621
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney argues banning Twitter over its ability to AI-generate pornographic images of minors is just 'gatekeepers' attempting to 'censor all of their political opponents' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/games@sh.itjust.works
213 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 150 points 9 months ago (35 children)

If you can be effectively censored by the banning of a site flooded with CSAM, that's very much your problem and nobody else's.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
    •
  • [+] -45 points 9 months ago (34 children)

    Nothing made-up is CSAM. That is the entire point of the term "CSAM."

    It's like calling a horror movie murder.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
    •
  • [–] 42 points 9 months ago (19 children)

    It's too hard to tell real CSAM from AI-generated CSAM. Safest to treat it all as CSAM.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    I get this and I don't disagree, but I also hate that AI fully brought back thought crimes as a thing.

    I don't have a better approach or idea, but I really don't like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime. I've also seen a lot of positive sentiment at applying this to other forms of porn as well, ones less universally hated.

    Not supporting this use case at all and on balance I think this is the best option we have, but I do think thought crimes as a concept are just as concerning, especially given the current political climate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

    Sure, i think it's weird to really care about loli or furry or any other niche the way a lot of people do around here, but ai generating material of actual children (and unwilling people besides) is actually harmful. If they can't have effective safeguards against that harm it makes sense to restrict it legally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Making porn of actual people without their consent regardless of age is not a thought crime. For children, that's obviously fucked up. For adults it's directly impacting their reputation. It's not a victimless crime.

    But generating images of adults that don't exist? Or even clearly drawn images that aren't even realistic? I've seen a lot of people (from both sides of the political spectrum) advocate that these should be illegal if the content is what they consider icky.

    Like let's take bestiality for example. Obviously gross and definitely illegal in real life. But should a cartoon drawing of the act really be illegal? No one was abused. No reputation was damaged. No illegal act took place. It was simply someone's fucked up fantasy. Yet lots of people want to make that into a thought crime.

    I've always thought that if there isn't speech out there that makes you feel icky or gross then you don't really have free speech at all. The way you keep free speech as a right necessarily requires you to sometimes fight for the right of others to say or draw or write stuff that you vehemently disagree with, but recognize as not actually causing harm to a real person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Drawings are one conversation I won't get into.

    GenAI is vastly different though. Those are known to sometimes regurgitate people or things from their dataset, (mostly) unaltered. Like how you can get Copilot to spit out valid secrets that people accidentally committed by typing NPM_KEY=. You can't have any guarantee that if you ask it to generate a picture of a person, that person does not actually exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Totally fair stance to take. I'm 100% on board with extra restrictions and scrutiny over anything that is photo realistic.

    To me, those aren't necessarily victimless crimes, even if the person doesn't actually exist, because they poison the well with realistic looking fakes. That is actively harmful to others, so is not a victimless crime. Instead it becomes just another form of misinformation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (4 children)

    Making porn of actual people without their consent regardless of age is not a thought crime. For children, that's obviously fucked up. For adults it's directly impacting their reputation. It's not a victimless crime.

    That is also drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colours, and an example of "free speech" that you don't think should be absolute.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (3 children)

    Yes sorry. My original statement was too vague. I was talking specifically about scenarios where there is no victim and the action was just a drawing/story/etc.

    I'm not a free speech absolutist. I think that lacks nuance. There are valid reasons to restrict certain forms of speech. But I do think the concept is core to a healthy democracy and society and should be fiercely protected.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    The issue with child porn is how you specify victim. One could argue easily available pornographic images of fake children increases the market and desire for pornographic images of real children and as such can result in more victims. Especially if someone can argue that images of real victims are "fake and AI generated."

    In regards to X and Grok however, my understanding is it is taking images of real children and producing naked images of those children. So there are real victims and Tim Sweeny is saying that shouldn't be censored.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    One could argue easily available pornographic images of fake children increases the market and desire for pornographic images of real children and as such can result in more victims

    Not speaking to any realistic images (which, if nothing else, make it harder for real investigations into child abuse to happen), only cartoon drawings and the like, but it's hard for me to separate this logic from all of the calls about video game violence.

