6 ms·

hi hello yes i was told these databases were only going to be used for Stopping The Terrorists™, Saving The Children™, and/or Stopping The Spread™ a bunch of s

by cm42 4y ago

hi hello yes i was told these databases were only going to be used for Stopping The Terrorists™, Saving The Children™, and/or Stopping The Spread™ a bunch of surveillance state simps in a comments section called me naïve and said it's against the law to use a product in a manner other than directed, so this could never possibly happen nobody ever could have predicted this [specific series of events and actors] i guess this is what they mean by a black swan event v strange. such tragic. statue of liberty weeping again

seibelj 4y ago
- cm42 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 4y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jt2190 4y ago
> … these databases… Can you clarify? From the article it sounds like this is some kind of “blacklist” database (sort of like a “known spammers” list) that is somehow is used in the industry to deny traffic to certain domains. Is it a government database? Edit: It sounds like these databases are owned/maintained by Meta: > If anything, plaintiffs allege that these John Does went rogue by manipulating and corrupting automated processes and databases that Meta had established for purposes of combating terrorism, deploying those methods to attack competitors of an adult-entertainment company, and then ‘attempt[ing] to cover their tracks’ to ensure Meta could not learn of their aberrant behavior,” Meta’s motion says. Meta further argued that, even if true, any decisions to penalize OnlyFans’ competitors would have been protected by the company’s First Amendment rights, and the limited liability protections offered by Section 320 of the Communications Decency Act
- perihelions 4y ago
  It's GIFCT [0], a database of perceptual content hashes shared between FAANG's for cooperative moderation. It's largely a response to FAANG's PR crisis after several of the live-streaming terrorists. It's a self-regulating industry group and not administered by any government. (Also misspelled "JFCT" in some of the court transcripts from this case). [0] https://gifct.org/explainers/ https://gifct.org/explainers/ ("Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism")
  - jt2190 4y ago
    Fascinating. Thanks for sharing the link.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by cm42 4y ago

seibelj 4y ago

cm42 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 4y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jt2190 4y ago

> … these databases… Can you clarify? From the article it sounds like this is some kind of “blacklist” database (sort of like a “known spammers” list) that is somehow is used in the industry to deny traffic to certain domains. Is it a government database? Edit: It sounds like these databases are owned/maintained by Meta: > If anything, plaintiffs allege that these John Does went rogue by manipulating and corrupting automated processes and databases that Meta had established for purposes of combating terrorism, deploying those methods to attack competitors of an adult-entertainment company, and then ‘attempt[ing] to cover their tracks’ to ensure Meta could not learn of their aberrant behavior,” Meta’s motion says. Meta further argued that, even if true, any decisions to penalize OnlyFans’ competitors would have been protected by the company’s First Amendment rights, and the limited liability protections offered by Section 320 of the Communications Decency Act

perihelions 4y ago
It's GIFCT [0], a database of perceptual content hashes shared between FAANG's for cooperative moderation. It's largely a response to FAANG's PR crisis after several of the live-streaming terrorists. It's a self-regulating industry group and not administered by any government. (Also misspelled "JFCT" in some of the court transcripts from this case). [0] https://gifct.org/explainers/ https://gifct.org/explainers/ ("Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism")
- jt2190 4y ago
  Fascinating. Thanks for sharing the link.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]