Listen bro, you could have avoided this. You should have known that anytime you comment or vote on lemmy you could trigger a sensitive mod’s paranoia and be banned for that.

If you want to participate in Lemmy, you’re going to need to learn to read the room, figure out the single opinion that is being allowed, and stick to it.

It’s better than Reddit here bro, just make sure that you don’t stick out and you won’t be hammered down.

You posted one link. lmao, thinking I’m seeing red yet you start calling people nazi’s because you don’t know how to use a computer.

I haven’t said shit. You are a fucking nazi.

The pinnacle of intelligent discourse.

I think that you’ve lost the plot. That reply doesn’t even make sense in the context of this conversation.

Yes, I read the article that you linked and which is in the OP in which you believe that someone who drugs and rapes people is an ethical person acting legally.

Could you please fly to a different country, retake basic kindergarten to grade 12 education, and then rejoin this conversation once you’ve acquired the skills to make logical and informed arguments. Thanks.

Yea I have zero issue with the fact that accounts with pictures of children’s genitals on them should be referred to the the authorities.

If people want privacy, host the pictures locally.

When you’re storing images with a cloud provider. They become responsible for the images that they store. If it’s a photo of a child’s genitals and that’s illegal for them to have those images on their servers and they need to protect themselves.

Lol

“Do your own research”

Ok Karen sure. It’s up to me to prove other peoples random claims that they make on social media. Um no.

Lol yes I did notice.

“The wrong link”

“There’s one about a Swedish dude”

The gymnastics you’re going through to avoid actually facts is hilarious.

I am so confused. Did you read the article that you posted??? Are you just straight up defending pedophilia and rape?

The Toronto detective alleges that after the alerts were passed to the RCMP and then Toronto police, she looked at three of the images and found they depicted naked prepubescent girls. The images included an explicit sex act and exposed genitals.

depicted who I believe to be David Edward-Ooi Poon without a shirt, taking a selfie of himself while sticking out his tongue over an unconscious adult female," the search-warrant application states. The document goes on to describe the woman in the photo as naked below the waist and wearing a dark-coloured eye mask over her eyes. The detective alleges that that photograph and others she examined appeared to be stored in a folder on the iPhone titled “Girls I Drugged And Raped.”

The images included adult females with breasts and genitals exposed “who appeared to be unconscious,” the ITO says. “The body positioning of the females appeared to be limp and did not significantly change throughout the images taken.” Police allege they found other files on the iPhone that appeared to be “upskirt” images or photographs focusing on the buttocks of females, in folders with names suggesting they were underage girls.

Detectives laid 41 more charges in December including making and possessing child pornography, sexual assault, voyeurism for a sexual purpose and drugging someone to facilitate sexual assault.

Either you can’t read, or you are an incredibly disgusting person.

Great do you have a single example of what you’re claiming, lol. Google turning in a perfectly ethical person for doing something that should be legal and uncontroversial.

You’re moving the goal posts and changing your argument.

Example please

What a dumbass article. It’s way too easy right now to burn a CD, we need another 25 years before were nostalgic about this one.

The reply that you are replying to is so off base I wonder if it’s Google Gemini trying to pretend to be a real user. So confident, so wrong, includes some real facts, but completely misapplies them.

Omg there is always someone bringing up this McDonald’s case every time like they’re slam dunking some new information and not just repeating comments over and over that they read in the last thread.

McDonald’s McDonalds McDonald’s McDonalds McDonald’s McDonalds.

There are hundreds of examples of real frivolous lawsuits being filed in the US. This case did not create a myth about frivolous lawsuits. This was at one time an example of a lawsuit that seemed like it could be frivolous, but later there was media coverage that told the real story. There do exist many examples of real frivolous lawsuits.

McDonald’s McDonalds McDonald’s McDonalds McDonald’s McDonalds.

No one is even making the arguments that you are arguing against other than you…

Calling them “glasses” is such a weasel word. No one cares at all that they are wearing glasses, they are wearing CAMERAS in a place where recording is strictly prohibited.

I sincerely hope that you are going out of your way to troll, and don’t actually have thoughts that are this small and poorly formed.

Check budgetfighterforums.com

Add some zeroes to that

Again, like you said, what is described in the article is a big claim, and it should require a big proof, not some trust-me-bro apple marketing.

Or, they walk in through the back door.

Any iPhone? Almost certainly.

The big claim is that they couldn’t get into the reporter’s iPhone. You are right to demand proof before believing something so obviously made up.