[Aurornis]

The mods of that subreddit appear to have come to the same conclusion.

If you go into Reddit believing all of the posts by default and forgiving inconsistencies you’re going to be duped by a lot of fake stories.

I think it’s interesting that someone posted a “my account just got busted for accidental CSAM” and nobody is concerned about the impending law enforcement consequences? Only about email access? If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process. They get escalated to law enforcement.

[troad]

> If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process

There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts, and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience. If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes.

The thing is, even if you do turn out to be right - which is entirely possible - there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it. The former is good science, the latter is high school debating. The latter is very easy to spot, and that's why I find your argument unconvincing. It would have been possible to make a much more convincing one, but it would have required a humbler approach.

[Aurornis]

> There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts,

I was quoting the actual Reddit post. You were theorizing about recovery emails and other things that were contradicts by the Reddit post.

> and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience.

I do have experience in dealing with account policies for a product that hosted user data and some of the details that go into referring cases to law enforcement. Again, you are the one theorizing to support your story and getting it wrong.

That said, you don’t need to have experience to know that child endangerment cases get referred to law enforcement. This is common sense

> If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me

If I’m being honest, this sounds like you’re so resistant to backing down that you’re turning toward personal insults based on top of your own incorrect theorizing.

It’s pretty clear that you are determined to believe this story is true even after that subreddit’s mods caught on and others here have realized the problems with the story. If you’re determined to believe it then you don’t need to start inventing theories about me personally.

> there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it. The former is good science, the latter is high school debating. The latter is very easy to spot, and that's why I find your argument unconvincing. It would have been possible to make a much more convincing one.

I followed the clues in the original post and made a logical case based on them.

All of your comments here trying to rebut it have been moving the goalposts each time I point out where you got the facts wrong.

If you’re just trying to attack my construction of the argument for not being convincing enough to you, that seems more like a you problem at this point. I don’t see any reason to continue trying to discuss anything if you’re just going to go with this silly “you sound like a child because I didn’t understand your argument the first time” attempt to rebut.

[troad]

> you’re turning toward personal insults based on top of your own incorrect theorizing.

I think it's pretty clear that I tried to phrase it as kindly as I possibly could. Not intended as an insult in the slightest, merely a purely subjective observation. You're welcome to disagree, even if you do seem very resistant to extending anyone else the same courtesy?

> All of your comments here trying to rebut it have been moving the goalposts each time I point out where you got the facts wrong.

I don't think I've moved the goalposts once. We're still on the original two claimed inconsistencies, neither of which I find inconsistent.

You're framing this discussion as though it were me that were hellbent on attacking you (for some reason?). I would respectfully suggest that it seems to be you that is irrationally upset over someone not agreeing with you.

> I don’t see any reason to continue trying to discuss anything

Awesome. Have a good one! :)

[ffsm8]

Fwiw, you might want to look into "non violent communication" (which is unfortunately named, because people always think they know what it's about, while not actually understanding it whatsoever)

As an uninvolved reader in this thread, your phrasing was definitely done in a way that caused this response from him.

Not at all trying to be mean, and I'm fully aware that this comment I'm writing is also (knowingly) using phrasing which the previously mentioned NVC cautious from, but I only consider it something to be aware of - to understand interactions vs something to adhere to stringently.

[troad]

The problem with this approach is that it implies that I am responsible for how my interlocutor reacts, something I do not and cannot control. (Nor do I feel any need to.) It also presumes the interlocutor is acting entirely in good faith and is interested in reaching consensus, which is not always the case.

Sometimes people respond negatively because of tone and phrasing, but sometimes their response really is about the underlying substantive content of what is being said, no matter how gently. Conversely, at other times, their primary concern may be one of 'face', and the importance of being perceived as 'winning' an exchange, the substance of they may not actually care about at all. I agree with you that thoughtful phrasing is a potent tool, but its power is not unlimited and it cannot fully bridge every gap.

I would venture to suggest that I phrased things about as kindly as I could, in the broader context of an interlocutor who was already treating the discussion as a zero-sum contest. (Note their read of the exchange as my "desperately" wanting to "discredit" them, when I was merely disagreeing.)

[Gander5739]

> If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes.

That is unmistakably an insult, even if you say it's not.

[AlexeyBelov]

As another bystrander: your phrasing and overall participation in this thread was bad. Sorry, but you gotta learn how to take criticism; now it sounds like you just dismiss everything.

[yongjik]

> there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it.

> The latter is very easy to spot

Well, you know, that's some premium grade irony sitting right there.

[f33d5173]

> The mods of that subreddit appear to have come to the same conclusion.

Well, if someone whose main credential is "doesn't have a job and hence can moderate reddit full time" thinks it's true, it must be so.

> I think it’s interesting that someone posted a “my account just got busted for accidental CSAM” and nobody is concerned about the impending law enforcement consequences?

Because the law has due process? He didn't do anything wrong legally, and while his son may have, almost certainly nothing that will lead to significant consequences (at most an officer visiting and saying "don't do that").

> If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement

It probably was, and law enforcement probably put it on the big pile of "shit we don't have the resources to bother with". People are sending csam everywhere every day, much of it gets detected and turned into an automated report, a minority of that leads to an investigation. This probably will be an instance where it isn't.

> because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process. They get escalated to law enforcement.

They get... both? Obviously? They get escalated to law enforcement, AND the account gets banned. Then you can appeal that ban, and whoever handles the appeal will look at the ban reason and say "sorry, it's sticking".

[Aurornis]

> It probably was, and law enforcement probably put it on the big pile of "shit we don't have the resources to bother with".

This was posted a UK subreddit. The UK police intervene for even small possible internet offenses.

There was a story last year where someone was arrested because they posted a photo of them doing some fully legal shotgun shooting while on vacation out of the countr: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/consultant-arrested-linkedin-s...

If I was referred to law enforcement for any internet related offense in the UK, especially child abuse and CSAM, I wouldn’t brush it off as no big deal.

[f33d5173]

> The UK police intervene for even small possible internet offenses.

They obviously don't have the resources to do that.

> There was a story last year where someone was arrested because they posted a photo of them doing some fully legal shotgun shooting while on vacation out of the countr:

You only read reports about the things they do investigate, not the things they don't. There were probably myriad videos of shotgun usage posted last year, but only one arrest. The same would apply to almost any internet crime.

> If I was referred to law enforcement for any internet related offense in the UK, especially child abuse and CSAM, I wouldn’t brush it off as no big deal.

You would, like the OP, wait for them to show up at your door and attempt to explain it away then. Especially if it was, in fact, no big deal.