I just navigated to dreamwidth.org/latest and got a seriously NSFW picture. I assume this is not normal?
It's certainly unusual.
But I very rarely go to "latest". I tend to read "friends" or a subset thereof.
Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
181–190 of 196 posts
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're definitely right -- this is an issue. I could very well believe that we tripped some FB spam measures. We have a very manual anti-spam process right now that relies on humans to detect it and action it. We have a couple of very dedicated folks who end up looking every few hours, but it's not automated, and we don't have full timezone coverage. It's definitely something I'd like to see us improve, but we've bee…
The simplest spam filtering algorithm would be a naive bayes filter. It's essentially keep a count of words that appear in all posts, words that appear in spam posts, and words in non spam posts. Those counts + bayes rule will let you figure out the probability of spam given a word. It's called naive bayes because you assume each word in your post is independent of the others so probability the whole post is spam is…
I used SpamBayes a few years ago http://www.spambayes.org/ (Is the project dead now?) (It has a PSF licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_Software_Foundation_Lic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...)
The nice part is that SpamBayes gives you two numbers, the spam "probability" and the ham "probability". When one of them is very close to 1 (like > .99) and the other is very close to 0 (like <.01), there is a good chance that the message is really spam or ham. And this classify almost all the messages. But from time to time you get a message where the numbers are not so clear, or both are big or both are small, and this means the classifier is confused and you really must take a look at the message.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malware and childporn reduction efforts also often go after the hosts of that content. I'm not sure why calling the folks hosting this stuff what it is incorrect. Sure, childporn folks don't actually necessarily "send" child porn, they just respond to requests from viewers. But they host it. These scam sites are like that - do you really think you can make $30,000 a week working 30 minutes a day from your home comput…
You're just listing the earlier stops on the slippery slope. Make hosts responsible for policing information when it's viscerally-revolting child porn. Then make hosts police content when it's directly harmful to people's computers. Then make hosts police content when it's an attempt to scam. There's already a call to control political information when it has harmful effects on society. Next up is "your website was b…
I'm explaining why sites that HOST but do not necessarily send content are blocked.
I've got no problem with their operation, but YOU are going down a VERY dangerous and slippery slope by saying I can't block domains that clearly host trash because they might host something else.
On my network I can block child porn, malware sites, scam sites and even entertainment sites like youtube. If you are running a service that mixes the content together, then you may be blocked by folks (like me) who don't have time to chase down every (free) subdomain you allow scammers to create.
That is my right. Period. Full stop. That is not censorship.
Folks here get censorship confused. The govt does virtually nothing to stop these scam sites - so they are certainly not being censored. I'm fine if govt does nothing, as long as communities of people can block these places.
And yes, if you run a site on the internet and don't make it slightly difficult for scammers to use your site to host crap, then other folks in the neighborhood will move the heck away from you.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're just listing the earlier stops on the slippery slope. Make hosts responsible for policing information when it's viscerally-revolting child porn. Then make hosts police content when it's directly harmful to people's computers. Then make hosts police content when it's an attempt to scam. There's already a call to control political information when it has harmful effects on society. Next up is "your website was b…
I'm explaining why sites that HOST but do not necessarily send content are blocked. I've got no problem with their operation, but YOU are going down a VERY dangerous and slippery slope by saying I can't block domains that clearly host trash because they might host something else. On my network I can block child porn, malware sites, scam sites and even entertainment sites like youtube. If you are running a service tha…
> Folks here get censorship confused. The govt does virtually nothing to stop these scam sites - so they are certainly not being censored
It seems like you're getting confused on what censorship is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship . Censorship can be done by the government, and it also can be done by sufficiently powerful private entities.
Also, nowhere have I argued that anyone shouldn't block whatever they'd like on their personal infrastructure. Although if you do it to your kids, then you are indeed censoring.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enforcement offline is hard to scale and limited even for china. You don’t have to tell 1 billion people in China not to say F%%% China”. You just punish a few and the rest fall in line. Once you punish a few, the rest self censor.
Imagine if Facebook or Google started doing this. "Oh, you're friends with someone who says X? Welp, you must be a Bad User and your posts will receive a lot less visibility and the validation that you desire. But if you were to stop interacting with your Bad Friend, you could become a Good User again." And oops, "Bad Friend" no longer gets invited to real-life parties because most people still consider FB the most c…
It already does work like this with Facebook and Twitter controlling which posts are displayed for you.
The enforcement works better when you aren’t aware of it. Being covert means you don’t protest so loudly.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#186I just navigated to dreamwidth.org/latest and got a seriously NSFW picture. I assume this is not normal?
Dream width is where people go to post stuff that isn’t allowed elsewhere.
So while explicit imagery is not the norm, nor is it normative, it’s not unusual and is to be expected.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but Facebook or Twitter are not publishers, they are platforms. You can sue your local newspaper if it publishes defamatory information, but you can't sue Facebook and other online services on these grounds because they enjoy Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; see [1] for a good explanation. [1] https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...
