zlacker

No it is not. X is dumb pipe. You have humans on both ends. Arrest them, summary execute them whatever. You go after X because it is a choke point and easy.

>>Reptil+(OP)
First you argue about the model, now the platform. Two different things.

If a platform encourages and doesn’t moderate at all, yes we should go after the platform.

Imagine a newspaper publishing content like that, and saying they are not responsible for their journalists

>>Reptil+(OP)
> X is dumb pipe.

X also actively distributes and profits off of CSAM. Why shouldn't the law apply to distribution centers?

>>Reptil+(OP)
X is most definitely not a dumb pipe, you also have humans beside the sender and receiver choosing what content (whether directly or indirectly) is promoted for wide dissemination, relatively suppressed, or outright blocked.

>>kllrno+GF
There's a slippery slope version of your argument where your ISP is responsible for censoring content that your government does not like.

I mean, I thought that was basically already the law in the UK.

I can see practical differences between X/twitter doing moderation and the full ISP censorship, but I cannot see any differences in principle...

>>Reptil+(OP)
If you have a recommandation algorithm you are not a dumb pipe

>>hnfong+WH
We don't consider warehouses & stores to be a "slippery slope" away from toll roads, so no I really don't see any good faith slippery slope argument that connects enforcing the law against X to be the same as government censorship of ISPs.

I mean even just calling it censorship is already trying to shove a particular bias into the picture. Is it government censorship that you aren't allowed to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater? Yes. Is that also a useful feature of a functional society? Also yes. Was that a "slippery slope"? Nope. Turns out people can handle that nuance just fine.