>>8607
>Nobody knows its the name of an obscure loli game
Bad world model, bad advice.
If you're just worried about your ISP, sure, but an ISP wouldn't give a crap unless they have law or stakeholders breathing down their neck.
If law or some intrest group cared about this shit, they'd be collecting hashes with the offending material, and you downloading the hash lands you on a list.
Then, the law will go after you if they think they can prove something. That last conditional is the important thing. If they drag you to court and there's no more evidence than "well the IP was in the DHT..." They'd just be risking the cards they're holding. (You did shut the fuck up until you talked to a lawyer.)
If it's just a stakeholder complaint, you might get your service suspended, but again, if they think you may fight it in court, they won't move.
>>8855
>The only two other things you get in trouble for on the internet [...]
Are the things for which the burden of proof is extremely low.
>Not uploading too much. Preferably not all.
Yes, but not because they don't mind poorfags. Uploading legally turns you into a distributer of the offending content, which again, is easier to argue in court.
>>9202
True for copyright issues, but the situation around indecency is different in many places.
Just ask: Is there any group - including police - dedicated to fighting this material? Do they care enough to collect a simple list of hashes and spin up an easy microservice that tracks who has it? Can they give you a hard time if they build up enough evidence?
>>9382
He's telling you to collect the same security postage stamps that he did.
You can't tell someone to 'use program x to be safe', because there's a million other ways you could be leaking intel. Opsec means identifying where you leak intel, and assesing the risk.