a pretty significant thing that happened. Like, I understand where you’re coming from here, but he very much did unban someone who linked to CSAM. Whether the moderator is a “liberal” or “lefty” is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that Elon Musk unbanned someone who linked to CSAM via X-Twitter. If you think of arguing otherwise, know that you’ll be stepping on a rhetorical landmine that will absolutely blow up in your face.
Any platform the size of Reddit will have a problem with CSAM. Hell, even smaller platforms will deal with that issue every now and again if they’re unlucky. Other than employing whataboutism to distract from the very real fact that Musk unbanned someone who linked to CSAM via X-Twitter, what’s your fucking point?
Re: Re: Re:13
…has never once happened out here in the non-hallucinatory world.
Re: Re: Re:11
Oh, and one more thing:
You do know this makes you sound like a rapist, right?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
You really are an idiot, aren’t you?
Re: Re: Re:13
Possibly. But I’m not the guy who said he’s “not interested in obeying someone who thinks they can tell me what to do”, which sounds an awful lot like something a rapist would say to justify ignoring someone saying “no” or “stop” or “I have a headache tonight”. For someone who likes to imagine himself as some sort of champion of freedom, you seem to have a lot of issues with respecting consent and the personal boundaries of people who aren’t you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
It is understandable that someone of your intellectual caliber would equate invading someone else’s bodily autonomy with disregarding instructions from someone who believes he has the right to tell other people what to do when he does not. You might want to stick to those one-line curses.
Re: Re: Re:15
You’re already a fascist (or at least a fascist sympathizer). Is believing you’d be a rapist really that much of a stretch?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
Not for you, certainly. Someone who believes that men can be women is obviously literally capable of believing anything.
Re: Re: Re:17
…says the guy who thinks “conversion ‘therapy’ ” isn’t the religious torture of queer people committed with the intent to erase queer people one way or another.
Go harass Truth Social, you prick.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18
I have no personal experience with conversion therapy, and the media explorations of it are obviously tendentious claims made by its enemies and failures. What I do know is that when the left tries so hard to have it made illegal, it is because they are trying to outlaw the very notion that it is possible for someone who does not want to be gay to change, and to punish people who would try.
Speaking of which, I highly recommend Camp Damascus by Chuck Tingle (of “Love is Real” fame). It’s horror fiction about a conversion therapy camp that boasts of a 100% success rate, and needless to say, there is something sinister afoot. Really, trust me on this – nothing about the book caters to my beliefs, it’s just a good read, and Tingle deserves the acclaim the book is getting after being hate-nominated for a Hugo award some years back but instead getting the devotion of SF fans who enjoyed his “Pounded in the Butt by…” weird erotica. He’s completely on your side.
Re: Re: Re:19 You suck
“and the media explorations of it are obviously tendentious claims made by its enemies and failures”
No, they’re accurate. Your claim there is the tendentious one, if we’re taking tendentious to mean “completely made up on the spur of the moment to defend psychological torture because you think that form of torture is morally righteous.
Just, fuck you, eh?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:20
People who try to overcome addiction, anorexia, and other such problems also suffer in the process, and often fail. The attempt to make one particular therapy illegal is indicative of what its enemies really hate; not its methods, but its intent.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:17
Men can be women. Those who choose so realize that the male gender is a force of evil and corruption doomed to failure, and your refusal to accept this is unsurprising.
Only by surrendering your toxic maleness can we progress as a human species. You’re so bad at your job women have to lower themselves to be transmales, and they pull it off far better than you ever will.
Re: Re: Re:13
[Projects facts contrary to extensive evidence]
Re: Re: Re:5
And you consider these to be places we should strive to be more like?
More importantly, you know who’s not on that list? The U.S., where Twitter is based. Nor are Canada, Mexico, the UK, Ireland, any European countries (excluding Belarus and Russia), the E.U., Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Iceland, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Israel, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Panama, Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, South Africa, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. That’s most of the anglosphere, the majority of the world population, the locations most international businesses are domiciled, and pretty much all the truly democratic nations (along with several that very much are not). That there are a few countries that do not ban possession of child porn (most of which are small and lack international influence, with the remainders being corrupt, autocratic nations) is an incredibly weak point. It neither indicates that the law should change in the US nor that the law applicable here might be that of a country that doesn’t ban child porn.
As for the bit that it is impossible to get rid of all CSAM, while not incorrect, this missed the point. Twitter has been failing at meeting the industry standards for detecting and removing CSAM. Most other major sites that accept user-submissions do a lot better job. Twitter is failing at the basics. That is on Twitter alone.
Finally, there is zero evidence that r/law has a liberal bias, so your claims about their motives lack any factual basis or evidentiary foundation, instead relying on pure speculation based on your own preconceived notions.
Re: Re: Re:6
If anything, the only reasonable explanation for the jumpy, kneejerk bannings on r/law is holy fucking shit we don’t want to be associated with a platform that allows CSAM material to be publicly posted.
