It could be a case of intentional word play but the wording of the article makes it seem like it’s more than just usenet. Specifically the line: “inciting serious sexual abuse of children via a messenger service and producing child pornography content”

It doesn’t read as though it’s simply CSAM traffic through his network and if that were the case, I’d imagine the other 2 would be looking at similar charges, but news media notoriously bad a properly representing tech so that’s what gives me caution.

Yeah, I don’t care if you’re seeding the entirety of film history for free. If you’re also helping distribute child pornography, you deserve to rot.

I do wonder if this is a usenet case though. I know that’s a concern for a lot of people.