boondaburrah

Yeah it really sucks that you can't get a normal computer with decent A/V capabilities (or expansion slots to add them) and instead have to opt for a workstation you don't need since "normal" users apparently only use office.

Actually most of the time with companies that still self-host I see take home laptops with VPN since work-from-home is a must. So not only does the risk still exist, the malware doesn't even have to wait for you to go back into the office.

but is it /consistent/?

It doesn't help that different brands of OS used different terms for the same thing.

The screen saver mixup makes no sense though. That can only mean one thing.

on the desk/in the cabinets has worked as a metaphor for anyone I've had to explain it to.

Windows 95/98 labelled HDD space as "Memory" so it's unsurprising that that's common.

That's why I always had to make sure to say "RAM" when I meant memory in the 90s.

It will be taken down because it's illegal for that content to be posted /at all/.

The proposed system is about who has the rights to post something, and a delay while that's figured out. However /nobody/ has the right to post cp, as it is /always/ illegal.

It is possible for something to mistakenly be identified as CP, so you're right there. I'm arguing based on your original supposition that it /is/ CP.

Also regarding

> I'm responding to this part:

>> First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process

Nobody says it has to stay up during the appeals process, just that account suspensions and punishment have to wait. It's possible to have different takedown policies based on the level of accusation.

Regardless of whether or not cp is against the tos, or there is a legal process in place for takedowns, the law against cp existing will kick in faster as sharing it is a criminal act regardless of why, who, or what posted/hosted it, so it won't stay up. It's a moot point.

The terms of service under discussion are about copyright infringement. The content itself is not illegal, and the dispute is about the rights to post it. Two very different things.

I would like to point out that at some point in this debate the goalposts were moved from a civil case to a criminal one, and the liabilities (and harm) are entirely different.

As another datapoint, this is also pretty standard in Japan. However Japan's school-to-salaryman hiring pipeline is built around the idea that you're not changing jobs, and after the 3-month probationary period (though it can vary by company) you basically become unfireable and are expected to be at that company for life.

In the more western culture of recognising that company loyalty is severed both ways, a probationary period makes much less sense.