[0ckpuppet]

who decides what is harmful? That's going to be like letting a Bible thumping Moral Majority zealot decide what's Art and what's pornography.

[idiotsecant]

The courts. Just like if you sue someone for anything else. Demonstrating harm is part of the process.

[vaadu]

The law's definition of harm is massively subjective. It will have judges who think words are violence or make the process the punishment.

This is a law that will be used to censor.

[mikeyouse]

And under which jurisdiction is this going to be prosecuted? So some random Nazi on Twitter makes CSAM of an Irish actress - is Musk going to comply with the subpoena to help the Irish authorities find the user? He’s already said he won’t be punishing users for ‘free speech’ as he defines it.. so then what?

[pjc50]

Note that the bill includes "distributes", so Twitter clearly counts as "distributor".

More interesting question: if the Twitter app is made available through the Apple App store, then would famous Irish-based multinational company Apple be liable as well?

[yxhuvud]

The images would be published by Grok, which is part of Twitter. They are responsible for what they themselves publish. Hence Twitter is the obvious choice of where to direct the subpoena.

[saubeidl]

Then we prosecute Musk.

[lm28469]

Who defines what a crime is anyways right?

[uyzstvqs]

Nudity, including artistic nudity, is in itself the complete opposite of pornography. One is human nature, with art depicting its beauty and purity, while the latter is about the gratification of lust.

As a Christian, pornography is clearly sinful and harmful. But if you wish to use your free will to partake in it, then you do you. Non-consensual pornography (which is what this is about) causes harm to another person, which is why it cannot be tolerated.

This should be obvious IMO.