Even if it’s just a recommendation on a different group in which to ask the question, I’m curious how Lemmy combats criminal activity and content like human trafficking, smuggling, terrorism, etc?
Is it just a matter of each node bans users when they identify a crime, and/or problematic nodes are defederated if they tolerate it?
And if defederated, does that mean each node has to individually choose to defederate from the one allowing criminal activity?
Why should Lemmy do that
Well, at minimum, instance operators could find themselves in legal jeopardy if they do not, depending on their local laws.
Many people would also make a moral argument for the enforcement of certain laws, but I infer from your comment that you don’t agree with such ideas.
Laws are often not moral
Regardless of you feel about them, website operators must abide by them in most jurisdictions. And therefore it would be naive for Lemmy’s developers to not at least consider this issue.
There are reporting features. In most jurisdictions, accepting reports and acting on them is plenty sufficient to meet any legal obligations, and many consider scanning every message unnecessarily invasive.
I don’t, and literally everything on here is public, so it’s not identical, but look at the response to Apple’s proposed (otherwise privacy preserving) CSAM scanning on cloud photo backups.
wdym
For example, gun control often takes the form of “making it unreasonably hard for poor people to arm themselves”
Most policies make things unreasonably hard for poor people to do anything.
For a free throw example, because it shouldn’t become a go-to for child pornography.