Olives @olives@qoto.org

@devnull I've heard of that happening to instances. They'll wake up one day and they'll have a nasty surprise $10k bill from something stupid.

@devnull If you are relatively liberal about what comes in, it's probably less of an issue, but boosts do increase the moderative surface area a bit (and trying to moderate it can lead to absurd looking situations).

@devnull I suspect it's because if something goes "viral", then there might be a stampede of requests to that resource, which might accidentally wind up DoSing an instance.

Actually, though, there are quite a few instances (or there was) which don't host resources themselves, and which load them from the original instance, although they seem to be on the smaller side.

From a liability perspective (although, there is already a certain amount of lee-way there), linking is superior to proxying content.

@devnull https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OnoxKotPQ What do you think of the microservices video? Lol.

@thenexusofprivacy The fediverse has bigger issues with admin toxicity, people being parachuted in, (and to a lesser degree, QAnon) right now tbh. This is a social issue which cannot be straightforwardly fixed with technology.

One of a number of reasons why I'm not motivated to put development time into the fediverse.

That said, if what someone wants is a high level of safety, as it were, I don't think federation (or not the model of a community glued to a server) is an answer to that. I came to that conclusion after watching people trying to "fix" the fediverse for the past year.

@riana I think the realism argument is typically exaggerated (even the people who argue it tend to contradict themselves). Even in that case, I'd find a "War on Drugs" type tending to violate civil rights prohibition approach to be suspicious. It's not clear it wouldn't end up doing more harm than any possible good.

I think the most effective thing might be to deal with conduct points (i.e. sextortion, harassment, maybe invasion of privacy), as these seem to be what people are worried about, rather than making broad content based prohibitions (which tend to violate human rights, and likely involves "non-existent people"). It's not really effective, proportionate, or sustainable, and it would drive the surveillance / carceral state, and the harms inherent to that.

Also, the contexts in which someone has cited it being present (i.e. criminal sites which already clearly violate 2251) would suggest they could already be prosecuted for that other criminal conduct.

It is also not clear it is a significant issue. It seems exaggerated, and it seems every month, someone is arguing the end might be right here, although with hardly much new to argue with. Examples are usually like "this site or that site", and often, there is language which quickly makes it sound a lot like "non-existent people".

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with your suggestion for authenticating the image provenance. And perhaps, if something is less "black market", then there might be more incentive for a service provider (which deals in such things, not a mainstream one) to assist in that, than if they're liable either way.

Also, in that other country where it seems to be protected speech, the arguments look a lot the same. It is argued that a prohibition would violate the Japanese Constitution which protects free expression. As far as I know, the Supreme Court there has ruled that it could be restricted in the case of something depicting actual children.

@alecmuffett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_on_Sexual_Exploitation NCOSE is literally just a bunch of Christian fundamentalists who rebranded themselves. They appear to be imitating the name of that other group.

@jwildeboer @glynmoody It's a shame the article doesn't have that context.