> 50% of known CP is hosted in Netherlands.
Does that mean “CP is hosted disproportionately in the Netherlands” or “CP hosted in the Netherlands is disproportionately likely to be discovered”?
This statistic is according to the British Internet Watch Foundation.
Uncovering sources of CP is done pretty much equally for all countries considering the nature of the distribution of content and how it is uncovered and traced back.
Here's an article describing the procedure and how the statistic was calculated: https://www.tellerreport.com/life/--why-is-there-so-much-chi...
> If the companies that give IP Volume access to the rest of the internet were all to decide to stop doing so, the company could no longer operate on the internet. This is called de-peering, and it does occur very sporadically.
> But it is highly controversial, says Guilmette. It flies in the face of the voluntary, decentralised structure of the internet. That is why the largest hub, the Amsterdam Internet Exchange, say they won’t do it. A spokesman for the exchange: „We are only a highway, we have nothing to do with the content. You surely can’t expect us to paternalistically review what such a party is hosting?”
It's like youtube saying that they're simply "a highway" for video hosting. If it's moving through your platform, you have to be aware of what it is. There are police monitoring highways, there is extensive monitoring on youtube, so why is AIM pretending that the same rules don't apply?