    That moves things into 'pre crime' territory. "We're going to jail you for having fake drawn images because we think those will cause you to commit a real crime in the future". That's also extremely problematic and has been rightly criticized when it's used to censor violent games, movies and music.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Okay, but the original post is how Grok is taking pictures of children and removing their clothes. That's not cartoons and not fictional people, so I don't know why the conversation is being shifted this far away from the actual issue at hand here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I really don’t like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime

    I'm sorry to break it to you, but this has been illegal for a long time and it doesn't need to have anything to do with CSAM.

    For instance, drawing certain copyrighted material in certain contexts can be illegal.

    To go even further, numbers and maths can be illegal in the right circumstances. For instance, it may be illegal where you live to break the encryption of a certain file, depending on the file and encryption in question (e.g. DRM on copyrighted material). "Breaking the encryption of a file" essentially translates to "doing maths on a number" when you boil it down. That's how you can end up with the concept of illegal numbers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    To further clarify it's specifically around thought crimes in scenarios where there is no victim being harmed.

    If I'm distributing copyrighted content, that's harming the copyright holder.

    I don't actually agree with breaking DRM being illegal either, but at least in that case, doing so is supposedly harming the copyright holder because presumably you might then distribute it, or you didn't purchase a second copy in the format you wanted or whatever. There's a 'victim' that's being harmed.

    Doodling a dirty picture of a totally original character doing something obscene harms absolutely no one. No one was abused. No reputation (other than my own) was harmed. If I share that picture with other consenting adults in a safe fashion, again no one was harmed or had anything done to them that they didn't agree to.

    It's totally ridiculous to outlaw that. It's punishing someone for having a fantasy or thought that you don't agree with and ruining their life. And that's an extremely easy path to expand into other thoughts you don't like as well. And then we're back to stuff like sodomy laws and the like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    You can insist every frame of Bart Simspon's dick in The Simpsons Movie should be as illegal as photographic evidence of child rape, but that does not make them the same thing. The entire point of the term CSAM is that it's the actual real evidence of child rape. It is nonsensical to use the term for any other purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    The *entire point* of the term CSAM is that it's the actual real evidence of child rape.

    You are completely wrong.

    https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abuse-material/what-is-csam/

    “CSAM (“see-sam”) refers to any visual content—photos, videos, livestreams, or AI-generated images—that shows a child being sexually abused or exploited.”

    “Any content that sexualizes or exploits a child for the viewer’s benefit” <- AI goes here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    RAINN has completely lost the plot by conflating the explicit term for Literal Photographic Evidence Of An Event Where A Child Was Raped with made-up bullshit.

    We will inevitably develop some other term like LPEOAEWACWR, and confused idiots will inevitably misuse that to refer to drawings, and it will be the exact same shit I'm complaining about right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Child pornography (CP), also known as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and by more informal terms such as kiddie porn, is erotic material that involves or depicts persons under the designated age of majority.
    [...]
    Laws regarding child pornography generally include sexual images involving prepubescents, pubescent, or post-pubescent minors and computer-generated images that appear to involve them.
    (Emphasis mine)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago

    The Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN) defines child sexual abuse material (CSAM) as "evidence of child sexual abuse" that "includes both real and synthetic content

    Were you too busy fapping to read the article?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    AI CSAM was generated from real CSAM

    AI being able to accurately undress kids is a real issue in multiple ways

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    AI can draw Shrek on the moon.

    Do you think it needed real images of that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (9 children)

    It used real images of shrek and the moon to do that. It didnt "invent" or "imagine" either.

    The child porn it's generating is based on literal child porn, if not itself just actual child porn.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

    You think these billion-dollar companies keep hyper-illegal images around, just to train their hideously expensive models to do the things they do not want those models to do?

    Like combining unrelated concepts isn't the whole fucking point?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    No, I think these billion dollar companies are incredibly sloppy about curating the content they steal to train their systems on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    True enough - but fortunately, there's approximately zero such images readily-available on public websites, for obvious reasons. There certainly is not some well-labeled training set on par with all the images of Shrek.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Yes and they've been proven to do so. Meta (Facebook) recently made the news for pirating a bunch of ebooks to train its AI.

    Anna's Archive, a site associated with training AI, recently scraped some 99.9% of Spotify songs. They say at some point they will make torrents so the common people can download it, but for now they're using it to teach AI to copy music. (Note: Spotify uses lower quality than other music currently available, so AA will offer nothing new if/when they ever do release these torrents.)

