№18317136[Quote]
most of them were up for over 5 minutes btw, some up to 10
№18317157[Quote]
>>18317136Why are you expecting jannies to watch over every single thread all day every second? You know they don't get paid anything, right?
№18317163[Quote]
what was this thread?
№18317224[Quote]
>>18317157it's pretty much salt's only regular job to make sure there are mods 'nishing these links quickly
№18317241[Quote]
>>18317224No, salt's job is being a CIA agent,
№18317252[Quote]
>>18317182it ain't even a falseflag they actually just do this geg
№18317260[Quote]
>>18317182Marge I drew on the links BEFORE they were saved
№18317275[Quote]
Why did you screenshot the 'p links
№18317285[Quote]
also meds I'm not a swinny user
№18317287[Quote]
>>18317260this totally makes it better
№18317288[Quote]
>>18317182i feel like cliffcords tactic is to literally post 'p links, then get have a nigga sc it then say
>OMG OMG SWINNY IS SAVING 'P LINKS GUYZZZ №18317314[Quote]
>>18317288the cliffcord is anti-sharty not anti-swinny
№18317315[Quote]
>>18317287yeah it does, the links were never saved any more than them being on the thread
№18317326[Quote]
>>18317315that doesn't change it. my issue isn't that you saved 'p it's that your first instinct when seeing 'p spam isn't to report it, but to screencap it and go "OMG I CAN USE THIS TO METAWHINE ABOUT SALT!!!! BEST OF SALT!!!"
№18317334[Quote]
>>18317132 (OP)18316573 wasnt nsfw, why is it censored, it was straigjt up fanart of aqua from deltatroon
№18317336[Quote]
>>18317326nigga he said they were up for 10 minutes, obviously you have time to screencap it if they are up for that long
№18317354[Quote]
>>18317336even then you're a fucking retard because you don't care that 'p is up, you just see it as an opportunity to epically own da saltists and "prove" he's a pedo because his jannies didn't delete it in 1 second
№18317389[Quote]
hello world
№18317405[Quote]
>>18317389Sup bud pooner here what’s sup
№18317407[Quote]
just leave the soysphere if you aren't a pedophile
№18317413[Quote]
>>18317354>you don't care that 'p is upI made this thread because the links staying up for so long was concerning
№18317421[Quote]
>>18317405i was testing for errors and im also a man not a pooner
>i have a real dick №18317432[Quote]
>>18317413you have to realize that salt doesn't have 800 jannies on standby at all times, he has like 40 and believe it or not they aren't just on 24/7 lurking in every single thread waiting to delete 'p
№18317437[Quote]
why can't you fucking retards just ignore 'p spam literally every other website on the internet ignores it
№18317439[Quote]
>>18317407honestly atp that might be the way
№18317452[Quote]
>>18317437Child pornography is both illegal and wrong. Fuck off.
№18317454[Quote]
>>18317407Are you a pedophile?
№18317455[Quote]
complaining about 'p gets you called a pedo so you might actually need to jsid
№18317461[Quote]
>>18317452this was kinda my thing, if there's gonna be 'p you need to have enough jannies to get rid of it asap
№18317463[Quote]
fyi jsid = just shut it down you are welcome feds
№18317465[Quote]
>>18317452??? when did i say it was okay retard? im obviously against it
№18317470[Quote]
>>18317452I mean yeah sure it’s wrong but you aren’t going to do anything with the power of doctos, you’re just gonna bump the ‘p linked thread so other people can see it
№18317488[Quote]
>>18317478do you know the difference between a drawing and CP
№18317495[Quote]
>>18317488Listen nigger I’m not trying to see traced child pussy on the log, is that too hard to understand
№18317499[Quote]
>>18317182your life serves nothing you have
zero purpose, you should kill yourself
NQW №18317500[Quote]
>>18317465You are an idiot if you think that most websites on the internet ignore CP. They do not. They have entire systems dedicated solely for the purpose of reporting CP to NCMEC. That's the United State's agency that handles it. Other countries have their own agencies that website operators might have to comply with. Operating a website these days is not an easy thing at all. Especially when it has UGC ("User generated content") - You can safely expect that websites that host UGC in the future will have even more regulations that they have to contend with, and it's because of people like you.
№18317511[Quote]
>>18317500yeah but you don't see users reposted censored 'p spam to own the people running the site though. literally only the retards here do that.
