“Mysterious”? It’s eight there in the name.

This concept is the enemy of the a centuries old idealistic societal pillar of the West: Liberté, Libertas... this has blessed so many of us in the West, and I beg that it doesn't leave. Something beautiful and as sacred as the freedom from forced labor and the freedom to choose your trade, is the concept of the free and unbounded innocence of voices asking their leaders and each other these questions, to determine amongst ourselves what is fair and not, for our own betterment and the beauty of free enterprise. It's not so much that the Chinese state is an awful power to behold (it is and fuck Poohhead)... but this same politic is on the rise in the West and it leads to war. It always leads to war. And now the most automated form of state and corporate propaganda the world has ever seen is in the hands of a ruthless ruling class that can, has, and will steal bread from children's hands, and literally take the medicine from the sick to pad their pockets. Such is the twisted fate of society and likely always will be. We need to fight and not with prayers; this moment is God forsaking us to behold how the spirit breaks and what the people want to fight for as ruthlessly as the others do to steal our bread.

Now GrapheneOS the privacy based Android OS is calling them out https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3lt2prfb2vk2r He really must be thinking just about himself, and not that Apple had the info.

What does any of this have to do with anything anyway? Humans invented the first human language. People have ideas that aren't simple derivatives of other ideas.

Good. Anyone who uses shit like this deserves all of the bad things that go along with it. Stupidity will continue to be punished.

It kinda seems like you don’t understand the actual technology.

I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.

people do get desensitized down there from watching alot of porn, and there were other forums discussing thier "ED" from decade of porn watching.