| ▲ | vessenes a day ago |
| Interesting. This is basically the second enforcement on speech / images that France has done - first was Pavel Durov @ Telegram. He eventually made changes in Telegram's moderation infrastructure and I think was allowed to leave France sometime last year. I don't love heavy-handed enforcement on speech issues, but I do really like a heterogenous cultural situation, so I think it's interesting and probably to the overall good to have a country pushing on these matters very hard, just as a matter of keeping a diverse set of global standards, something that adds cultural resilience for humanity. linkedin is not a replacement for twitter, though. I'm curious if they'll come back post-settlement. |
|
| ▲ | logicchains a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| >but I do really like a heterogenous cultural situation, so I think it's interesting and probably to the overall good to have a country pushing on these matters very hard Censorship increases homogeneity, because it reduces the amount of ideas and opinions that are allowed to be expressed. The only resilience that comes from restricting people's speech is resilience of the people in power. |
| |
| ▲ | vessenes a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You were downvoted -- a theme in this thread -- but I like what you're saying. I disagree, though, on a global scale. By resilience, I mean to reference something like a monoculture plantation vs a jungle. The monoculture plantation is vulnerable to anything that figures out how to attack it. In a jungle, a single plant or set might be vulnerable, but something that can attack all the plants is much harder to come by. Humanity itself is trending more toward monoculture socially; I like a lot of things (and hate some) about the cultural trend. But what I like isn't very important, because I might be totally wrong in my likes; if only my likes dominated, the world would be a much less resilient place -- vulnerable to the weaknesses of whatever it is I like. So, again, I propose for the race as a whole, broad cultural diversity is really critical, and worth protecting. Even if we really hate some of the forms it takes. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | They were downvoted for completely misunderstanding the comment they replied to. |
| |
| ▲ | moolcool a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I really don't see reasonable enforcement of CSAM laws as a restriction on "diversity of thought". | |
| ▲ | AureliusMA a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is precisely the point of the comment you are replying to: a balance has to be found and enforced. |
|
|
| ▲ | tokai a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In what world is generating CSAM a speech issue? Its really doing a disservice to actual free speech issues to frame it was such. |
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | if pictures are speech, then either CSAM is speech, or you have to justify an exception to the general rule. CSAM is banned speech. | |
| ▲ | logicchains a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The point of banning real CSAM is to stop the production of it, because the production is inherently harmful. The production of AI or human generated CSAM-like images does not inherently require the harm of children, so it's fundamentally a different consideration. That's why some countries, notably Japan, allow the production of hand-drawn material that in the US would be considered CSAM. | | |
| ▲ | cwillu a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If libeling real people is a harm to those people, then altering photos of real children is certainly also a harm to those children. | | |
| ▲ | whamlastxmas a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm strongly against CSAM but I will say this analogy doesn't quite hold (though the values behind it does) Libel must be as assertion that is not true. Photoshopping or AIing someone isn't an assertion of something untrue. It's more the equivalent of saying "What if this is true?" which is perfectly legal | | |
| ▲ | cwillu 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | “ 298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published. Marginal note:Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.”
It doesn't have to be an assertion, or even a written statement. | | |
| ▲ | 93po 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're quoting Canadian law. In the US it varies by state but generally requires: A false statement of fact (not opinion, hyperbole, or pure insinuation without a provably false factual core). Publication to a third party. Fault Harm to reputation ---- In the US it is required that it is written (or in a fixed form). If it's not written (fixed), it's slander, not libel. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Pictures are statement of fact: what is depicted exists. Naked pictures cause harm to reputation | |
| ▲ | cwillu 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The relevant jurisdiction isn't the US either. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | chrisjj 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The point of banning real CSAM is to stop the production of it, because the production is inherently harmful. The production of AI or human generated CSAM-like images does not inherently require the harm of children, so it's fundamentally a different consideration. Quite. > That's why some countries, notably Japan, allow the production of hand-drawn material that in the US would be considered CSAM. Really? By what US definition of CSAM? https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abus... "Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) is not “child pornography.” It’s evidence of child sexual abuse—and it’s a crime to create, distribute, or possess. " | | | |
| ▲ | tokai a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's not what we are discussing here. Even less when a lot of the material here is edits of real pictures. | |
| ▲ | duckbilled2 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | StopDisinfo910 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Very different charges however. Durov was held on suspicion Telegram was willingly failing to moderate its platform and allowed drug trafficking and other illegal activities to take place. X has allegedly illegally sent data to the US in violation of GDPR and contributed to child porn distribution. Note that both are directly related to direct violation of data safety law or association with a separate criminal activities, neither is about speech. |
| |
| ▲ | vessenes a day ago | parent [-] | | I like your username, by the way. CSAM was the lead in the 2024 news headlines in the French prosecution of Telegram also. I didn't follow the case enough to know where they went, or what the judge thought was credible. From a US mindset, I'd say that generation of communication, including images, would fall under speech. But then we classify it very broadly here. Arranging drug deals on a messaging app definitely falls under the concept of speech in the US as well. Heck, I've been told by FBI agents that they believe assassination markets are legal in the US - protected speech. Obviously, assassinations themselves, not so much. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In some shady corners of the internet I still see advertisements for child porn through Telegram, so they must be doing a shit job at it | |
