veniasilente

How about a guillotine? Those don't seem to require a religious belief, only a modicum of trust in the well-studied force of gravity.

Now that would be the day!

Finally.

Regular English

Any law pregraduate knows those EULAs are not valid in court.

I have an Intel Celeron Mobile laptop with iGPU and, I think, 256MB VRAM. How many bs does that get me for the LLM?

~~Only half-joking. That's my still functional old daily driver now serving as homelab~~

Dragon. I think at that point any message I give him is going to be heard so I'm gonna take my sweet time and once I get a bit more bored I'm gonna fly over the WH roaring "hey Joe, it's genocide!".

, you should take a helicopter view and see that a punch, will lead to counter punches, which will lead to potentially full blown civil war.

You got that wrong. Nazis are already being violent; punching a nazi is not starting violence, it's a defensive measure, it's a response to violence. But sure if your response to violence is "let's sit with the nazis and make a nazi bar" then sure, you do you.

But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don’t take action.

And the action Signal can take is pretty clear: "Okay thanks for reporting, feel free to file a lawsuit against Alice and or Bob instead, have a nice day." Remember: even if Signal had Charlie's credentials to view the chat, unless Charlie is an admin of the chat Signal can't do anything other than log Charlie off the group. Plus each participant still has their own message store. So by this point Signal has complied with the law. It's literally Section 230.

Which one is harder has zero relevance upon how much work Signal has to do to vet the contents transmitted on the channels, which is zero, nil, because they can't. Even if it was Charlie who reported the channel, Signal intentionally has no practical means to verify neither the accused contents nor the authenticity of the report. And this is actually good.

Infrastructure-wise, Signal (mostly) limits itself to only being a carrier. In a just world, a carrier who has been set up to take the limited responsibility of a carrier is not liable for the contents of carried things that are protected so that the carrier can not peek into. Sure, they can be legally pressed to change that and "upgrade" their lawyer plan to "content vetter", but as far as I know that hasn't happened yet.

Maloyse absolutely can:

• eavesdrop above Alice's shoulder
• be an evil, militarily dressed maid on ~~Bob~~ Alice's home
• have remote administrative permissions on Bob's phone
• ("accidentally") get a full-workspace snapshot of Charlie's desktop while he has the group open in Signal Desktop
• Sneak around and check the phone while Alice and Donny are having sex
• Hit Charlie with a $5 wrench

IANAL and all the other anals, but my understanding is Signal wouldn't be liable and wouldn't have to do anything. They designed their service so they can't know the content of the messages, so if a third party Maloyse (see what I'm doing there?) is reporting a message between Alice and Bob that Maloyse thinks to be illegal, Signal would be within legal grounds to bring into question how did M got that message, and it can't be used as proof against Signal because there is no legal mechanism by which Signal could have acquired that message and act upon it - in fact, Signal has grounds to suspect Maloyse is crafting those messages, since neither Alice nor Bob have reported such message.

This post is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Feel free to contact me to negotiate for an alternative license.

Bets are strong such tos are not legally enforceable.