    So, yes, that is exactly what they're doing. They are training their models on all the data, not just all the legal data.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    It's big fucking news when those datasets contain, like, three JPEGs. Because even one such JPEG is an event where the FBI shows up and blasts the entire hard drive into shrapnel.

    Y'all insisting there's gotta be some clearly-labeled archive with a shitload of the most illegal images imaginable, in order for the robot that combines concepts to combine the concept of "child" and the concept of "naked," are not taking yourselves seriously. You're just shuffling cards to bolster a kneejerk feeling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It literally can't combine unrelated concepts though. Not too long ago there was the issue where one (Dall-E?) couldn't make a picture of a full glass of wine because every glass of wine it had been trained on was half full, because that's generally how we prefer to photograph wine. It has no concept of "full" the way actual intelligences do, so it couldn't connect the dots. It had to be trained on actual full glasses of wine to gain the ability to produce them itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    And you think it's short on images of fully naked women?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 234 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    TIL Tim Sweeny is into child porn. Not surprising tbh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 38 points 9 months ago

    I wonder which AI companies he’s invested in

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 37 points 9 months ago (34 children)

    inb4 "In a stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that AI-generated CSAM is constitutionally protected speech"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 34 child comments
    •
  • [+] -21 points 9 months ago (33 children)

    There is no such thing as generated CSAM, because the term exists specifically to distinguish anything made-up from photographic evidence of child rape. This term was already developed to stop people from lumping together Simpsons rule 34 with the kind of images you report to the FBI. Please do not make us choose yet another label, which you would also dilute.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago* (28 children)

    Generating images of a minor can certainly fulfill the definition of CSAM. It’s a child, It’s sexual, It’s abusive, It’s material. It’s CSAM dude.

    These are the images you report to the FBI. Your narrow definition is not the definition. We don’t need to make a separate term because it still impacts the minor even if it’s fake. I say this as a somewhat annoying prescriptivist pedant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 9 months ago (27 children)

    There cannot be material from the sexual abuse of a child if that sexual abuse did not fucking happen. The term does not mean 'shit what looks like it could be from the abuse of some child I guess.' It means, state's evidence of actual crimes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (15 children)

    It is sexual abuse even by your definition if photos of real children get sexualised by AI and land on xitter. And afaik know that is what's happened. These kids did not consent to have their likeness sexualised.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 9 months ago* (14 children)

    Nothing done to your likeness is a thing that happened to you.

    Do you people not understand reality is different from fiction?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    My likeness posted for the world to see in a way i did not consent to is a thing done to me

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Your likeness depicted on the moon does not mean you went to the moon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

    Your likebess modified naked being fucked, printed out and stapled to a tree in your neighborhood is ok then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    A threat of murder is a crime without being the same thing as murder.

    Meditate on this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    And abuse is a different word than rape. Maybe meditate on that

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    And what if neither happened?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Dude, you're just wrong. There seems to be a huge disconnect with you between what the law is. And what you want the law to be.

    You are not allowed to take an image of someone, photoshop them naked, and distributed it. Period.

    You are also not allowed to depict child sexual abuse. It doesn't matter if it's not real. It's the depiction of CSA taking place that is illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Depictions could somehow be twice as illegal as the real event, and they still wouldn't be the same thing. It literally did not take place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    The nonconsentual sexualised depiction is in and of itself abuse. Get that through your skull, you dense motherfucker. Revenge porn is abuse not necessarily because what it depicts is an act of abuse, but because the material itself is distributed in a manner that violates the consent of the person(s) depicted. Similarly, editing a child's likeness into a pornographic context is CSAM. Making a machine do likewise is CSAM.
    Doubling down this hard to say this isn't actually abuse is a really bad look for you and atp I'm convinced that you're a total creep. I'm sure others are, too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Deepfakes are illegal. You're defending deepfake cp now?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Threats are a crime, but they're a different crime than the act itself.

    Everyone piling on understands that it's kinda fuckin' important to distinguish this crime, specifically, because it's the worst thing imaginable. They just also want to use the same word for shit that did not happen. Both things can be super fucking illegal - but they will never be the same thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    CSAM is abusive material of a sexual nature of a child. Generated or real, both fit this definition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    CSAM is material.... from the sexual abuse... of a child.

