Via @jdp23, the Senator behind the STOP CSAM bill, which outlaws many forms of encryption and doesn't actually stop CSAM, read that WaPo article about CSAM on the fediverse and tweeted about it:
https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1683562063270928384
@thisismissem @jdp23 I wrote about this before. I can go further, if you like.
This "study" is absolute garbage.
For instance, it scans around half a million posts to find 100 "potential" hits, and on sites which don't use one particular tool.
He then acts as if this faux pas is the "end of the world", even though mainstream social media is known to be objectively worse than the fediverse in sheer number of cases.
He also uses Google's algorithms which have been known to misclassify computer generated images. While that might not be to your liking, it is extremely misleading to suggest that this is that.
It is also not unlikely that some of these posts might be spammy / automation based and which hit a large number of hashtags.
Also, he cherry-picks one *particular site* (which has recently been under heavy fire from fediverse admins) when other similar sites, even with similar policies, aren't seen to be troublesome in the same way.
Also, some cherry-picked posts shown in screenshots are labelled as having been posted almost a year ago, and statistics are ever so conveniently missing on this.
Also, if he wanted to help admins with a pertinent issue, he could have reached out to them privately, rather than cherry-picking posts here and there to try to humiliate them.
Also, this very same person has previously made tweets in opposition to Facebook deploying end-to-end encryption in FB Messenger.
He also seems to want Facebook to essentially run the fediverse in the name of "saving the children", or to run every image through a Microsoft hosted service (a PRISM / NSA partner).
Problematically here, some of these services are not even based in the U.S., even if they were, services have First / Fourth Amendment rights, and the argument is in the quality of moderation / communications, not a lack of moderation.
It's not tenable to hold every service liable for a small amount of misuse, nor it is proportionate to do so, especially when someone's free expression is taken into consideration.
Also, a bad actor could just run their own dedicated service in violation of the law. If they're so determined to flout the law, they could well do so.
Also, these services are known to take actual child porn down, he admitted as much, often within hours, however, because it wasn't taken down "immediately", it becomes a "scandal".
@olives @jdp23 We are talking about the same thing right? This report? https://purl.stanford.edu/vb515nd6874
112 posts of CSAM, and 554 posts that are potentially CSAM or child sex-trafficking is too much
Even if 87% are from "alt fediverse" or "defediverse" instances, that still leaves 15 posts of CSAM and 72 of potential CSAM/child sexual abuse that are on the main fediverse that haven't been reported or left unaddressed.
On the main fediverse, any number greater than 0 is unacceptable. We must do better
@thisismissem @jdp23 Ideally, the less of this content the better, although I tend to worry about the process (removing it at all costs).
That is one area where I haven't been very fond of the large platforms.
As for the statistics, both of them are potential. I don't think he looks at the hits for legal reasons, although I'd lean towards probably for the first one.
The second one is for an algorithm of poorer repute (it's far newer and fuzzier).
Hope that helps clarify what I mean.
@olives @jdp23 yeah, it's really that first one that's needing action for now, critically, as that's for known images of CSAM, the rest are all just potentially CSAM/child trafficking, which is important to look at but not automatically removable matter.
Second would be more like a signal amongst other factors that leads to manual review & takedowns.