Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CloudiusWhite t1_itzrnst wrote

BBC claims x, OF asks for evidence so they can remove the content, BBS refuses. People are acting like this stuff is just out there but why wouldn't you help them so they could remove the content?

All this ever gets brought up as is an excuse to put more restrictions on the Internet in the guise of fighting things like illegal pornographic content.

177

dudeedud4 t1_itztrms wrote

Right? How can they remove it if they don't know about it or where it is?

43

MachWun t1_itzvel9 wrote

There have been prior cases, where the person reporting the incident was then charged with possession even though they were doing the right thing by showing authorities

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/07/cyber/cyberlaw/10law.html

"In addition, the government argued that even if Matthews were a legitimate journalist working on a story, he had no more right under the First Amendment to receive and disseminate illegal images of minors than a reporter would have in buying crack cocaine in pursuit of a story about drugs"

Is the NY Times good enough?

−35

phunkydroid t1_iu02jed wrote

You don't have to have possession of anything to tell someone a username.

26

C1V t1_iu12yn0 wrote

Name me one. Name me one where the person who reported it was both charged and convicted.

9

MachWun t1_iu1nvli wrote

Ok, Here.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/07/cyber/cyberlaw/10law.html

"In addition, the government argued that even if Matthews were a legitimate journalist working on a story, he had no more right under the First Amendment to receive and disseminate illegal images of minors than a reporter would have in buying crack cocaine in pursuit of a story about drugs"

2

perverse_panda t1_iu2l85q wrote

Not really a comparable example. This isn't a guy who spotted child porn on a website and then notified the authorities. This is a guy who was sending out pornographic images of children to other people. He was receiving and distributing.

I imagine it's the distributing part that got him arrested.

6

MachWun t1_iu17dlc wrote

Sorry not adding that to my search history. It's common enough you can find your own sources.

−19

Millenniauld t1_iu1jx21 wrote

Not adding "cases where reporting child porn caused the reporter to be arrested" to your search history? Lmao flimsiest excuse ever. Just admit you made it up because you didn't think you'd get called out. We all know.

10

MachWun t1_iu1nt08 wrote

Ok fine. Heres some case law of a NEWSPAPER REPORTER reporting on child pornography ONLINE and was subsequently charged for possession. Go fuck yourself.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/07/cyber/cyberlaw/10law.html

"In addition, the government argued that even if Matthews were a legitimate journalist working on a story, he had no more right under the First Amendment to receive and disseminate illegal images of minors than a reporter would have in buying crack cocaine in pursuit of a story about drugs"

haha love the downvote after you got what you asked for

−6

C1V t1_iu35xs6 wrote

But he admitted he traded over 150 images to people online. That is a bit different than your idea you are trying to pass of "he only was doing research and report on it!!".

How about you take your own advice and go fuck yourself?

4

jeef16 t1_iu010a1 wrote

it's england, they really dont like internet freedom in any capacity whatsoever

36

Ghost273552 t1_iu093sl wrote

Honestly the BBC sometimes sounds like qanon believers.

4

americanadiandrew t1_itzxaho wrote

I’m pretty sure you have to photograph the front and back of your government ID to even get verified. It doesn’t seem like the ideal place to risk doing illegal activity when your username is watermarked on all your content.

117

yungloser t1_itzzztl wrote

Not only that, you need to take pictures with the documents to prove it's you. Anyone you feature on your page must also either have a verified account OR send these documents through.

57

scout_jem t1_iu0gb4a wrote

This is true. Picture of your face with the drivers licence and a piece of paper with your user name written on it.

20

C1V t1_iu13c8i wrote

My friend did it and the paper was a bit too bright so they made him take it again. It took him like 3 days to get verified each time because they, OF, don't fuck around with verification.

18

sb_747 t1_iu19u3l wrote

BBC have complained about it before when the person who signed up stole her older sisters passport and provided that as proof of identity.

There isn’t much more you can do when the 16yo commits identity theft from a person who they look like.

28

InadequateUsername t1_iu143pa wrote

You need to be verified to collect money but I don't think it's needed to post for free.

Ultimately OF is protected by safe harbor provisions, no?

5

Carrotsandstuff t1_iu1h1bn wrote

There is a limited amount of posts you can make without verification, according to the last time I tried to post on my "Onlyrhymeswithfans" onlyFans.

6

EmbarrassedHelp t1_itzndwr wrote

> OnlyFans is not alone in taking steps to address online safety. The government's long-delayed online safety bill proposes heavy fines for websites failing to protect children.

This news article is promoting the absolutely horrendous clusterfuck that is the "Online Safety"

> The NSPCC said neither the current regulation nor the planned legislation go far enough.

And these idiots want the legislation to be made even worse.

59

zw1ck t1_itzvtqc wrote

I'm sure a fine like that will just turn into the cost of doing business because it would take an incredible amount of quality control to completely scrub a website with millions of pages of content.

7

redander t1_itz01qh wrote

So you mean the same information that came out years ago?

55

Cybugger t1_itz200d wrote

So you mean the same information that comes out every time people actually look into these content platforms?

They all have sectors filled with gore, pedo stuff, abuse, violence, ...

And every time, the statement is the same:

"We are committed to ensuring none of these kinds of content are hosted on our platform blah blah blah."

45

APigNamedLucy t1_iu1ayy3 wrote

I have never once heard of this being a thing on the site. I think this is a straight up lie.

19

10inchblackhawk t1_itzx6jg wrote

Is anyone going to do anything about it? Like will payment processors pull out? They already hate having to issue post nut chargebacks.

−2

pegothejerk t1_itzlonw wrote

Well conservatives think all we need to fix that is to force on everyone more pedo infested religion.

−5

BohemianRhaptitties t1_itzvl1u wrote

Who brought up conservatives? Like do you just drop some kind of dig at conservative any chance you get in random threads? No one here was talking about conservatives. Why even bring that up? It serves zero purpose and has no value you fucking weirdo. Actually touch grass

4

Didact67 t1_iu0iiuf wrote

Keeping kids safe is all well and good, but these bills that claim to be about protecting children are usually backdoors to stripping away privacy rights.

23

DWGJay t1_itz77w2 wrote

You know, finding out pedo shit happens on Twitter was disgusting, this however I’m not surprised anymore. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pissed but not surprised.

8

Cinderjacket t1_itz8dr3 wrote

We need the dinosaurs to come kick the pedophiles off

−18

Heinzmonkey t1_itzc5fl wrote

What are the odds that the investigators are conservative Christians.

−38

No_Biscotti_7110 t1_itzkumi wrote

What does that have to do with it?

11

BohemianRhaptitties t1_itzw0oo wrote

Bro this is the second conservative comment that's been dropped out of nowhere. Actually unhinged

7

CAllD2B t1_iu0q6be wrote

Conservative Christian’s have for over a century worked to pass laws and create panics related to sex work that consistently end up up making sex workers unsafe and further exploited

5

No_Biscotti_7110 t1_iu0v4em wrote

I agree, but in this case the “panic” is very much justified.

−4