Comment

Comment on Amazon discovered a 'high volume' of CSAM in its AI training data but isn't saying where it came from

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

source

Sort:hotnew top

lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
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:

Innocent until proven guilty is for a court of law not public opinion

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?)

source
- gustofwind@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  The evidence is circumstantial, but this is in fact evidence
  
  Amazon has access to csam
  
  Bezos has access on his personal laptop to whatever he wants from Amazon
  
  If that’s not good enough for you then you have more faith in his character than I do
  
  source
  - lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    The evidence is circumstantial, but this is in fact evidence
    
    No, not really. “He could do it” is not the same as “he did it”.
    
    If that’s not good enough for you then you have more faith in his character than I do
    
    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.
    
    source
    gustofwind@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    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
    
    source
    -> View More Comments