[bpt3]

In what regard is it incorrect that a single, larger entity that is at least notionally committed to avoiding the existence of any specific type of content on their platform is more likely to successfully avoid the existence of that type of content on their platform than smaller entities with less resources?

Now consider that some of those smaller entities might not be even notionally interested in avoiding the existence of that specific type of content on their platform, and are small enough for regulators to be unaware of its existence?

[freejazz]

Trying so hard not to say child porn.

[bpt3]

The problem generalizes, so there's no need to focus on this specific type of content.

Care to address the actual issue?

[freejazz]

But its not a general problem, it's a problem specifically about child porn that we are discussing. The idea that there is no point in discussing the child porn problem on Facebook is exactly what I'm disputing.

[bpt3]

Content moderation is a general problem, whether you're talking about child porn, content intended for mature audiences, or memes about Winnie the Pooh.

What I and others are trying to tell you is that your obsessive focus on Facebook as if they are the root cause of the problem is incorrect. There is no magic solution I'm aware of because each of them have some sort of tradeoff.

The most extreme version of content moderation I can think of is that a human being examines and approves every single message of any kind before it is published, any image of a minor is banned because it's too hard to objectively define child porn (that still leaves the open question of how to determine if someone is a minor visually), and no accounts for anyone under the age of legal majority are allowed, as verified by a legal ID that is checked by a human being.

Even in that case, kids will find some way to get an account or just use their parent's account, and the door is cracked open again. And the pedophiles will just go elsewhere, probably using a service with significantly less resources available to attack the problem, which is probably worse than the status quo.

This doesn't even touch on the privacy concerns that most people would have with every message being reviewed.

As I said before, I would welcome you to share the solution that you imply exists which addresses every issue above.

[freejazz]

I don't see others trying to tell me what you are.

> Content moderation is a general problem,

Easy to reform any problem in a more general manner. Doesn't make your discussion any less dishonest.

>As I said before, I would welcome you to share the solution that you imply exists which addresses every issue above.

It's not really my burden to come up with a solution. That's ridiculous. It's Facebook's problem, not mine. You haven't even disputed that they could not do a better job. Your argument was that it's better for the child porn to be on Facebook than smaller websites, which is specious at best.

[bpt3]

There's nothing dishonest about my attempts to have a conversation with you about this.

You've decided that there's some relatively easy solution to a problem that existed before Facebook and will exist after Facebook that Facebook should be implementing to solve what appears to be an unsolvable problem to basically everyone else on earth, yet you have no ability to describe this solution and don't seem to have put much effort into thinking about it beyond assuming it exists.

No one is arguing that it's better for child porn to be anywhere. What myself and others have said is that there are tradeoffs to be made concerning content moderation, and you basically refuse to even contemplate the theoretical benefits and downsides of different approaches and their outcomes.

I don't know what your motivation is, whether you just have some irrational hatred of Facebook, are a zealot concerning child porn, both, or there's some other explanation for your obstinate ignorance, but attempting to talk to you appears to be a complete waste of time.