No? Fair and reasonable. Neither do I. Now let's ask ourselves - would ANYONE reply yes? A bit unlikely? Therefore the result is absolutely no more forums/hosting of any kind.
I'm not talking pornhub here - even a cake recipe sharing site, a scientific forum, a community of model train enthusiasts, Stack Overflow, your MMO guild's site, even HN itself... nothing. No Discord, no Slack, obviously no social media (which I happen to dislike, but I'm quite firmly in the minority, I'm told), nothing at all.
You seem to be asking rhetorical questions and then answering them on your own instead of letting the OP answer? So, I am not sure what the point is?
And if OP wishes to answer, and contradicts me, declaring themselves willing to go to jail for material not posted by them, but by a user of their forum, I will have to accept their perspective. I just stated mine.
We might see some innovation, like how HN allows you to opt in to seeing dead comments, just have all comments dead-by-default.
there's more friction there, but IMO anything is better than hiring overseas workers to view flagged content 8 hours a day.
HN would have to go offline anytime dang decided to sleep.
You should always have a right to sue if you are harmed.
Yes, but not to sue the hoster. If I offend you during a phone call, you should be able to sue ME, not the telco. Harmful content must be taken down once identified, and any technology reasonably helping its early identification should be put to use - but the hoster should be immune from lawsuits except if they do not act timely on legitimate takedown requests.
Please, stop suggesting you should have a right to sue the hoster - this can only end up in countless avenues of free speech disappearing, and dictatorial governments (and aspiring ones) abusing it to silence their victims or dissenters.
I think the host should be held accountable if they keep allowing the same harmful content to be uploaded again and again. The first occurrence is their notice. Future occurrences is negligence.
On this, I fully support your view. Something as trivial as a keeping list of hashes, to prevent repeat uploads of the exact same binary content, is incredibly easy to implement and I would fault any major hoster for not doing it. But people quickly learn to re-encode or subtly alter the content, so hashes, size, number of frames, etc don't match.
Perceptual hashes are a lot more expensive computationally, should be much harder to dodge, but even youtube, which supposedly has the best minds behind it, copes very poorly with the many popular evasion techniques (slight distortion, horizontal mirroring, superimposing a couple thin lines, showing the content in the left pane, while showing nonsense in the right pane, etc etc) so I'm not sure they're a viable option.
Can you really hold the hoster at fault when the technology doesn't exist, or is impractically slow and expensive? Would you rather have no hosters?
I just wouldn't run a forum unless I had the proper staff and a legal team. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.
He also got one of those spyware things added to her phone. That was interesting situation let me just say. Anyways..
Now I know there are some leo in some places that are sophisticated enough to possibly track down where a burner card was bought or something and maybe get a video feed and go from there.. but my experiences have shown that most leo offices have bigger fish to fry with less prep/cooking needed, and even if they could try, they won't spend the time.
I really don't see this as a solution, it's not going to stop the reposts laid out above.
I think reporting the infringing uploader to authorities etc would be more appropriate given revenge pr0n is a crime in most places. This would act as at least a deterant for some.
The hashing seems like it would filter out at least a few more, but there are a lot of patterns that could be picked up, audio track recognition, frame counts etc. There are better ways than manual intervention on every re-upload.
But I do believe something similarly controversial, which is: platforms which host user generated content should be required to enforce strong know-your-customer on UGC submission. That doesn't mean other users should be able to click on my HackerNews profile and see my real name, but at minimum the service provider should be required to have that information; to map an account back to a real person (though, I strongly believe people behave more positively when their name is known to everyone they're interacting with; its actually a good thing, overwhelmingly but not totally of course).
Argument against: right to anonymity. I don't feel this is a right any human has ever had in contexts of interpersonal communication. Moreover, I don't feel its a desirable right to uphold. HackerNews is a public square; anyone is welcome to join and talk. But public squares always had an element of accountability; I, being human and present in the physical plane of existence, had to travel there in person, accountable to anyone else there listening, authorities patrolling the square, etc. The only examples of anonymity in the non-digital are niche; masked protestors, maybe, but even that involves physical presence where improper conduct could be responded to by authorities unmasking the individual. Books published anonymously? Possibly, but...
Here's my strongest argument for it: there will always be platforms to express yourself truly anonymously. American law is written in absolutes, but is rarely enforced so; speeding is illegal, but I speed every day. Piracy is illegal, yet my NAS over there has twelve terabytes of totally legitimately obtained content. They've gone after the Pirate Bay more times than I can count, and its still there, at the same domain.
The point is not to build a totalitarian internet with one world government user registration; it's to correlate accountability with scale. Larger platforms have super-linear correlation with their ability to inflict real-world pain on their users (and those their users interact with nonconsensually). Larger platforms also tend to be built by corporations who have a difficult time escaping laws like this. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it actually fall? If revenge porn is uploaded to a fly-by-night no-name site and no one sees it, was harm created? I'd argue Yes; but it's an improvement over our current situation of the tree falling and everyone hearing it.
> The point is not to build a totalitarian internet with one world government user registration: it's to correlate accountability with scale.
You can already do this with PGP. You'd just need an operator/vendor who values confidentiality but also can handle the overhead of managing identities from a systematic viewpoint.
There are many forms of sex work, usually only specific forms are illegal.
So, KYC + legalization.
You are more likely to get the fbi over the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
I know the general HN crowd is very much against this, but it’s the standard we hold every other media platform and I don’t see why things should get a free pass just because they pretend to be platforms.