[huijzer]

Just to be sure to point out the obvious here, I think the main police effort should be on catching the sources of such material. There is the root problem. In a world were we’re ruled by Epstein friends, this is probably not gonna happen though

[protocolture]

QLD Police publish much of the material as part of their investigations into CSAM, running honeypot websites and so forth.

Apparently its basically verboten to ask them how many they caught vs how many they supplied.

[Nukahaha]

The root problem of piracy is accessibility for the most part. But stopping greedy right management companies from geolocking content and having content accessible for a limited duration is also not going to happen, is it?

[dylan604]

Don't blame the users, blame the dealers?

[nonethewiser]

>Just to be sure to point out the obvious here, I think the main police effort should be on catching the sources of such material.

Uhhh how about both? It is vital the material be taken down as well.

[izacus]

Sure, but let's prioritize catching actual criminals, right? Somehow US started completely ignoring the actual criminals and demanding platforms to play police and not try to punish the actual sources of lawbreaking.

[nonethewiser]

I think they should catch the criminals as well, like I already clearly stated. They just aren’t mutually exclusive.

[AnthonyMouse]

They are, however, mutually overlapping. If the creators are in prison then they're not distributing any content, nor causing any more to be created which subsequently gets distributed. Which means that 99% of effort should be focused on stopping the creators and censorship is something that you should only do when it isn't a trade off against anything important.

In particular, it means that we don't need prior restraint or intermediary liability. If someone is posting something so bad that it's a crime then it will come out at the poster's trial and their deterrent to posting it is the criminal penalties, not YouTube's account strike random number generator. If something isn't that bad then it doesn't need to be censored whatsoever.

Notice also that the premise that we can actually censor the things you're using as your example is contrary to evidence. What are you going to do about a server in another jurisdiction? Do we need a censorship apparatus which is only effective for suppressing dissenting mass market content while being useless for the thing used as the example to justify its existence?

[throwaway4139]

Enforcement budget is limited. If you have $1, would you rather spend it to fight crime, or to chase whatever gets distributed online?