[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.

[freejazz]

> You've decided that there's some relatively easy solution

I never used these words either. That's where the dishonesty is. Look back at our thread, how many times have you done that? You ask me to define basic words and then don't respond when I do... everyone else on earth agrees with you? Just read this thread. There is literally someone else in this very thread here agreeing with me.

>No one is arguing that it's better for child porn to be anywhere

You did. You argued it's better to be on Facebook than on smaller sites and audaciously asked me how I could disagree?

> 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.

It's much more telling that you think those are the only two reasons why someone would think "Facebook should really do something about its child porn problem already."

>but attempting to talk to you appears to be a complete waste of time.

Good riddance

[bpt3]

> I never used these words either.

You don't use any words, other than repeatedly saying "Facebook should be solving this problem they created", so people have to fill in the gaps because that is a very strange perspective and you refuse to elaborate.

> That's where the dishonesty is. Look back at our thread, how many times have you done that? You ask me to define basic words and then don't respond when I do... everyone else on earth agrees with you? Just read this thread. There is literally someone else in this very thread here agreeing with me.

You don't define basic words, that's the issue.

I never said everyone agrees with me, and the one person "agreeing" with you is just as clueless about the pros and cons of a centralized vs distributed system.

> You did. You argued it's better to be on Facebook than on smaller sites and audaciously asked me how I could disagree?

I did not. You're either confusing me with someone else (and twisting their words) or just imagining messages, just like you're imagining that you've diligently responded to every request for clarification on your ill-defined yet adamant stance.

> It's much more telling that you think those are the only two reasons why someone would think "Facebook should really do something about its child porn problem already."

Again, feel free to elaborate.

> Good riddance

Likewise

[freejazz]

>You don't use any words, other than repeatedly saying "Facebook should be solving this problem they created", so people have to fill in the gaps because that is a very strange perspective and you refuse to elaborate.

Thinking that Facebook should solve its own child pornography problem is not a weird perspective at all. What is weird about that? What do I need to elaborate on? That's my position. Are you saying it's unfounded?

>You don't define basic words, that's the issue.

I did, you asked me to and didn't respond.

>I never said everyone agrees with me, and the one person "agreeing" with you is just as clueless about the pros and cons of a centralized vs distributed system.

Oh, excuse me, not everyone, just "basically everyone else on earth". Again, incredibly dishonest on your part.

>I did not. You're either confusing me with someone else (and twisting their words) or just imagining messages, just like you're imagining that you've diligently responded to every request for clarification on your ill-defined yet adamant stance.

There's nothing ill-defined about my stance. It's very clear. Meta should clean up its child porn mess,

>Again, feel free to elaborate.

Well, I think it's incredibly disingenuous to act as if the only reason one could come to such belief is because of an extreme opinion. I'm willing to bet you that most people would agree with me that Facebook should do something meaningful about its child porn problem. For no discernable reason you jumped to the conclusion that what I stated is an extreme opinion only shared by zealots. I'd bet most parents would agree. I'd bet most people would agree. In fact, you haven't at all explained what is extreme about that opinion. I think most people think child pornography is a problem, and I think most people think that Facebook, a website which facilitates the proliferation of child pornography and enables predators to get in touch with children, shouldn't. That all seems fairly self-evident, actually. I'm not sure where you spend most of your time such that you think people don't think child pornography is a problem and that only zealots care about it. What a weird place that must be.

> Likewise

Yet you came back to respond again. Either engage in a conversation honestly or fuck off.

[bpt3]

> Thinking that Facebook should solve its own child pornography problem is not a weird perspective at all. What is weird about that? What do I need to elaborate on? That's my position. Are you saying it's unfounded?

Again, the person you originally were talking to about this and myself have pointed out that it's not just Facebook's problem, it's society's problem, and all I have said is that there are tradeoffs, which you deny for inexplicable reasons (probably because you have no idea what you're talking about, but feel free to correct that assumption).

In a similar vein, I asked you what specifically you'd like Facebook to do, and you didn't have any meaningful answer (probably because you have no idea what you're talking about, but feel free to correct that assumption).

> I did, you asked me to and didn't respond.

Why does this thread end with my question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47987893

Where is your comment where you've defined these basic words and got no response?

> Oh, excuse me, not everyone, just "basically everyone else on earth". Again, incredibly dishonest on your part.

I'll restate to "basically everyone on earth with a clue about the differences between centralized and distributed systems".

> There's nothing ill-defined about my stance. It's very clear. Meta should clean up its child porn mess,

The first obvious question is: How (what is the definition of "clean up")? The obvious question after that is: If they do so, where do the pedos go next, because Facebook didn't create their interest in child porn? The obvious question after that is: Is that better than the status quo?

Yet you have literally no comment on this. Why are you so adamant about your position when it's apparently so uninformed?

