• FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Yeah, but that doesn’t answer the question.

    The best way to stop censorship is to make it impossible. So, if censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?

    • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      If it’s impossible to censor people, you would hardly have a strong prosecution arguing you should have done something impossible.

      • FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        That’s a good point.

        Prosecution might then assert that it was your responsibility to employ a system that DID allow for censorship. But I hate that one.

        Another option would be to refer the offender to the LEOs. Just shift responsibility. Heck, it could be said that you’re doing the LEOs a service. I like that one.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Dude I legitimately can’t follow what you’re trying to say or accomplish here. You’re not giving us any context and now you’re putting forth some argument as if it’s been the point the whole time, but it’s the first you’ve made it. Can you just explain what you’re on about? Clearly you’re trying to litigate something that happened.