Which is a reasonable stance to take.
Re: Re: Re:7
And yet, Hyman Rosen and Matthew Bennett both want you to believe that it’s unreasonable “leftist” bullshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Because it is.
Re: Re: Re:5
…you proving me wrong on that minor point doesn’t change one thing.
Child porn is straight up so bad that very few people WANT to be near it.
And you’re advocating for people to be FORCED to be associated with something that is, for all intents and purposes, associated with harming children.
Are you so much of a Nazi that you truly do not care about that fact? Never mind, you are, considering your track record.
Well then, I’ll see you in Hell when you finally get fucking gassed after the rest of us DIE.
Re: Re: Re:3
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But considering how X-Twitter literally unbanned someone who linked to CSAM—likely at the behest of, or possibly via direct action by, Elon Musk—I can’t fault anyone for saying “yeah, maybe we don’t need to be supporting that service any more”.
Would those “viewpoints” happen to include, say, the kind of bullshit that got Donald Trump indicted by the DOJ? Or would those viewpoints include, oh, anti-Semitism and racism and anti-queer bigotry of all kinds? And please don’t tell me that “posting CSAM to shame pedos” is a viewpoint because we already have one motherfucker here who wants to make that claim and I doubt that even you want in on that action.
Musk either had someone at X-Twitter unban a user who linked to CSAM or did the unbanning himself. The user was unbanned largely (if not entirely) because Musk likes the user in question. Anyone who doesn’t think he’s earned a well-deserved round of criticism for that decision has a serious issue on their hands—and I’m not talking about being an unthinking and unquestioning right-wing Musk asskisser like you.
Oh, and one more thing:
I’ll respond to you however I please, including not at all. You don’t get to control that—not now, not ever. Now fuck off back to your TERF circlejerk on Gab, you son of a bitch.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Indeed, in the same way Musk gets to decide whether someone should be banned from X. If he wishes to take the supposed motives or viewpoints of those people into account in making his decisions, he may do that as he pleases.
Similarly, r/law may claim whatever motives they like in banning links to X, but it is obvious to anyone not in the liberal echo chamber that this is based on personal animus towards Musk.
If you believe that someone has violated the law with something they posted on X, you are free to report that to law enforcement. Just make sure you check with Tim Cushing first.
Re: Re: Re:5
Prove it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
https://www.reddit.com/user/oscar_the_couch/
This is the moderator who posted the r/law X ban. As you can see, his writing is the usual liberal cant, along with bans of people and places who decline to conform to his views.
Re: Re: Re:7
That doesn’t prove an inherent anti-Elon bias, nor does it prove that the majority of r/law mods have such a bias. Besides, plenty of people who you would likely describe as “lefties” and “liberals” like/respect Elon.
You need to do better if you want to prove the r/law mods (or at least a majority of them) have an anti-Musk bias. Telling me your interpretation of their politics and saying “that’s all the proof you need” won’t work here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Needless to say, I have no inclination to conform to your idea of what will “work here”. I say what I say, and you may like it or not as you choose. I found the evidence sufficient; if you didn’t, that’s your business, not mine.
Re: Re: Re:9
Translation: “Waaaaaaaah, they didn’t accept my baseless accusations as evidence!”
Saying “they have an anti-Musk bias” and offering your potentially inaccurate assumptions about their political opinions isn’t proof. Offer me something stronger than your presumptions about “lefties” or fuck off, Mr. “I like censorship when it’s conservatives cancelling college courses”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Translation, “I will continue to live in my echo chamber, believing my own lies and hallucinations, because facing reality is too scary.”
Re: Re: Re:11
lmao fuck off projectionist
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
There we go. Back to the one-line curse. Good job!
Re: Re: Re:13
Goodbye straight trash
Re: Re: Re:11
Every accusation a confession with you insurrectionist fucks.
Re: Re: Re:8 Timing matters, especially this time
Given when those running the subreddit blocked any links or embeds to the-site-formerly-known-as-twitter, namely shorter after Elon/X reinstated an account that posted CSAM to argue that those running the subreddit have an ‘anti-Elon’ bias and that is why the change took place all but requires that Elon, or at least his handling of the site, is intrinsically linked to CSAM in the mind/argument of those defending him.
It’s like those that claim that anti-police corruption measures are anti-police in that the argument treats the terrible part as a core part of the whole rather than an outlier or exception.
Re: Re: Re:
There is a massive difference between removing access to gun safety videos on Youtube (which is patently ridiculous) and, uh, removing CSAM (which is illegal in every single country in the world).
But then again, your ilk think children should be working in conditions even ADULTS would consider unsafe.
Re: Re: Re:2 small hands
Sure. Kids have smaller hands, so you do not have to disassemble the meat slicers in order to get at least some cleaning done on the over-night shift.
I hope you were not thinking of someone else with small hands.
Re: Re: Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.