[mirimir]

I'm not saying that the site can't remove CP. But I was arguing that it's safest to base decisions about removal on input from users and third parties. PhotoDNA etc would also be good resources. The site operator should be responsible for the algorithm, and not for particular outcomes.

[chx]

Safest in what regard? If you argue on Chapter 110 grounds then I will tell you I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that you need to report CP (2258A) but beyond that you are covered (2258B). If you argue on free speech grounds then parent post applies.

[mirimir]

Yes, one would need to take steps to identify CP, and then to report and remove it. But the law is unsettled. It would seem best to be plausibly proactive, and yet to distance oneself from particular choices. But hey, I'm not a lawyer either. Maybe I'm too immersed in the world of VPN services and Tor, where providers avoid case-by-case filtering.