Entrusting our speech to multiple different corporate actors is always risky. Yet given how most of the internet is currently structured, our online expression largely depends on a set of private companies ranging from our direct Internet service providers and platforms, to upstream ISPs (sometimes...
what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?
Yes, this is not your local backwater town where you know there are a few visibly shitty & disgusting people and people tell their kids to stay away and everyone becomes safe. And if you think shit doesn’t explode on the internet, you might be living under a rock last 2 decades.
That’s stupid on a whole new level and your made up scenario doesn’t make it any better. No one is threatened for having been sent some questionable content. The person who sent those however might be and the tech today makes it incredibly easy to prove where anything came from since everyone is being tracked.
How about we prevent such things from happening by discouraging it in the firat place? Sure, they won’t be down to 0, but your solution starting after the distribution has already started is highly disturbing.
I think the problem that poster was trying to illustrate is that it is unpractical to shut down a site or force a site to spend a significant overhead just cause a user could post a certain sequence of bytes to the site. An analogy to the real world would be some guy paints some graffiti on the pavement and the response, every time, being the complete shutdown of the entire city for a month or complete surveillance on every cm2 of pavement plus cleaning crews standing by every 10m.
Poster does not want his favourite site going down cause of some bad actor.
This means that current prosecution violates principles of criminal prosecution: namely requirement of intent.