• Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    The difference between the two is that, while the browser can be used to access child porn, X actively generated the porn.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The browser can access X & any website. Isn’t material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?

      • Sunflier@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        The browser can access X & any website.

        A browser doesn’t activately generate it. X did.

        Isn’t material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?

        They’re both equally as bad because they result in the same things: production and advancement of child porn.

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there’s a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.

          Pulling the X-only client while keeping the everything including X client doesn’t seem to accomplish anything. Neither client is actively generating anything: it’s server side. Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.

          • Sunflier@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there’s a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.

            Both equally propegate child sex abuse, and I’m sure the kids these deep fakes are on might agree with me. In both topics, a kid is getting exploited for sexual material.

            Neither client is actively generating anything: it’s server side

            Oh, so the generating and/or distributing technology of the child porn is in the possession, custody, and control of X? Seems to make my point: X generated and/or distributed the child porn. On top of that, it made revenue off it from the ads that supported the active distributed of said child porn. Whose paying the electricity bill as an expense to profit on the child porn? X.

            Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.

            My point, going back to my origional supposition, is that it is absurd to blame Mozilla (or the like) for the nefarious uses of all its users when they merely are a tool through which the web is accessed, and they don’t make a profit directly from whatever material is accessed.