raxxorrax

Not at all as you did not apply the quality control to the data as you suggested it needed to have to come to a conclusion.

Also I doubt the content is proliferated through facebook and whatsapp. Perhaps by some careless people and that might lead to further investigations, but the proposal is just extremely inefficient and costs are too high.

> Yes if we ban E2E then it will solve the problem of CSAM

No, because content like CSAM will immediately switch channels and you cannot really ban encryption.

More funding for teachers that can put eyes on the target because child abuse happens in the vicinity of the victim. If you really want an efficient solution, you have to start there instead of putting everyone under suspicion.

The exception is human trafficking and it isn't a crime done by common criminals or lone offenders, it is done by organized criminal gangs in a large scale that can be targeted individually.

I have no obligation to make any suggestion for not wanting my chats surveilled for that matter.

If the Gestapo did have WhatsApp data it would have been severely more powerful. You are correct that I believe the cost is quite high compared to the very low returns of invasions of privacy like this. Which probably amounts to none.

We increased surveillance for decades. And none of this surveillance had any measurable impact on safety. It is just a short sighted proposal and nothing more. We know where and when kids get abused. The abused is almost always in their vicinity. Internet chat surveillance does not help at all.

The distance to representatives does matter a lot. The EU even agrees with the principle of subsidiary policy making.

Some political scientist argue that after the Lisbon treaty the deficit is a myth but I don't think their statements have much merit. They often argue that parliamentary control wouldn't be the only metric that would quantify democracy but fail to give an answer what would compensate this deficiency.

Not only did the treaty get rejected by some states that were allowed to vote on it, the fact that it is too far removed from citizens and their inadequate participation. In fact I would argue the treaty made it even more undemocratic. The influence of Kutcher compared to European individuals is not the only empirical evidence for that.

The parliamentary control is minimal and there is little overarching political discourse beyond the borders of the nation state. Language barriers are strong and that won't change in the foreseeable future. Until then the commission will run the circus.

> Btw, I don't think moderation is hard.

It probably depends on the user base of the platform, but I believe it could be one of the worst jobs in the world. If you like the community and content, great, but the usual employed moderators on large social media platforms probably need regular therapy to distance themselves from all the crap they have to read every day. There is a huge difference if you have to read it because it is your job and when you do it on your own because you are hungry for something tasteless and when you can just leave a spicy reply.

I really would like to meet someone from the other 25%. Just out of curiosity to experience a completely different kind of reasoning.

Perhaps they believe the product would be cheaper with abdicating the feature?

I think it unrealistic to believe that accountability tools work and it is quite crazy to judge people on these metrics.

If management cannot define a sensible output at the end of a work shift, they seem to be overtaxed with their responsibility.

Just quit these companies. Market allows for it and when you do clearly communicate the reason. Also building tools to disrupt the metrics should be easy. Company time of course. If they ask for a high score a dependable worker delivers.

I wish they would name the large retailer. This is valuable information for workers to be informed. It is no libel in this case.

That case is a lesser form of anonymity since the platform knows your identity. With laws like the EU just recently voted for, this can become a problem.

Sure, they may log your IP and your ISP could connect the dots, but it still provides privacy.

Anonymity has a lot of obvious benefits, especially if things get heated up and personal. But the main thing is to stop those regularly demanding consequences for speech, which certainly are not arguing in good faith either.

Yes, there are scammers and bots and a e-commerce platform would need to evaluate identities for transactional purposes. But to discuss ideas? Please more anonymity.

> We should debate idea's not authors

There is a large group of people that is more interested in other people instead of ideas and to evaluate anything they need to check their trust in the person uttering it. I think they simply need different platforms.

Otherwise I 100% agree, there are good behaving anonymous platforms but I don't know if Twitter ever can become one. I would never register with my real name though.

Nobody can be an example of tolerance that has a problem with formal or informal modes of communication. It will never be true or believable.