[KomoD]

> given they advertise themselves as resilient to government requests (not as trigger-happy when it comes to legal threats as other hosters)

That does not mean they're ok with illegal things... such as CSAM which was the case here. They're not a bullet proof registrar, they're meant to be private, they're not even a registrar

[sodality2]

Of course, but presumably they would look into these requests to investigate for validity. According to the thread, zedeus says the URLs reported are not even valid and don't work.

[KomoD]

> zedeus says the URLs reported are not even valid and don't work

I don't see him saying that.

He said

> A funny thing to note here is that the image link, which first points at nitter.it, is a /enc/ link which only gets created by Nitter if the instance admin enables base64 link encoding for media proxying. This is not enabled for nitter.net, so I know for a fact someone copied an image from another instance (presumably nitter.it), changed the domain, and sent a complaint to Njalla.

nitter.net returns images from tweets as something like "/pic/orig/media/DP5UreOXcAEz6EI.jpg"

another instance with "base64 link encoding for media proxying" returns images from tweets as "/pic/enc/bWVkaWEvRFA1VXJlT1hjQUV6NkVJLmpwZw=="

That just means whoever got the link went to another instance first, copied the path and replaced it with nitter.net

I tried this myself, I went to another nitter instance which had "base64 link encoding for media proxying", copied the link, replaced the domain with nitter.net and it loaded the image just fine.

[sodality2]

Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks!