Not really. We were talking about terms of service, and I imagine posting child porn is against the ToS. The system proposed lets the content stay up until an appeal period is over.
Regardless of whether or not cp is against the tos, or there is a legal process in place for takedowns, the law against cp existing will kick in faster as sharing it is a criminal act regardless of why, who, or what posted/hosted it, so it won't stay up. It's a moot point.
The terms of service under discussion are about copyright infringement. The content itself is not illegal, and the dispute is about the rights to post it. Two very different things.
It's not a moot point. Let's say I post child porn on facebook. A cop sees it and I get arrested immediately. Is the post going to magically get taken down? Can cops force me to log into facebook and delete a post? Whatever communication process there is between a cop and facebook, perhaps mediated by a judge, will take some time. In that time, a moderator may have also seen the content, but they aren't allowed to take it down in the proposed system, at least without the appeals going through. The moderator has no idea the person who posted it was arrested - how would they?
And, maybe the child porn isn't actually child porn. Maybe it is totally legal, consenting adults having sex on video, but the adult just looks like a child. Yes, this has actually happened (article in Spanish): https://archive.ph/20140811233956/http://www.eldia.com.ar/ed...
The porn star had to travel to the court to testify that she was 19 during the filming of the scene, otherwise the person may have received 20 years in jail for possessing "child porn". Posting that video on facebook wouldn't be illegal, it would just be against the ToS.
It will be taken down because it's illegal for that content to be posted /at all/.
The proposed system is about who has the rights to post something, and a delay while that's figured out. However /nobody/ has the right to post cp, as it is /always/ illegal.
It is possible for something to mistakenly be identified as CP, so you're right there. I'm arguing based on your original supposition that it /is/ CP.
Also regarding
> I'm responding to this part:
>> First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
Nobody says it has to stay up during the appeals process, just that account suspensions and punishment have to wait. It's possible to have different takedown policies based on the level of accusation.
