He said he wants to download lots of it in general, not specifical. Legit question, if you end up with dark material.

I would assume pedo stuff is not really there, but the anarchist cookbook and alike likely will be.

I'm still not sure the question makes much sense, if it's a general: "I want to support the project and so I want to seed a large chunk" Okay, I guess it's your due diligence to check, but there is a reporting feature built in, if something is found, report it.

Aside from that, if you're searching for specific content, the question is moot I guess.

I guess my confusion is what distinguishes this apart from any other torrent ? That is, if the submitted content is submitted at all.

I understood it as he or she wants to download large chunks of potentially interesting books for offline use, or once Anna goes down. So a broad filter. Not for seeding.

But thanks for the explanation that there is a report build in.

Considering the anarchist cookbook is just a rebranded selection of freely-available US Army Field Manuals, ... I don't see the problem.

I don't either, but many states have laws regarding books on how to build bombs and they might get enforced more than copyright.

You can get in trouble for having it in the UK (though not necessarily convicted)

https://news.sky.com/story/anarchist-cookbook-case-student-j...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-45841291

Not saying you're deceiving but can you show me where a state has made a book about bombs illegal? It seems like that would be a slam dunk 1A violation. And yes I'm aware that states willfully violate 2A but I don't want to discuss it here.

[flagged]

you're not saying I cannot read, but that type of inflection is uncalled for. You have been reported to the mods.

Uncalled for?

"Not saying you're deceiving"

Right next to your answer were you implied I might be deceiving was already an answer telling apparently I was not deceiving. So yes, the mocking of my comment was not up to HN standards, but you don't see how you started it?

I think you're each setting the other off and being a bit overreactive to each other's comments, and I think there may be a misunderstanding of the other's intent. We still need to make an effort to observe the guidelines even if a reply to us comment seems hostile. Sometimes it's best to just to stop.

Indeed. Actually I did not try to attack. My intention was showing mild irony to something I perceived as an attack.

Those nuances easily get lost in text, I know, but that my post got flagged and his initial one did not, I really did not liked and that angered me a bit. But I can live with that, without making a drama out of it. Thanks for trying to mediate.

Thanks for being good about it. I've turned off the flags on that comment.

>I would assume pedo stuff is not really there

Search for "lolicon"

Well, I won't. But does it contain just text or real pictures? That would make a big legal difference I assume.

It makes very little legal difference in a lot of jurisdictions. They are considered the same.

I thought that was anime pictures...?

a subset of that, yes. but that label implies more than just that

That doesn't matter. They are still illegal in a great number of jurisdictions, including large portions of the USA.

Citation needed.

There is illegal stuff in there, because some of the books they've swept up into the archive have been retconned to be illegal. A lot of obscene material wasn't illegal until into the 80s, and these shadow libraries are scooping up everything without checking. I don't know what they do if you report it to them.

For instance, there are issues of multiple issues of Playboy with underage models. All the archives of British tabloid newspapers had to be purged in 2003 after the laws changed there, etc.

Seeding torrrent blocks.