No, because content like CSAM will immediately switch channels and you cannot really ban encryption.

The exception is human trafficking and it isn't a crime done by common criminals or lone offenders, it is done by organized criminal gangs in a large scale that can be targeted individually.

I have no obligation to make any suggestion for not wanting my chats surveilled for that matter.

We increased surveillance for decades. And none of this surveillance had any measurable impact on safety. It is just a short sighted proposal and nothing more. We know where and when kids get abused. The abused is almost always in their vicinity. Internet chat surveillance does not help at all.

Not only did the treaty get rejected by some states that were allowed to vote on it, the fact that it is too far removed from citizens and their inadequate participation. In fact I would argue the treaty made it even more undemocratic. The influence of Kutcher compared to European individuals is not the only empirical evidence for that.

The parliamentary control is minimal and there is little overarching political discourse beyond the borders of the nation state. Language barriers are strong and that won't change in the foreseeable future. Until then the commission will run the circus.

It probably depends on the user base of the platform, but I believe it could be one of the worst jobs in the world. If you like the community and content, great, but the usual employed moderators on large social media platforms probably need regular therapy to distance themselves from all the crap they have to read every day. There is a huge difference if you have to read it because it is your job and when you do it on your own because you are hungry for something tasteless and when you can just leave a spicy reply.

Perhaps they believe the product would be cheaper with abdicating the feature?

If management cannot define a sensible output at the end of a work shift, they seem to be overtaxed with their responsibility.

I wish they would name the large retailer. This is valuable information for workers to be informed. It is no libel in this case.

Sure, they may log your IP and your ISP could connect the dots, but it still provides privacy.

Yes, there are scammers and bots and a e-commerce platform would need to evaluate identities for transactional purposes. But to discuss ideas? Please more anonymity.

There is a large group of people that is more interested in other people instead of ideas and to evaluate anything they need to check their trust in the person uttering it. I think they simply need different platforms.

Otherwise I 100% agree, there are good behaving anonymous platforms but I don't know if Twitter ever can become one. I would never register with my real name though.

Not being tolerant here is a pretty clear sign of close mindedness in reality or just a hint of lacking life experience.

Someone who does care for social justice might have difficulties to support Elon Musks power over social media. Not him specifically perhaps, but Billionaires who are indeed pretty safe from politically motivated fallout. But on the other hand it is also kind of self defense at this point to not let people with worse ideas take such positions.

Political action is shaping my environment to my desire. Via compromise or war perhaps. What is your definition of it that it applies to everything?