> If you actually cared about CSAM you would want those posting it to self incriminate and then face consequences in real life

We don’t have the resources for this, even when the FBI isn’t being purged and sent to Home Depots. Unrestricting IPs means a boom for CSAM production and distribution.

▲

jjk166 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Well work on making those resources available instead of, again, informing CSAM creators how to better hide their activities. I fail to see how repeatedly removing CSAM from a single IP address is more of a boon to CSAM distributors than playing whackamole with multiple IP addresses. Wasting law enforcement resources on other things while CSAM producers are free to operate is a separate, and in my opinion much more pressing issue.

▲

JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> informing CSAM creators how to better hide their activities

This adds to their risks and costs. That tips the economic balance at the margin. Actually going after all creators would require an international law-enforcement effort for which, frankly, there isn't political capital.

▲

jjk166 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> This adds to their risks and costs. That tips the economic balance at the margin.

Charging would be bank robbers a fee to do practice runs of breaking into a vault adds to their costs; somehow that doesn't seem like an effective security measure.

> Actually going after all creators would require an international law-enforcement effort for which, frankly, there isn't political capital.

I'm not talking about going after all creators, just the ones you have the identifying information for which are so continuously pumping out such quantities of CSAM that it is impossible to stop the firehose by removing the content.

If you don't have the political capital to go after them, again you have bigger issues to deal with.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> somehow that doesn't seem like an effective security measure …this is literally how we police bank theft. Most bank thieves are never caught because they can do it online from an unresponsive jurisdiction. > just the ones you have the identifying information for Sure. You’re still going to have a firehose of CSAM, and worse, newly-incentivised producers, if you turn off moderation.

▲

squigz 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Wasting law enforcement resources on other things while CSAM producers are free to operate is a separate

It's been a long time since I had anything remotely to do with this (thankfully) but... I'm pretty sure there are lots of resources devoted to this, including the major (and even small) platforms working with various authorities to catch these people? Certainly to say they're "free to operate" requires some convincing.

▲

jjk166 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Pick a lane. Either we have the resources to go after CSAM producers, in which case we should be using them; or we don't, in which case we should be getting those resources. In either scenario, banning IPs is a counterproductive strategy to combat CSAM and it is a terrible justification for permitting IP bans.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Either we have the resources to go after CSAM producers, in which case we should be using them; or we don't, in which case we should be getting those resources We don’t have the resources and we don’t want to divert them. > banning IPs is a counterproductive strategy to combat CSAM and it is a terrible justification for permitting IP bans The simple reason for banning Russian and Chinese IPs is the same as the reason I block texts from Vietnam. I don’t have any legitimate business there and they keep spamming me.
	▲	squigz 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm not the one you were arguing with initially, I just wanted to address the idea that child abusers are just free to do whatever they want, and we're not doing anything about it.