FishFace

Tech companies, as a general rule, do not filter the internet of their employees, because those employees generally need to do a lot of stuff with the internet (or networking besides the internet) and filtering it would cause a lot of problems.

Production machines (where the data lives) can be much more restricted than work machines. Strong access controls mean that compromising a work machine doesn’t give you access to production data.

Do you think tech companies filter their employees’ internet?

They have tens of thousands of employees, a few of them are bound to download some porn at some point. And the amount downloaded is about 20 files per year on average.

Assuming:

• 18 Mbps files
• 60 minute long films

That would be about 1,100 pornos. However, the 9 TB is from an unrelated case; it’s not alleged here (at least) that it’s porn. 1,100 samples would not be much for training an image or movie generating model from scratch, but 9 TB would represent a vast amount more data if it were text for books (which the other case was about), and that would probably have represented more like a significant chunk of the amount you’d need to train a language model.

Given polio’s deadliness it would be much easier to get a murder conviction in that situation, sure. You’d still have to prove it was intentional though, because that is still the definition of murder. If a defence case is that the accused is not guilty of murder because they didn’t intend to kill the victim, and the jury isn’t sure that’s not true, they mustn’t convict.

You mentioned “negligence” in your comment above. If you’re claiming negligence, that is going to, by definition, fall under manslaughter laws. In some jurisdictions there is even the charge of “gross negligence manslaughter” which this would probably fall under.

Never. That’s the difference between murder and manslaughter, it’s literally the definition.

In your example you’d just have a very hard time convincing a jury that anyone is really stupid enough to believe bullets aren’t deadly, whereas I already believe that people are serious about measles and whooping cough being fine. Diseases like measles, while dealt, generally are not as deadly as bullets - risk of death is about 0.3% Vs about 20% from what I found. That makes it much easier to believe that someone has got it wrong.

Manslaughter is illegal ya silly

By “donate” you mean “buy a subscription”?

Except it does matter, even if you don’t like it.

If the stock market falls a lot, people with money don’t want to invest it. (Paradoxically, that’s when you should invest…) If investment dries up, big businesses can’t spend that investment on projects, so they don’t contract with smaller businesses to help do them. Those smaller businesses have lower turnover and less work so make redundancies. Those redundancies are ordinary people who now don’t have a job.

Do you think it doesn’t matter that people lose jobs, and struggle to find new ones? It was a line from the Big Short which brought it home to me: 40,000 people die when unemployment goes up 1%. (The actual figure is apparently a little less but the point is unaffected). About 1000 of those are suicides.

The stock market taking a little dip isn’t a recession, but I think anti-capitalists are ridiculously naive about the seriousness of “the economy” and the role the stock market plays in it.

Wish it weren’t so by all means, but don’t mistake wishes for reality. The difference is life and death.

The distinction you are trying to make is clear, it’s just not an actual current distinction in the English language.

You are inventing a part of the definition of pornography which says, “it does not have a victim” or alternatively, “the important thing about it is that someone gets off to it.” You won’t find that in any dictionary definition of porn, and the continued use of the term “child porn” shows that this is not how people use the word in practice.

So it’s not that you’re merely relating facts about terms. The only explanation is that this is a distinction you feel people ought to make. But compare it to other things:

• Revenge porn - another term where we use “porn” but where there is a victim.
• Drink driving - the word “drink” turns a term like “driving” which is not immoral or illegal, into something different. The focus is on the activity, not the victim.
• Theft - the focus is on the property stolen, not on the victim, its owner.

You aren’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t think that child porn is that bad that is actually is, by instead insisting everyone call it CSAM. It’s not the name that makes them think it’s OK.

The victim should take precedence in nomenclature.

So “child porn” which makes it clear the victim is the child should be fine?

Well, you can think what you like but you’re going to draw wrong, unhelpful conclusions more often with that attitude. 🤷

I certainly wouldn’t give trump the benefit of the doubt, but that’s not what you’re talking about. You’re saying we mustn’t give the people writing these reports the benefit of the doubt. I’d guess you’d also say we shouldn’t give any republican supporters the benefit of the doubt (they might well echo the reporting after all), so that really it rapidly becomes only giving those the benefit of the doubt who are on your side.

I’m from Writeaworthwhilecommentistan

“Revenge Porn” is a more commonly-used term these days than is CSAM, and the whole point of it is that it’s non-consensual (though the original act may have been, the recording may, and the distribution by definition is not)

Because someone made up the idea that porn must be consensual so they could quibble over terminology instead of doing anything about child sexual abuse.