• gabe [he/him]@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m sorry, but I have difficulty being polite to someone who has actively ignored addressing safety concerns that were brought up months ago. FOSS or not.

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stop misconstruing it as safety. It’s about legality. Nobody’s safety is in jeopardy because they saw an illegal image accidentally. This is about following the law, not protecting the safety of users.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        nobody’s safety is in jeopardy

        You know, except for those abuse victims whose pictures are being spread around lemmy. Just sayin’

        • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The theory behind why CSAM is illegal is that if someone is willing to pay for CSAM it incentivizes production of even more CSAM content to receive more payment. That incentivized additional production means even more abuse. A perfectly reasonable take and something that I think can be demonstrated.

          But why would you accidentally seeing CSAM prompt you to give payment to create that incentivization? Are you worried that you’re a closeted pedophile that will be ready to shower those who record such content to see more and more as soon as you get your first taste?

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I thought it was pretty apparent we were talking about Lemmy, but okay.

          The statements were about the Lemmy devs can and/or should be doing for safety. They simply do not have the power to stop child abuse by developing a social media platform. So then the safety in question must be the safety of people using Lemmy, because the Lemmy devs have some direct power over that.

          I’m sure you feel very morally aloof with your righteous retort, though.

      • gabe [he/him]@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        It ties into safety as well, websites have “trust and safety” teams. This is where it falls under. Sorry for not being more concise.

      • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        “CSAM laws aren’t for the safety of real people” is one of the hottest takes I’ve ever seen in my life

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Straight outta reddit with that one.

          I’m just going to copy paste my other comment:

          I thought it was pretty apparent we were talking about Lemmy, but okay.

          The statements were about the Lemmy devs can and/or should be doing for safety. They simply do not have the power to stop child abuse by developing a social media platform. So then the safety in question must be the safety of people using Lemmy, because the Lemmy devs have some direct power over that.

          I’m sure you feel very morally aloof with your righteous retort, though.

          • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes. Obviously we’re talking about Lemmy. We just still fundamentally disagree on the forms of harm, psychic and physical, that can be experienced through the rapid propagation of CSAM. Lemmy’s lacking mod tools have been a major topic of discussion for a while now. I don’t care to carry on this conversation because it’s clear our starting points are too far apart to meet in the middle

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think the other guy’s comment is well suited as a response to this, so again I’ll copy paste:

              The theory behind why CSAM is illegal is that if someone is willing to pay for CSAM it incentivizes production of even more CSAM content to receive more payment. That incentivized additional production means even more abuse. A perfectly reasonable take and something that I think can be demonstrated.

              But why would you accidentally seeing CSAM prompt you to give payment to create that incentivization?

              How could reason possibly prevail when the subject matter is so sensitive?