• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    16 days ago

    We don’t dislike government censorship of CSAM. it’s all a spectrum based on the legitimacy of the government order and the legitimacy of the tech billionaire’s refusal to abide.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 days ago

      Honestly, while I think CSAM is disgusting, I am kind of against government censorship of it. Some go so far as to ban anything resembling CSAM, including imagery that looks like it, but doesn’t actually involve a real child. The problem is the abuse required to create it, but if that abuse didn’t happen, there is no crime, and it should therefore be completely legal.

      The same goes with free speech more broadly. The speech itself should never be illegal, but it should be usable as evidence of another crime. A threat of violence is the crime, and that should be prosecuted, but that shouldn’t mean the government should force the host to censor the speech, that should be at the host’s discretion. What the government can do is subpoena information relevant to the investigation, but IMO it shouldn’t compel any entity to remove content.

      That said, Brazilian law isn’t the same as US law, and X and Space X should respect the laws of all of the countries in which they operate.

    • flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      I’m willing to bet the people that government wanted were not infact posting CSAM, I’m pretty sure even x would ban them of its own volition pretty quickly if they were doing that

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 days ago

        They weren’t, it was just the example at the furthest end of the spectrum. But your framing of “if it was REALLY bad, Twitter would ban it” can not be the solution. We have legitimate governments tasked with governing based on the will of the people, it’s not better to just let Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg decide the law.

        • flashgnash@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

          They would ban it if was really bad because it’s illegal for that stuff to exist and they will face much more serious issues as a company if they don’t remove it, they’re not doing it out of the goodness of they’re hearts

          Also not a good look for a company to be hosting that stuff in general for their PR, which is determined entirely by the general population’s reaction to their actions and not a small group of individuals in powerful positions