    Fiction does not count.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago* (7 children)

    You’re the only one using that definition. There is no stipulation that it’s from something that happened.

    Where is your definition coming from?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    My definition is from what words mean.

    We need a term to specifically refer to actual photographs of actual child abuse. What the fuck are we supposed to call that, such that schmucks won't use the same label to refer to drawings?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

    I already did the “what words mean” thing earlier.

    -involves a child
    -is sexual
    -is abusive (here’s your Simpsons exclusion, btw)
    -is material

    That’s literally every word of CSAM, and it fits.

    We need a term to specifically refer to actual photographs of actual child abuse

    Why? You’ve made a whole lot of claims it should be your way but you’ve provided no sources nor any justification as to why we need to delineate between real and AI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Are you honestly asking me why child molestation is worse than rendering an image?

    This term was already developed to distinguish evidence of criminal events. I should fucking hope everyone here understands why preventing or punishing such events is a leading goal, but apparently that's asking too much, if y'all really do not believe there's a difference between pasting someone's head onto a magazine centerfold... versus sexually assaulting them. I am fucking bewildered by this lack of consensus on the topic of child rape. Really thought it was a gimme, for everyone to go, yeah, this thing over here is bad, but obviously it's not as bad as child rape.

    Didn't expect to fire up the computer and have Lemmings sincerely ask me, why are crimes that happened worse than crimes that didn't?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Man, your reading comprehension is really shit. You could have just stopped after the first question. Yet again you’re making an assumption about the purpose of the term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    I'm making an explicit argument about the purpose of the term, as a necessary component of dealing with some of the worst crimes imaginable. I didn't figure I'd ever have to explain to someone why abusing a human child is fundamentally different from and worse than drawing on top of a fuckin' JPEG.

    If y'all manage to stomp the meaning out of "CSAM," the same way y'did for "CP," we're gonna be right back here, where there's some bespoke term for the visual evidence of actual assault that physically occurred, yet people insist that a fictional rendering is-too VEOAATPO.

    Diluting the impact of these terms is antithetical to protecting children. That stupid Horses game had people lobbing the term "CSAM" at it... for a game you can buy on GOG. If you can casually say "I bought some CSAM at Walmart the other day," then the term's not doing its fucking job, describing the kind of imagery you go straight to jail for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I didn't figure I'd ever have to explain to someone why abusing a human child is fundamentally different from and worse than drawing on top of a fuckin' JPEG.

    Holy shit. You don’t. Stop inventing arguments and read what the fuck I’m writing. Answer those questions.

    What advantage does having unique terms for real and AI content confer? Answer in one sentence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Dude, just stop jerking off to kids whether they’re cartoons or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

    Did Covid-19 make everyone lose their minds? This isn't about corporate folks being cruel or egotistical. This is just a stupid thing to say. Has the world lost the concept of PR??? Genuinely defending 𝕏 in the year 2026... for Deepfake porn including of minors!!???? From the Fortnite company guy???

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Trump has shown these oligarchs that they don't have to pretend to not be arrogant oligarchs anymore. They can speak their minds without suffering any kind of repercussion or censure for their insane narcissistic greed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 32 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Imagine where Epic would be if they had just censored Tim Sweeney’s Twitter account.

    It’s like he’s hell bent on driving people away from Epic. I’m not sure I could be more abrasive if I tried, without losing the plausible deniability of not trying to troll.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 86 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I'll keep in mind Tim think child porn is just politics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago

    It is when one side of the political palette is "against" it but keeps supporting people who think CSAM is a-okay, while the other side finds it abhorrent regardless who's pushing it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 75 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Literally this meme again

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • [–] 51 points 9 months ago

    His opinion is as trash as his gaming storefront that insists its a platform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 93 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Yet another CEO who's super into child porn huh?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 64 points 9 months ago

    Somebody is in a certain set of files

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 17 points 9 months ago

    Not in the least surprised by this bag of slimy cocks

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 17 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Guy atomically made of shit takes has another shit take, colour me surprised.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I think it's more a:
    "Guy who enjoys making child porn on xhitter gets angry when decent people want to ban it."
    type situation.

    If I see someone arguing for something then that's because they want it. Or want to use it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    1 comment in c/fark@ibbit.at view that post