The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said it received more than 1 million reports of AI-related child sexual abuse material in 2025, with “the vast majority” stemming from Amazon.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said it received more than 1 million reports of AI-related child sexual abuse material in 2025, with “the vast majority” stemming from Amazon.
Bezos laptop. If I’m wrong he can prove it
We usually have “innocent until proven guilty”, not the other way around. He’s already guilty of being a billionaire, no need to add charges unnecessarily.
Innocent until proven guilty is for a court of law not public opinion
“Innocent until proved guilty” is also a rather important moral principle, because it prevents witch hunts.
Plus we don’t even need to claim he got CSAM in his laptop — the fact that he leads a company covering child abusers is more than enough.
Witch hunts? I think you are misguided here
It’s a completely reasonable belief given everything we know about him that he has access to and consumes csam if he so desires.
That is a reasonable belief based on his actions and character but not provable court.
The real legal principle you’re looking for here is defamation and even then it doesn’t protect him because it’s totally reasonable to conclude he does such a thing
About principles:
I am talking about presumption of innocence = innocent until proved guilty. Not defamation. More specifically, I’m contradicting what you said in the other comment:
If presumption of innocence is also a moral principle, it should also matter for the public opinion. The public (everyone, including you and me) should not accuse anyone based on assumptions, “trust me”, or similar; we should only do it when there’s some evidence backing it up.
Not even if the target was Hitler. Because, even if the target is filth incarnated, that principle is still damn important.
Now, specifically about Bezos:
I am not aware of evidence that would back up the claim that Bezos has CSAM in his personal laptop. If you have it, please, share it. Because it’s yet another thing to accuse that disgusting filth of. (Besides, you know… being a psychopathic money hoarder, practically a slaver, and his company shielding child abusers?)
EDIT: let me guess. Epstein files?
The evidence is circumstantial, but this is in fact evidence
If that’s not good enough for you then you have more faith in his character than I do
No, not really. “He could do it” is not the same as “he did it”.
That would be the case if I said “he didn’t do it”. However that is not what I’m saying, what I’m saying is more like “dunno”.
…I edited the earlier comment mentioning the Epstein files. There might be some actual evidence there.
This is literally what circumstantial evidence is
You’re asking for direct evidence but both are evidence one is just much stronger than the other
Im satisfied with circumstantial evidence here to a mere preponderance. A criminal court allows circumstantial or direct evidence but it must prove the thing beyond a reasonable doubt in America.
I’m not a court I can freely accept circumstantial evidence and make a conclusion that isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt