Submitted by charmbrood t3_yemf2e in news
Comments
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."
redander t1_itz233y wrote
Ahh yes. That statement is the one.
Cinderjacket t1_itz8dr3 wrote
We need the dinosaurs to come kick the pedophiles off
Heinzmonkey t1_itzc5fl wrote
What are the odds that the investigators are conservative Christians.
[deleted] t1_itzf0mz wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itzft68 wrote
[removed]
No_Biscotti_7110 t1_itzkumi wrote
What does that have to do with it?
pegothejerk t1_itzlonw wrote
Well conservatives think all we need to fix that is to force on everyone more pedo infested religion.
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.
[deleted] t1_itzq9fw wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_itzruud wrote
[removed]
dudeedud4 t1_itztrms wrote
Right? How can they remove it if they don't know about it or where it is?
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?
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
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.
BohemianRhaptitties t1_itzw0oo wrote
Bro this is the second conservative comment that's been dropped out of nowhere. Actually unhinged
[deleted] t1_itzwhpa wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itzwiko wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itzwmfj wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_itzyni7 wrote
[removed]
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.
jeef16 t1_iu010a1 wrote
it's england, they really dont like internet freedom in any capacity whatsoever
phunkydroid t1_iu02jed wrote
You don't have to have possession of anything to tell someone a username.
[deleted] t1_iu032nd wrote
[deleted]
Ghost273552 t1_iu093sl wrote
Honestly the BBC sometimes sounds like qanon believers.
mohammedibnakar t1_iu0dncz wrote
That’s not true. Provide a source.
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.
[deleted] t1_iu0gm79 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu0nzue wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iu0p6km wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu0pg0w wrote
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
No_Biscotti_7110 t1_iu0v4em wrote
I agree, but in this case the “panic” is very much justified.
C1V t1_iu12yn0 wrote
Name me one. Name me one where the person who reported it was both charged and convicted.
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.
InadequateUsername t1_iu13whh wrote
This contradicts your claim and refers to copyright not CSA materials.
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?
MachWun t1_iu17dlc wrote
Sorry not adding that to my search history. It's common enough you can find your own sources.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_iu1m0sv wrote
[removed]
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
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"
[deleted] t1_iu1or67 wrote
[removed]
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.
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?
[deleted] t1_ityvhxf wrote
[removed]