[pannSun]

How little outrage known sellers of child porn garnered previously, compared to the reaction to the brief impersonation of blue checkmarks under Musk.

It almost makes one question the objectivity of the ruling media elite, when they inflate or diminish things so arbitrarily.

[matthewdgreen]

This seems like the kind of argument one invents when one has an axe to grind. Everyone agrees CSE on social networks needs to be moderated, there isn't a lot of controversy around it. I'm sure you didn't spend 50% of your time being angry about CSE moderation on Instagram last week, that doesn't mean all your other opinions are invalid.

[pannSun]

> This seems like the kind of argument one invents when one has an axe to grind.

You could aim this statement at media selective outrage too, and you'd be much more correct.

> Everyone agrees CSE on social networks needs to be moderated, there isn't a lot of controversy around it.

Yet there wasn't a lot of controversy about Twitter ignoring it. To such an extent that, in your own words, they left even low-hanging fruit unpicked.

[throwawaylinux]

You only need to look at Epstein to know that they're in on it. Best case they're happy to allow and enable and excuse it so long as there is money and power in it for them. Worst case they actively use it for blackmail and control and keeping their members in line.

This isn't a "conspiracy theory" and would not even be a new shocking fact about their behavior. It would actually be more surprising to learn the rulers who cheerfully conspire to start wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people and steal trillions of dollars from the commoners would draw the line at abusing a few more children. That is a baseless fringe theory that would require extraordinary evidence to substantiate.