Filters in chat apps against csam = bad

Filters on bitcoin against csam = good

No?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Filters for coffee = good

Filters for chicken noodle soup = bad

Two different subject matters

The subject is csam

I think csam is a direct object, with the subject being filters.

What?! 😃 Human speech, Sir, not coding now.

Filters on coffee against csam = good

Filters in chicken soup against csam = bad

...is the equivalent. The focus is on the on the double standarts.

I'm not talking about code. I'm referring to parts of English (human or otherwise) usage.

https://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/subjects-and-objects.html

Alright, I'm no native speaker, so instead of subject I clarify my statement and modify the term to: topic.

The topic is csam.

To be most precise: the pro-filters argument for both networks is the fight against the spread of csam.

They’re putting csam in coffee now?!? Bastards!

The subject is spam more broadly, ie any unwanted/unsolicited communication to your device. Your messaging app and email provider already have features to prevent strangers from flooding your inbox with garbage. Giving users the ability to abuse the system makes the experience worse for everyone except the spammer.

Filters don’t work. It is what is.

Possibly. But if so, why would they push filters? Don't they know they don't work? Or do they know they don't work and it is about something else?