311–320 of 953 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Collective Shout, which organized this, claims to be an Australian feminist organization. (Admittedly, this may be an act.)
> laims to be an Australian feminist organization I'm genuinely curious to see how this plays out in the American partisan landscape.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really disagree with you, but to play devil's advocate - when you see something that you think is harmful to society, what determines whether or not it's moral and appropriate to advocate for and work towards its abolition in what you see as the best interest of everyone? Is "Don't like X? Don't buy it" as far as we should go with... AI-produced child porn? Rolling coal and other egregious pollution? Online g…
> when you see something that you think is harmful to society, what determines whether or not it's moral and appropriate to advocate for and work towards its abolition Evidence. If you think something is harmful to society, you have a hypothesis. The next step is to test it. Not assume it's true and ban everything. I have seen zero evidence that any of these games are harmful. If I had to hazard a guess, and this is…
If cigarette was banned from the beginning, we would still see people getting mad without much evidence.
The truth is the evidence is coming half a century after when everyone got cancer.
Precautionary principle should always prevail.
That's why we just don't go full GMO, and you would still not wait for any proof that "it's harmless".
You also don't use a random pesticide, unless you have a full proof that's it's harmless.
Additionally, without cigarette, without GMO and without pesticide humanity would still be fine, and maybe better without (if we stick with the cigarette).
TL;DR: You actually need a proof, but it's a proof that it's harmless and not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This amuses me, as my wife deals with trauma from childhood abuse, and she absolutely loved that game.
Much like some people with drug addictions love Disco Elysium, specifically because of the authenticity it has regarding substance abuse.
My pro-fascist brother-in-law with massive social anxiety hated it for some reason..
This is an opportunity for an entrepreneur to create a censorship-resistant platform, though, I don't know how you do it profitably when CSAM and other potentially criminal content needs to be reviewed.
Oh be realistic. Hosting smut isn't exactly respectable at this day and age. Your choice for sponsors dwindles to illegal gambling sites and shady dating sites who scrape monthly fees from lonely men. Maybe an MLM scheme if you are lucky.
And yes, you need a lot of private capital to pull this off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if they aren’t being pressured directly to remove the content. The problem is that they aren't being told "we won't let people buy this through us", they're told "this needs to go entirely or no more credit cards for you".
Fair enough - so in reality they _are_ being pressured directly to remove the content and it has nothing to do with selling the products. A slippery slope indeed!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when you see something that you think is harmful to society, what determines whether or not it's moral and appropriate to advocate for and work towards its abolition Evidence. If you think something is harmful to society, you have a hypothesis. The next step is to test it. Not assume it's true and ban everything. I have seen zero evidence that any of these games are harmful. If I had to hazard a guess, and this is…
This is not the correct way. If cigarette was banned from the beginning, we would still see people getting mad without much evidence. The truth is the evidence is coming half a century after when everyone got cancer. Precautionary principle should always prevail. That's why we just don't go full GMO, and you would still not wait for any proof that "it's harmless". You also don't use a random pesticide, unless you hav…
Yes. Then the evidence was suppressed for decades more. We have no analogy here.
> Precautionary principle should always prevail
Why? Why assume the status quo is perfect? Also, what part of pornography isn't embedded into the human status quo?
> don't use a random pesticide, unless you have a full proof that's it's harmless
There is no such thing as "full proof."
> without cigarette, without GMO and without pesticide humanity would still be fine, and maybe better without (if we stick with the cigarette)
Now do vaccines, antibiotics, filtered water, the agricultural revolution and every other life-saving invention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the Steam removals came up on HN, several people linked the list of games pulled. It looked more like they were targeting incest games (which is a genre I didn’t know existed) rather than the generic “porn games” that keeps showing up in headlines. There could be more developments or a different story for Itch.io, but last time this story was circulating it appeared that journalists were avoiding talking about s…
Those games are legal, also in some USA states you canmary your cousin so why the fuck don\t this puritans do not go for incest inreal life first then handle virtual stuff.
Which makes sense - you have buyers and sellers who insist on anonymity, services that leave no trace once rendered, buyers and sellers lying to family and friends about what they're doing, etc.
There's often no "normal" amount of consumption, for example, some sellers receive million dollar tips.
Money laundering is a massive problem, and it enables some really terrible things.
I suspect the fact that American banks are so anti-porn comes from the fact that the American financial sector has such strong anti-money laundering regs (as opposed to, say, the American real estate sector, or the UK financial sector).
One of the reasons OF is doing well is because they insist on following know your customer laws. Not many porn platforms could function that way.
Visa and MasterCard are in the business of making money, they're not doing this for fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>whether or not it's moral and appropriate to advocate for and work towards its abolition in what you see as the best interest of everyone? That lines creates justification for anything and even everyone to be banned, sadly. >Is "Don't like X? Don't buy it" as far as we should go with... AI-produced child porn? My line is "is there a victim harmed with the action". Shooting a gun? Yes, someone is often harmed and kil…
The problem with simulated CSAM is that there is a risk that the viewer develops a fetish for such repulsive practices. It has then destructive consequences for the viewer and, should he try to perform it, his victims. Either way, I don't see the harm of forbidding it. The web doesn't lack regular pornography alternatives, free or paid.
This seems to suggest that broad sexual preferences are remarkably stable.