this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
512 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
60292 readers
3373 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We're trusting that billion-dollar corporate efforts don't possess and label hyper-illegal images, specifically so people can make more of them. Because why the fuck would they.
If there was more money to be made than the cost of defending it they most definitely would.
'Google would love to be in the child pornography business' is quite a fucking take.
These assholes are struggling to stop their networks from generating Mickey Mouse even when someone specifically asks for Mickey Mouse. Why would any organization that size want radioactive criminal-to-possess inputs stirred into their venture-capital cash cow?
They're fine with platforming fascists for a buck. Why would they have a problem with kid porn, especially if they can maintain a veneer of plausible deniability