← Back to context

Comment by john_strinlai

18 hours ago

>To be explicitly clear, a "neutral infrastructure provider" does not describe A/I so your scenario is hypothetical.

i am replying specifically to your comments about neutral providers (that's why i quoted the part of your comment that i did)

>No, because they actively respond to removal request.

there is still orders of magnitude more conversations going through the providers i mentioned, related to terrorism/csam/etc., which is simply not reported or not known. right now, meta is facilitating significantly more terrorism than a/i.

in any case, this isn't really about terrorism. they've just overused the child-safety angle lately, and needed to drum up some anti-privacy/anti-encryption using the terrorism card.

8 comments

john_strinlai

Reply
nonethewiser  18 hours ago

[flagged]

  • john_strinlai  18 hours ago

    >So no one knows about these conversations but you know there are orders of magnitude more? Walk me through that.

    sure. whatsapp is used by literal billions of people. add in a few more billion people through facebook, instagram, gmail, outlook, amazon.

    would you like me to walk through the statistics calculations? or can you extrapolate from the billions of users? now make a guess how many people a/i has facilitated. a few thousand? a hundred thousand?

    >Even if that were true how would that change anything? They still comply with the US government and their mission statement isn't to empower, protect, support political extremists.

    because it demonstrates that the goal is not to curtail terrorism.