That’s a people problem, not a freenet problem. The same can be said about the fediverse. CSAM has been used exhaustively as pretext for surveillance along with terrorism, so I wouldn’t really use this as a reference. Lack of authoritarian oversight is the cost of freedom
the fediverse allows defederation, and i’m wondering if there’s a way that users can block content despite a collective persistence of it.
if user A circulates cat pictures, user B circulates dog pictures, and user C circulates both, can user A block dog pictures from B and C, but still see user C’s cat pictures? at that point it’d be up to the users/collectives to provide insight as to what addresses deal in unsavory content and helm each other block/filter, which comes back around like defederation.
that doesn’t guarantee creeps won’t circulate creep content. but i think the solution lies in community action anyway, both in helping prevent people from seeing things they wish they didn’t, and in apprehending offenders.
mine is not a super educated take, but it seems like it should be possible – i’m hoping smarter nerds than i could answer!
if user A circulates cat pictures, user B circulates dog pictures, and user C circulates both, can user A block dog pictures from B and C, but still see user C’s cat pictures?
To do that, you need either a system of trust where you trust someone else to tell you which images from C are dogs and which ones are cats (as well as a policy for what to do when a picture contains both), or an automated system that will scan all the messages and perform that determination for you.
Basically every platform that allows users to upload arbitrary content has this issue. It doesn’t even require presumed anonymity, people share this stuff on Facebook. I think Darknet Diaries Episode 93: KIK also helps show just how prevalent it is.
You can’t just handwave CSAM as a pretext. Every file-sharing platform that allows anonymity is rife with it. To operate an anonymous file sharing system is to enable child exploitation.
You can’t have CSAM of a child whose pictures were never uploaded to the internet. Post hoc measures are a law enforcement delusion, more of an aestheticization of a solution than a solution itself. The money they fruitlessly spend on establishing a surveillance apparatus could’ve been much better spent on programs teaching people about digital literacy and how to be a proper parent. Saying an anonymous file sharing system enables CSAM is equivalent to saying the existence of a printing press enables libel
That’s a people problem, not a freenet problem. The same can be said about the fediverse. CSAM has been used exhaustively as pretext for surveillance along with terrorism, so I wouldn’t really use this as a reference. Lack of authoritarian oversight is the cost of freedom
the fediverse allows defederation, and i’m wondering if there’s a way that users can block content despite a collective persistence of it.
if user A circulates cat pictures, user B circulates dog pictures, and user C circulates both, can user A block dog pictures from B and C, but still see user C’s cat pictures? at that point it’d be up to the users/collectives to provide insight as to what addresses deal in unsavory content and helm each other block/filter, which comes back around like defederation.
that doesn’t guarantee creeps won’t circulate creep content. but i think the solution lies in community action anyway, both in helping prevent people from seeing things they wish they didn’t, and in apprehending offenders.
mine is not a super educated take, but it seems like it should be possible – i’m hoping smarter nerds than i could answer!
To do that, you need either a system of trust where you trust someone else to tell you which images from C are dogs and which ones are cats (as well as a policy for what to do when a picture contains both), or an automated system that will scan all the messages and perform that determination for you.
What is the point of designing technology for people to use that does not account for common "people problem"s?
I think it’s important for people to understand just how large of an issue CSAM is on the internet. This recent article has some numbers: https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/child-abuse-online-statistics/
Basically every platform that allows users to upload arbitrary content has this issue. It doesn’t even require presumed anonymity, people share this stuff on Facebook. I think Darknet Diaries Episode 93: KIK also helps show just how prevalent it is.
You can’t just handwave CSAM as a pretext. Every file-sharing platform that allows anonymity is rife with it. To operate an anonymous file sharing system is to enable child exploitation.
You can’t have CSAM of a child whose pictures were never uploaded to the internet. Post hoc measures are a law enforcement delusion, more of an aestheticization of a solution than a solution itself. The money they fruitlessly spend on establishing a surveillance apparatus could’ve been much better spent on programs teaching people about digital literacy and how to be a proper parent. Saying an anonymous file sharing system enables CSAM is equivalent to saying the existence of a printing press enables libel