| ▲ | f30e3dfed1c9 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "I've been told by FBI agents that they believe assassination markets are legal in the US - protected speech." I don't believe you. Not sure what you mean by "assassination markets" exactly, but "Solicitation to commit a crime of violence" and "Conspiracy to murder" are definitely crimes. | | |
| ▲ | vessenes 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | An assassination market, at least the one we discussed, works like this - One or more people put up a bounty paid out on the death of someone. Anyone can submit a (sealed) description of the death. On death, the descriptions are opened — the one closest to the actual circumstances is paid the bounty. One of my portfolio companies had information about contributors to these markets — I was told by my FBI contact when I got in touch that their view was the creation of the market, the funding of the market and the descriptions were all legal — they declined to follow up. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sounds like betting on Polymarket: will $person die this year? If you're going to kill him, you bet everything you have on yes right beforehand. | |
| ▲ | f30e3dfed1c9 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | OK this sounds more like gamer dipshittery than anything serious. |
|
| |
| ▲ | StopDisinfo910 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The issue is still not really speech. Durov wasn't arrested because of things he said or things that were said on his platform, he was arrested because he refused to cooperate in criminal investigations while he allegedly knew they were happening on a platform he manages. If you own a bar, you know people are dealing drugs in the backroom and you refuse to assist the police, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. Well, it's the same for Durov except he apparently also helped them process the money. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | derrida a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wouldn't equate the two. There's someone who was being held responsible for what was in encrypted chats. Then there's someone who published depictions of sexual abuse and minors. Worlds apart. |
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Telegram isn't encrypted. For all the marketing about security, it has none, apart from TLS, and an optional "secret chat" feature that you have to explicitly select, only works with 2 participants and doesn't work very well. They can read all messages, so they don't have an excuse for not helping in a criminal case. Their platform had a reputation of being safe for crime, which is because they just... ignored the police. Until they got arrested for that. They still turn a blind eye but not to the police. | | |
| ▲ | derrida 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | ok thank you! I did not know that, I'm ashamed to admit! sort of like studying physics at university a decade later forgetting V=IR when I actually needed it for some solar install. I took "technical hiatus" about 5 years and recently coming back. Anyway cut to the chase, I just checked out Mathew Greens post on the subject, he is on my list of default "trust what he says about cryptography" along with some others like djb, nadia henninger etc Embarrased to say I did not realise, I should of known! 10+ years ago I used to lurk the IRC dev chans of every relevant cypherpunk project, including of text secure and otr-chat when I saw signal being made and before that was witnessing chats with devs and ian goldberg and stuff, I just assumed Telegram was multiparty OTR, OOPS! Long winded post because that is embarrassing (as someone who studied cryptography undergrad in 2009 mathematics, 2010 did postgrad wargames and computer security course and worse - whose word once about 2012-2013 was taken on these matters by activists, journalists, researchers with pretty knarly threat model - like for instance - some guardian stories and former researcher into torture - i'm also the person that wrote the bits of 'how to hold a crypto party' that made it a protocol without an organisation and made clear the threat model was anyone could be there, oops oops oops Yes thanks for letting me know I hang my head in shame for missing that one or some how believing that one without much investigation, thankfully it was just my own personal use to contact like friend in the states where they aren't already on signal etc. EVERYONE: DON'T TRUST TELEGRAM AS END TO END ENCRYPTED CHAT https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2024/08/25/telegram... Anyway as they say "use it or lose it" yeah my assumptions here no longer valid or considered to have educated opinion if I got something that basic wrong. |
| |
| ▲ | cbeach a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | techblueberry a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In November 2012, Epstein sent Musk an email asking “how many people will you be for the heli to island”. “Probably just Talulah and me. What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk replied, in an apparent reference to his former wife Talulah Riley. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/30/elon-musk... I think there's just as much evidence Clinton did as Musk. Gates on the other hand. | | |
| ▲ | antonymoose a day ago | parent [-] | | To my knowledge Musk asked to go but never actually went. Clinton, however, went a dozen or so times with Epstein on his private jet? Has the latest release changed that narrative? | | |
| ▲ | orwin a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes. He went at least once in 2012, then asked to go again in 2013 and Epstein refused. | | | |
| ▲ | lawn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Musk did ask to go after Epstein was sentenced. | | | |
| ▲ | whamlastxmas a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Additionally Clinton is listed several times on the Lolita express flight logs, Elon never Elon didn't ask to go, he was invited multiple times | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | If Elon never asked to go, why do the Epstein files have an email from Elon to Jeff where Elon asks to go? Was it fabricated? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | rsynnott a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | ... Eh? This isn't about Musk's association with Epstein, it's about his CSAM generating magic robot (and also some other alleged dodgy practices around the GDPR etc). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | btreecat a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >but I do really like a heterogenous cultural situation Why isn't that a major red flag exactly? |
| |
| ▲ | vessenes a day ago | parent [-] | | Hi there - author here. Care to add some specifics? I can imagine lots of complaints about this statement, but I don't know which (if any) you have. | | |
| ▲ | btreecat 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Maybe you could start by expanding on what you mean? It's a statement that could be taken to favor xenophobia and isolationism. |
|
|
