So they are 100% looking to monetize and turn a profit.

I wouldn't call it shady, but closed source, for-profit sounds accurate.

I don't see how this will ever become a success, not because it's going closed source (people here don't care), or because it might have paid features (people here don't care) in the future, or even ands (people here don't care), but because of the name. Who the hell thought "W Social" was a good name for a company?

We are so bad at company names here in the EU it's embarrassing.

The list of stupid European company names and product names are endless.

What constitutes hate speech is carefully defined in the constitutions of EU countries. Politicians can't just amend or extend the definition at will, except in the UK which has a strange system of laws and not a constitution like you're used to in the USA or in the EU.

In Europe we recognize that Hitler came to power by abusing free speech, which is why using the same rhetoric now can land you in trouble with the law. We also recognize that the pen is mightier than the sword and that unfettered speech can be used to persuade groups of people to use violence against other groups of people.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/93/oj/eng

Let me quote again: Pay attention to c.iv specifically:

(c) ‘child pornography’ means:

(i) any material that visually depicts a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct;

(ii) any depiction of the sexual organs of a child for primarily sexual purposes;

(iii) any material that visually depicts any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct or any depiction of the sexual organs of any person appearing to be a child, for primarily sexual purposes; or

(iv) realistic images of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/sven...

A person who

1. depicts a child in a pornographic image,

2. disseminates, transfers, provides, exhibits, or otherwise makes such an image of a child available to another person,

3. acquires or offers such an image of a child,

4. facilitates contacts between buyers and sellers of such images of children or takes any other similar measure intended to promote trade in such images, or

5. possesses such an image of a child or views such an image to which he or she has gained access

shall be sentenced for a child pornography offense to imprisonment for at most two years.

Then there's Proposition 2009/10:70, which is a clarifying document on how the law should be interpreted:

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/prop...

Let me quote (translated):

"To depict a child in a pornographic image entails the production of such an image of a child. An image can be produced in various ways, e.g., by photographing, filming, or drawing a real child. Through various techniques, more or less artificial images can also be created. For criminal liability, it is not required that the image depicts a real child; images of fictitious children are also covered. New productions can also be created by reproducing or manipulating already existing depictions, for example, by editing film sequences together in a different order or by splicing an image of a child’s head onto an image of another child’s body."

No abuse of a real minor is needed.

The Starship stack? Not so much. It's plagued, and will continue to be plagued, by endless problems. BO will beat them with NG.