> Well, I think it's incredibly disingenuous to act as if the only reason one could come to such belief is because of an extreme opinion. I'm willing to bet you that most people would agree with me that Facebook should do something meaningful about its child porn problem.

See the link above where I asked you to define meaningful and you didn't respond. They aren't doing nothing now from what I can tell, and they certainly could be doing more, to the point of shutting down their service entirely. What is "meaningful" to you?

> For no discernible reason you jumped to the conclusion that what I stated is an extreme opinion only shared by zealots. I'd bet most parents would agree. I'd bet most people would agree. In fact, you haven't at all explained what is extreme about that opinion. I think most people think child pornography is a problem, and I think most people think that Facebook, a website which facilitates the proliferation of child pornography and enables predators to get in touch with children, shouldn't. That all seems fairly self-evident, actually. I'm not sure where you spend most of your time such that you think people don't think child pornography is a problem and that only zealots care about it. What a weird place that must be.

I live in a world where Facebook is used for a lot of things, just like every other service on the internet, recognize that those services are far from the root cause of any issue related to the creation or distribution of undesirable content, understand that they are not able to solve the root cause, and that the only way for them to fully eradicate any specific type of content from their service is to shut it down, with the end state being no internet once this is applied to all services that host content.

If you see that state as acceptable or desirable, then just come out and say so. If not, then you need to accept that online services will end up hosting some objectionable content at some point. You rejected both of these options previously when stated slightly differently, and have yet to describe a third state that must exist for that rejection is valid, which is what leads to believe you might be some sort of zealot (as they are known for rejecting reality). Feel free to describe why this rejection of the only two option I'm aware of is valid at any time, beyond just saying "Facebook needs to do more".

> Yet you came back to respond again. Either engage in a conversation honestly or fuck off.

You could start by sharing a coherent thought beyond "Facebook bad" on this topic. I've presented numerous comments and questions that have gone unanswered.

[freejazz]

> You could start by sharing a coherent thought beyond "Facebook bad" on this topic.

There's nothing incoherent about that thought, which is also not what I expressed anyway. It's not my burden to solve Facebook's problem just because I pointed out that it should be solved. The proposition that it is my burden is, again, ridiculous.

>Why does this thread end with my question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47987893

It doesn't. It ends with me providing the common definition of meaningful, which is apparently something you were otherwise incapable of determining yourself?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48009016

>I'll restate to "basically everyone on earth with a clue about the differences between centralized and distributed systems".

Hah. It'd be funny if it were intentional on your part.

>In a similar vein, I asked you what specifically you'd like Facebook to do, and you didn't have any meaningful answer (probably because you have no idea what you're talking about, but feel free to correct that assumption).

What don't I know about?

> The first obvious question is: How (what is the definition of "clean up")? The obvious question after that is: If they do so, where do the pedos go next, because Facebook didn't create their interest in child porn? The obvious question after that is: Is that better than the status quo?

Oh so you are making the exact argument you just said you weren't? Okay. Not going to bother because none of that is a reason why Facebook shouldn't "clean up" their problem. What do I mean by clean up? Again, make an impactful change on the ability for predators to interact with children and distribute child pornography on their platforms. You act as if I'm the only person in the world making this criticism, it's a bit bizarre. Here's some material for you that I found with 3 seconds of using Google (because, again, you apparently can't?):

https://www.biometricupdate.com/202601/meta-pledges-complian...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67640177

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39187929

https://childhood.org/news/facebook-a-hidden-marketplace-for...

> I live in a world where Facebook is used for a lot of things, just like every other service on the internet, recognize that those services are far from the root cause of any issue related to the creation or distribution of undesirable content, understand that they are not able to solve the root cause, and that the only way for them to fully eradicate any specific type of content from their service is to shut it down, with the end state being no internet once this is applied to all services that host content.

Facebook does not have to solve the root problem of child pornography. No one suggested that they did. This is a total strawman argument. Again, if you're going to be dishonest, disingenuous, and frankly just rude, please don't bother responding to me as you previously insisted you would.

> You rejected both of these options previously when stated slightly differently

No, I didn't. I never suggested that there was a world where Facebook would have absolutely zero amounts of child porn or predators or facilitating their actions. It's so weird how you keep making up arguments to knock down.

[bpt3]

> It doesn't. It ends with me providing the common definition of meaningful, which is apparently something you were otherwise incapable of determining yourself?

Your post was marked as dead by the mods, and I didn't have deadlinks enabled. I'm glad we now have external confirmation that you are commenting in bad faith and the substance of your comments is obnoxious and useless enough that this site hides some of them by default.

I think that's a good ending point for this thread, because you have absolutely nothing of substance to say on any topic remotely related to technology. I'm betting you're a lawyer?