Publisher vs. Platform is irrelevant. You can sue anyone for any reason. Facebook and other online services enjoy broad immunity from civil suits IF AND ONLY IF they make a good faith effort to remove defamatory content. I understand why conservative bigots are obsessed with Section 230: its repeal is being used as a threat against platforms that remove bigoted content. Conservative bigots know that Section 230 means…
You seem to really like the word "bigot". Section 230 [1] is much more than "literally two sentences" and related to the current subject it clearly states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Hence the argument that Twitter removes user content because this is what publishers do doesn't apply: Twitter is not a publisher of this content. It does have some moderation rights, but the list of moderation reasons is limited and cannot be extended at will by Twitter policy; see III.A in [2].
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=149134315940390...
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest spam filtering algorithm would be a naive bayes filter. It's essentially keep a count of words that appear in all posts, words that appear in spam posts, and words in non spam posts. Those counts + bayes rule will let you figure out the probability of spam given a word. It's called naive bayes because you assume each word in your post is independent of the others so probability the whole post is spam is…
I used SpamBayes a few years ago http://www.spambayes.org/ (Is the project dead now?) (It has a PSF licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_Software_Foundation_Lic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... ) The nice part is that SpamBayes gives you two numbers, the spam "probability" and the ham "probability". When one of them is very close to 1 (like > .99) and the other is very close…
Wow when this came out (I think this was the ‘original’) it felt quite ground breaking. Perhaps early 2000s it was?
Then google started doing that or something similar at scale and effectively eliminated spam in my mailbox ever since. (With the curious recent exception of some highly similar bitcoins spams)
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a significant amount of research showing that pedophiles viewing simulated pornography has adverse effects, including but not limited to increasing their appetite for consuming more of it.
Would you care to point to any of this research? Specifically the link between viewing simulated pornography and appetite for consuming real-world material, or abusing children. Further, is there any evidence that the majority of people who read simulated depictions (like underage Harry Potter fanfic) are pedophiles? Does the link similarly exist for other forms of pornography? How does fanfiction or erotica compare…
I had access to all of this type of research when I was a public defender, but I haven't been a PD in years.
I would suggest going to your local university library and looking it up there as access to most of these studies will require expensive journal subscriptions.
For your second question: there is a fair amount of research into the effects of visual and audiovisual stimuli on pedophiles and other sex offenders. This research was and AFAIK still is the basis for indefinite confinement of sex offenders generally and pedophiles specifically.
For your third question: there is some research on textual material, specifically as it relates to pedophiles, showing that it does stimulate demand but to a far lesser extent than visual, audio, or audiovisual media. AFAIK, nobody has researched the effects of Harry Potter porn.
For your final point: there is research showing that non-realistic visual media (i.e., manga) can, like textual material, stimulate demand, but to a far lesser extent than action or simulated visual images.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you care to point to any of this research? Specifically the link between viewing simulated pornography and appetite for consuming real-world material, or abusing children. Further, is there any evidence that the majority of people who read simulated depictions (like underage Harry Potter fanfic) are pedophiles? Does the link similarly exist for other forms of pornography? How does fanfiction or erotica compare…
I had access to all of this type of research when I was a public defender, but I haven't been a PD in years. I would suggest going to your local university library and looking it up there as access to most of these studies will require expensive journal subscriptions. For your second question: there is a fair amount of research into the effects of visual and audiovisual stimuli on pedophiles and other sex offenders.…
>For your second question: there is a fair amount of research into the effects of visual and audiovisual stimuli on pedophiles and other sex offenders.
I'm more just curious because I haven't seen anything (other than from the authors I've cited) on the effects of fictional (and in particular highly stylized) material on regular people, or even pedophiles specifically. Gary Young's book on The Gamer's Dilemma from 2010 or so also concludes there is no evidence for fictional material having these effects.
What do you mean by "stimulate demand"? For example, it would not surprise me at all that pedophiles find certain depictions arousing, but that still wouldn't be any reason to illegalize it, unless we are to go about banning everything that pedophiles also find arousing (which is a bridge I suspect many would not want to cross). Of course pedophiles are aroused, but are non-pedophilic individuals also aroused? The study on Japanese fans of lolicon manga does not so neatly indicate pedophilia as an appropriate category for their attractions, nor does it explain why they are so defensive against real depictions.
With fictional material, from what I can gather, there's something else at play which does not fit into the commonly held notion that fiction is always (or even most of the time) a substitute for the real deal.
To my mind, the difficult questions are: if the material is arousing to pedophiles, what does that arousal indicate in the risk of an offence (obtaining real CP or otherwise)? Do the effects persist? What is the persistent effect post-orgasm? Are stylized or fictional depicitions sufficient to arouse an interest in the real thing? Is it appropriate or desirable to prosecute or produce policy based on the tastes of pedophiles, especially given that the majority or a high percentage of CSA crimes are not perpetrated by pedophiles?
I've tried quite hard to find material on specifically lolicon manga or fanfiction, and a study among either pedophiles or others. If it does exist, I'd be very interested to see it, and I would have expected it to crop up in the arguments I've had so far. Especially, a study among those who are not already convicted for a crime (contact offence or otherwise). Those results would only, at best, tell us about criminals, and pedophile criminals with NC/C offences are almost reputable for showing lower impulse control.
To put it another way: access to regular porn may inflame the desires of a rapist, and they may even make him more likely to committ an offence; is this sufficient to illegalize porn for everybody? Alcohol may have the same effect, and the question still applies.