№18317522[Quote]
>>18317511also im not talking about moderation, braindead faggot.
№18317533[Quote]
>>18317511Whoever the owner/operator of this website is should communicate with the relevant authority about that problem. Your post is offensive and ought to be illegal in my opinion. If it were up to me, there would be much stricter internet regulations in general. But alas, for right now anyway, Section U.S.C (230)c is still a thing. Maybe that will change in the future, idk.
№18317548[Quote]
>>18317533you completely misunderstood me when i said "ignore". i mean don't reply or acknowledge 'p spam, just report it and move on. the fact you want my post to be fucking illegal because you misinterpreted it is actually insane and im really hoping you're not a janny.
№18317551[Quote]
>>18317511yeah because no one uses any other site that has a 'p issue, they probably would do the same
>to own the people running the siteI can agree the best of salt shit is retarded but it gets reppies, because 'teens are brainrotted
№18317557[Quote]
>>18317548>Two provisions of Section 230 are the primary framework for this immunity. First, Section 230(c)(1) specifies that service providers and users may not "be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., an influential case interpreting this provision, a federal appeals court said that Section 230(c)(1) bars "lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content." Second, Section 230(c)(2) states that service providers and users may not be held liable for voluntarily acting in good faith to restrict access to "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" material. Section 230(c)(2) is thus more limited: it applies only to good-faith takedowns of objectionable material, while courts have interpreted Section 230(c)(1) to apply to both distribution and takedown decisions.
>Section 230 contains statutory exceptions. This federal immunity generally will not apply to suits brought under federal criminal law, intellectual property law, any state law "consistent" with Section 230, certain privacy laws applicable to electronic communications, or certain federal and state laws relating to sex trafficking.
<Government officials and outside commentators have debated the proper scope of Section 230. While the law has a number of defenders, others have argued that courts have interpreted Section 230 immunity too broadly. Recent Congresses have seen a number of bills that would have amended the scope of Section 230 immunity. These proposals ranged from outright repeal, to placing certain conditions on immunity, to creating narrower exceptions allowing certain types of lawsuits. Some bills sought to amend the scope of Section 230(c)(1), limiting "publisher" immunity in an attempt to encourage sites to take down certain types of undesirable content. Others sought to encourage sites to host more content by narrowing immunity for certain types of takedown decisions.
>Proposals to amend Section 230 may raise two distinct types of First Amendment issues. The first issue is whether any given proposal infringes the constitutionally protected speech of either providers or users. This concern may be especially acute if a proposal restricts providers' editorial discretion or creates content- or viewpoint-based distinctions. The second issue is whether, if Section 230 is repealed in whole or in part, the First Amendment may nonetheless prevent private parties or the government from holding providers liable for publishing content. The First Amendment might prevent some claims premised on decisions to host or restrict others' speech, but its protections are likely less extensive than the current scope of Section 230 immunitySOURCE?
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751 №18317563[Quote]
>>18317557okay but what does that have to do with retards replying and reposting censored 'p links though?
№18317581[Quote]
>>18317563Basically imagine if we made it such that websites had more of a direct responsibility for the shit that gets posted on them once a certain threshold of users are met. Idk what that the threshold would be, that'd have to be argued on, but basically website owners could become more responsible for content instead of hiding behind "well the user uploaded the 'p so if you want the info you have to subpoena me first" and it would make arresting people who upload CP much faster. Thoughts on this? Just an open idea.
№18317593[Quote]
>>18317581btw this is the type of shit that actually gets bills passed
№18317596[Quote]
>>183175514chan has a 'p issue. xitter has a 'p issue. youtube has a 'p issue.
4chan has rulecucked itself to the point of being unusable because of its 'p issue, it's the reason for the insanely difficult captchas and 300 second wait timers. the userbase don't talk about it because jannies delete posts giving 'p spammers attention.
most xitter users don't know about the 'p issue because the algorithm makes it so only pedophiles get recommended 'p
youtube's 'p issue is more about people sharing it in comment sections. they disabled comments on every single video featuring a child in response. 'p spammers still share 'p links in random comment sections doe, the nu-UTTP is known to do this.
