"Estimated value, in its impending IPO? £8bn.
Contribution towards child porn prevention measures? £5,000, and not a penny more."
"Over the past three months, IWF has notified Twitter over 20 times that links to child pornography have been tweeted out using the service."
Ignoring this AVP language for a bit, this does not surprise me a bit.
Having reported to Twitter in the past, I have found their attitude to IIOC totally blasé - no concern whatsoever to my concerns in the past.
"Twitter said: “We are a member of the IWF and plan to continue our membership in 2014. We take this issue extremely seriously and, in addition to affiliations with relevant organisations, we have an internal team committed to child protection and are exploring technology approaches to the problem.”"
Do I believe this for a minute?
Words are one thing, action is another.
IWF do a sterling job in removing IIOC from Online, and any financial requests like this should be accepted and obliged to rid the web of this illegal filth. Whilst other companies like Google, Sky, Virgin Media and Talk Talk have pledged a hell of a lot more, Twitter refuses to increase it's contributions further than a paltry pathetic £5,000.
I will leave you with this reply that I received last year when I reported alleged IIOC, to let you make up your own minds. Remember, IIOC are NOT "free speech", they are illegal and a visual record of child abuse.
We understand that everyone has different levels of sensitivity towards content, and that you may feel uncomfortable with the posted content. However, Twitter provides a communication platform, and users may use our service to discuss controversial subject matter.
If a specific user is posting content that you disagree with or otherwise find offensive, we have provided you with the ability to block the user. For more information on blocking users, see: https://support.twitter.com/entries/117063
Twitter believes strongly in the importance of free speech and works to ensure that such speech is maximized. Limiting speech on Twitter (and other social communication tools) could result in the highly undesirable outcome of speech that is allowed offline being restricted online. We are strongly opposed to this, as this could cause issues with the practical expression of information"