Low End Derrick

Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
16,382
Reputation
5,495
Daps
71,575
1690466510687-gettyimages-1258889035.jpeg


Elon Musk reinstated a QAnon-promoting far-right Twitter account that posted child abuse imagery, even though his company’s policy explicitly says that’s not allowed.


On Wednesday, Musk tweeted that the company would reinstate the account of the notorious far-right troll known as “Dom Lucre.” Lucre’s account was banned on Wednesday after he had posted child exploitation images four days previously.

“For now, we will delete those posts and reinstate the account,” Musk tweeted in response to another account questioning why Twitter had deleted the account.

3eJyrVipQslJQysxNTE8t1i8w1EvPTFPSUVBKBImWl5frlWUmp+ol5+eCBEtBgr6picWlRam6xiCRciUrDFWZQDEDsBkpZUVANlQDSKQ4syoVKGJYYahUCwB4dSMD


“I’m told that this account was suspended for posting child exploitation pictures associated with the criminal conviction of an Australian man in the Philippines,” Musk tweeted.

The offending post referenced an assistant to Peter Scully, the Australian man who was sentenced last year to 129 years in prison for sexually abusing children as young as 18 months.

Along with the link to an article about the assistant, the account posted two screenshots from a video Scully created on the dark web, which Lucre said showed a “one-year-old named Daisy.”

On Wednesday, four days after the images were posted, Musk claimed that “only people on our [child sexual exploitation] team have seen those pictures.”

However researchers on Twitter quickly debunked Musk’s claims: Given how long the photos remained on the site, and given how many people reported them, it seems Twitter’s CSE team are not the only people who have seen them. Several screenshots of responses to the post also show that many of the account’s followers did in fact see the images in question.

One researcher posted a screenshot of the tweet’s statistics on July 25, three days after it had been shared. The tweet had racked up over 3.1 million views, almost 17,000 likes and over 8,000 retweets.





Lucre is the online personality of Dominick McGee, who claims to be a musician, veteran, philanthropist, and political commentator. However, just like the conspiracy theories he shares on his Twitter account, most of McGee’s claims about himself have been shown to be false.

3eJyrVipQslJQysxNTE8t1i8w1EvPTFPSUVBKBImWl5frlWUmp+ol5+eCBEtBgr6picWlRam6JiCRciUrDFWZQDEDsBkpZUVANlQDSKQ4syoVKGJYYahUCwB4tSME


Over the last 12 months McGee’s social media accounts have shared a torrent of conspiracy theories on topics as diverse as COVID-19, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ukraine.

Such activity has seen McGee’s account thrive on Musk’s Twitter. He currently has over 580,000 followers and is subscribed to Twitter Blue, meaning his posts are further promoted in other people’s feeds.

Additionally, McGee’s account is part of Twitter’s ad share revenue scheme, meaning he receives a cut of the ads shown next to his tweets.










6345bf5e39a9f1001232a864

 

The Plug

plug couldnt trust you now u cant trust the plug
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,642
Reputation
761
Daps
17,542
That guy was a c00n
 

Ricky Fontaine

Superstar
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
6,850
Reputation
3,986
Daps
44,918
Can someone explain WHAT exactly did that account post? Surely he's not letting someone on Twitter who posts ACTUAL CP... right?
 

Kings County

Law III | Law XXV | Law XV
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
32,126
Reputation
2,055
Daps
62,481
Reppin
The Roman Empire
I’m trying to figure out when will apple bush Twitter off the App Store.. That’s the only way to fukk Elon ass up for good
wont work in the long run
twitter will sue... end up in the conservative packed supreme court and end up winning
and prolly get damages for lost revenue
 

Day_Walker

All Star
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
3,551
Reputation
829
Daps
10,360
Reppin
NULL
wont work in the long run
twitter will sue... end up in the conservative packed supreme court and end up winning
and prolly get damages for lost revenue
What will they sue for. Apple app store or Google play store should have discretion to choose what apps they allow on there platform with zero explanation needed.
I'm genuinely curious as that's how I think it should work but could be wrong.
 

Kings County

Law III | Law XXV | Law XV
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
32,126
Reputation
2,055
Daps
62,481
Reppin
The Roman Empire
What will they sue for. Apple app store or Google play store should have discretion to choose what apps they allow on there platform with zero explanation needed.
I'm genuinely curious as that's how I think it should work but could be wrong.
lol companies that operate in the us cant do whatever the fukk they want
or they'd just do everything to their advantage
apple been sued plenty of times for doing bullshyt like making your phones shytter with every update so u get a new one
they have to abide by consumer guidelines
if not private comapnies would act fukking crazy like china
15 hour workdays for 20 cents an hour type shyt
 

Pull Up the Roots

I have a good time when I go out of my mind..
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
21,183
Reputation
7,097
Daps
89,640
Reppin
Detroit
The hell is childsex abuse imagery? Lemme see

Child sexual abuse material is a result of children being groomed, coerced, and exploited by their abusers, and is a form of child sexual abuse. But using the term ‘child pornography’ implies it is a sub-category of legally acceptable pornography, rather than a form of child abuse and a crime.

In the UK it is legal to have, sell or share adult pornography with other adults (providing the pornography does not fall under the category of extreme).3 By contrast, it’s always illegal to take, make, distribute, or possess an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child under the age of 18.4 Child sexual abuse materials are serious criminal offences against children, and not spelling that out only trivialises the crimes.

Referring to child sexual abuse materials as pornography puts the focus on how the materials are used, as opposed to the impact they have on children. Changing our language to talk about child sexual abuse materials leads everyone to face up to the impact on children and recognise the abuse.

In short, using the term ‘child pornography’ minimises the harm experienced by children, which research shows is both long-lasting and devastating. Children who have been abused in this way may grow up with feelings of shame, guilt, humiliation, and fear that abuse materials may resurface in future, giving them no sense of closure for the crimes committed against them.5

And, as child sexual abuse material can remain online indefinitely, children continue to be re-victimised each time it is viewed, shared, or downloaded. Having no control over where the material ends up can be particularly damaging for children and young people.
 
Top