“We can’t fight child porn on our platform because it is less moral to run a scanner that may produce false positives and either accept that this may result in blocking some content that isn’t child porn OR pay someone to look at content and verify whether or not it is child porn, so instead we just do the far more moral thing of allowing and profiting from the distribution of child porn" is an interesting, if not exactly convincing, argument.

I worked for a startup almost a decade ago that automated this process entirely (reducing the need for human oversight / comparing).

It worked, no one wanted to pay for it. Or were completely locked into Microsoft or other large companies solutions that half worked.

From TFA:

> The Times conducted its own scan for child sexual abuse material on X by writing an automated computer program that searched for related terms without displaying the images, which are illegal to view. Links to the images were sent to a Microsoft service that checked whether they were included on lists of known abusive material compiled by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other child safety groups. Matches were verified by analysts at the Canadian Center for Child Protection.

undefined

I think they’re saying Elon is in possession of it, and they were able to verify it via file hashing compared against the national database.

Are you suggesting the national database maintainers are in possession of illegal pictures and should also have their rights questioned?

[dead]

undefined

The point is more that these images should not be uploadable in the first place, since they are trivially validated against the national DB to be CSAM.

And, from TFA:

> The program The Times wrote reported the images to the authorities. The images were removed, but some had been viewed hundreds of times.

They are very gory.

It shouldn't be a label at all. Pedofiles should be called as such, or worse.