Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by int_19h on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @04:11PM (#41999676)

The language is defined by how people actually use it, not by how a handful of activists try to prescribe its use. Ask any random person on the street, and most of them have no idea what CSAM is, but they know full well what "child porn" is. Dictionaries, encyclopedias etc also reflect this common sense usage.

The justification for this attempt to change the definition doesn't make any sense, either. Just because some porn is child porn, which is bad, doesn't in any way imply that all porn is bad. In fact, I would posit that making this argument in the first place is detrimental to sex-positive outlook on porn.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by zargon on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @04:37PM (#41999978)

> Just because some porn is child porn, which is bad, doesn't in any way imply that all porn is bad.

I think people who want others to stop using the term "child porn" are actually arguing the opposite of this. Porn is good, so calling it "child porn" is making a euphemism or otherwise diminishing the severity of "CSAM" by using the positive term "porn" to describe it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by int_19h on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @04:56PM (#42000196)

I don't think the established consensus on the meaning of the word "porn" itself includes some kind of inherent implied positivity, either; not even among people who have a generally positive attitude towards porn.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by zargon on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @05:47PM (#42000776)

"Legitimate" is probably a better word. I think you can get the point though. Those I have seen preferring the term CSAM are more concerned about CSAM being perceived less negatively when it is called child porn than they are about consensual porn being perceived more negatively.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by immibis on Tuesday November 05, 2024 @04:14PM (#42055222)

Is it still okay to say "pirated movies" or is that not negative enough since movies are okay? Should we call it "intellectual property theft material"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by worik on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @06:50PM (#42001390)

> The language is defined by how people actually use it,

Precisely

Which is how it is used today

A few die hard conservatives cannot change that

[ Parent | on HN ]