№18317598[Quote]
>>18317581nah we just need to make it so you have to give your ID for every site you use and so your full name and address are displayed next to every post you make
№18317610[Quote]
>>18317598Nah that's fucking ridiculous and doesn't work. That's the actual orwellian bullshit that people hate. What I outlined is an actual solution. You are being laughed at in capitol hill right now, FYI. You are a fucking joke.
№18317619[Quote]
People want actual solutions to problems, not making shit worse on purpose because you are an evil shithead. FYI. This knowledge will serve you well in life.
№18317627[Quote]
>>18317544I know it gives them attention, but idk it was worth it so 'teens can see and discuss what happened (with the links being up for so long)
№18317636[Quote]
>saving 'p links in you device to own da shartycucks
№18317661[Quote]
>>18317610your solution is also orwellian. what it would mean is that salt would have to turn over the IPs of anyone who doxxes people and sends 'zas because that's harassment, he'd have to turn over the IPs of any user that says something racist or homophobic in a country like germany and the UK, he'd have to turn over the IPs of anyone who criticizes the government in a third world country, or he'd face charges
№18317675[Quote]
regardless of the ethicality of putting screenshots like these into the best of salt shit i still think it's important for people to know there are gaps in the moderation and that the screenshots essentially prove it with how long these links were up…
№18317681[Quote]
>>18317675>there are gaps in the moderationand?
no moderation is going to be perfect nigga, and you can't expect it to be
№18317688[Quote]
the 'p spam WILL subside.
№18317691[Quote]
>>18317681This wouldn't happen is Salt didn't rape the janny system, fire most of them and then not train the new ones
№18317694[Quote]
>>1831768110 minutes is still a fucking disgrace nigga, cord servers have better moderation than this shit
№18317702[Quote]
>>1831769410 minutes is fucking incredible compared to what we had under soot
№18317707[Quote]
>>18317691literally what did he do to the janny system aside from fire some of the quote era jannies?
№18317708[Quote]
>>18317661Yeah. People are tired of being harassed by groups of people like here on the sharty and Kiwi Farms. People have actaully died because of it. It's not Orwellian, you shouldn't be able to dox people and send them pizza with impunity, that's not good for a healthy society. I believe the entire planet should be like Germany and the UK with regard to hate speech laws. Hate speech needs to be banned. It has created an obvious negative effect on the entire globe. Hate speech is not worth the state of the world continuing to get worse. If you so desperately need to be a hateful dick, do it on Tor. I will say that Tor should remain accessible because of things like journalism, freedom of the press, and domestic violence survivors who use Tor to reach out to others. Many women use Tor as victims of domestic violence to get help.
https://blog.torproject.org/ending-domestic-violence-nnedv-and-tor/ №18317715[Quote]
>>18317681most of the 'p spam happens in the big threads, it's pretty easy to just regularly check these threads
№18317718[Quote]
>>18317702in no world a site with over 32.2k daily visits 10 minutes is justified
№18317720[Quote]
>Many people simply assume that the only answer is to disconnect and never go online again. However, often your data is online, even if you are not. Many services, friends, and access to information is increasingly available online only. Disconnecting isn't really an option, especially if you need to find support, shelter, and services to help you. Conversely, if you're a survivor, part of the healing process is to help others. The ability to go online anonymously and join forums, chat, or email with others in a bad place can be the difference between life and death. This is also true for those in law enforcement and support services. They need to share with people, heal and be healed. In many cases, they don't want this associated to anything a search engine, future employer, or current partners will find. They cherish their anonymity.
№18317722[Quote]
>>18317718how do you even know this?
№18317730[Quote]
>>18317722hypestat.com
it tracks website traffic
№18317731[Quote]
>>18317722I strongly believe that powerful people frequent these places and also follow me around.
№18317748[Quote]
>>18317718I've seen 'p spam stay up for hours on 4cuck. it stays up for months on xitter. on porn sites it can stay up for years due to people not knowing the age of the models.
10 minutes is good.
№18317764[Quote]
lys
№18317769[Quote]
>>18317182salt should honestly make it bannable to give attention to 'p spammers because this thread is absolutely only going to encourage them further
№18317781[Quote]
How much of the content that Meta, X, etc. serves is softcore CP? yet they profit off of that massively
№18317794[Quote]
>>18317769salt dodis and add lpa
№18317800[Quote]
>>18317182I geg every time this is posted
№18317832[Quote]
>>18317708actual soyboy posted this