undefined | Better HN

0 pointswhoknowswhat114y ago0 comments

Agreed - so dissapointing.

The idea that standard moderation steps are a felony is such a stretch. Almost all the major players have folks doing content screening and management - and yes, this may invovle the provider transmitting / copying etc images that are then flagged and moderated away.

The idea that this is a felony is rediculous.

The other piece is that folks are making a lot of assumptions about how this works, then claiming things are felonies.

Does it not strain credibility slightly that apple, with it's team of lawyers, has decided to instead of blocking CASM to commit CASM felonies? And the govt is going to bust them for this? Really? They are doing what govt wants and using automation to drive down the number of images someone will look at and what even might get transferred to apple's servers in the first place.

0 comments

msandford4y ago

Does the law have a moderation carve out? There are plenty of laws that have what's called 'strict liability' where your intent doesn't matter.

I'm not suggesting that this is absolutely positively a situation where strict liability exists and that moderation isn't allowed. But the idea that "hey we're trying to do the right thing here" will be honored in court is....not obvious.

whoknowswhat11OP4y ago

If we investigated this author if they do in fact run a photo service we would inevitably find that unless they are incompetent they have to moderate content, either blind or based on flags.

So if apple is going to jail for child porn because they moderate / report content after flagging (this is normally actually required to do - report it), then this article writer should be going to jail as well - I guarantee his services stores, forwards and otherwise handles CASM content.

My complaint is just - HN used to focus on stuff where folks didn't just always jump to worst case arguments (ie, apple is guilty of child porn and is committing felonies) without at least allowing that apple MAY have given this a tiny bit of thought.

It's just tiresome to wade through. It's a mashup of they are blocking too much, are the evil govt henchperson to they are breaking the law and going to jail for felony child porn charges.

I get that it generates interaction (here I am), but it's annoying after a while. Clickbait sells though no question so things like "One Bad Apple" are probably going to keep on coming at us.

buraktamturk4y ago

Well there is a difference as stated on the article that they don't expect to see CP or CSAM and says "We are not 'knowingly' seeing it since it makes up less than 0.06% of the uploads ... We do not intentionally look for CP."

Whereas Apple is moderating the suspected images so they intentionally look for CP (which, according to the author and his lawyer, is a crime).

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse