

Tbf statistical calculations put grooming on discord in the higher percentages unfortunately.
That said I don’t get what their endgame is. Blanket ID verifications will clearly eat into their bottom line, making it unsustainable. Either there’s some limits on it that I’m not aware of or they just budget in a huge decrease in margins.
I just don’t get the logic of “we do it to fight grooming”, because it just doesn’t make sense timing wise, but “we do it because UK and Australia are making us do it anyway” also doesn’t pan out because I just cannot imagine the predicted results look manageable.
The results are kinda obvious regardless. Losing their core audience and subsequently twisting their bottom line, just like Facebook.








Iirc it’s even funnier: the relevant case law comes from Naruto v Slater. A case about a monkey taking a selfie and a photographer failing to acquire copyright of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute).
The copyright belonged to whoever shot the selfie, but because it was the monkey and animals aren’t juristic entities, they can not hold copyright. Therefore, as it stands and as new case law outlines, AIs are compared to monkeys, in that the copyright would fall onto them but it’s not a juristic entities either, and therefore copyright just vanishes and no one can claim it.
The wikipedia page suggests current cases on generative AI directly build on this.