111–120 of 342 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a stretch to see a direct connection to mental health issues and suicide
It's certainly a stretch to describe that as killing people. You can argue it's a an acceptable stretch, or that it's still very bad even if described more accurately, but it is plainly not what 'killing people' traditionally means
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if one day when people hear "censored internet" the first country that comes to mind will be a western one (probably the UK, but the US is not off the table either) instead of China.
It already does for me because I live here. Keir Starmer is desperately unpopular and yet he wants to suppress why people do hate him. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/27/starmer-leas...
Seems like we just look at all politicians rather unfavourably right now: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53907-political-favou...
I haven't paid a lot of attention to this issue but after reading some of the statements in the article I can't help but agree with Tech Oversight's conclusions. It's just anecdotal but recently, when mindlessly scrolling reels, (yes, bad enough already) I came across a reel that was unquestionably sexually explicit (in USA, I think policy varies on locale). I reported the account and reel because after clicking on t…
* There are literally thousands of IG profiles that are essentially softcore porn which serves as a lead gen device for an OnlyFans account. Meta promotes these profiles to its users heavily because sex sells. Meta profits from the engagement with the profile, OnlyFans profits from signups sent to it by Meta.
* This is one of the primary ways OnlyFans has grown its pornography business to $8B a year
* Once users sign up for OnlyFans a common mode of engagement is that a managerial company lies and pretends to be the porn actress, and texts with the user under fraudulent pretense as the user consumes porn
Now... what was the world like 30 years ago?
* You couldn't buy porn mags without showing ID, Internet porn not really a thing for most people yet
* Even softcore stuff was mostly relegated to late night Cinemax
* Far fewer women had body image disorders and mental health disorders
* Far fewer young men had ED
This stuff is evil, when you connect the dots, it's crime, evil, lies and perversion all lined up to make a small number of companies a staggering amount of money. Somehow government and industry are OK with this, I guess this is the world the Epstein class built for us so no surprise. I am not a religious guy, and I would hardly call myself a prude, but this all exists and is widespread because it enables profit and fraud and exploitation, and I find that disgusting. Zuck's a porn baron. He knows what's going on. The fucker's on the take.
If anything should be in the dictionary next to the word evil, it's the 2026 state of affairs
I haven't paid a lot of attention to this issue but after reading some of the statements in the article I can't help but agree with Tech Oversight's conclusions. It's just anecdotal but recently, when mindlessly scrolling reels, (yes, bad enough already) I came across a reel that was unquestionably sexually explicit (in USA, I think policy varies on locale). I reported the account and reel because after clicking on t…
I know exactly what you’re talking about and it has been driving me nuts for years. They constantly go up there and say “it’s cool we totally have these amazing algorithms that solve the problem,” then when they don’t solve the problem they just shrug and go “well we’re just so big you can’t actually expect us to do what we said we would. We’re doing decent enough!” YouTube is another great example of this. Fine, be…
"oh, we get so much content that we can't possibly review it all" then don't accept anymore content from anyone?
Honestly, the fact that these companies are too big is a big big concern. We should have limited their size long ago and never accepted that bullshit excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the financier's island files gave me a huge dose of this. i always got the feeling that laws don't really matter for truly rich people, now i'm convinced. which means that we need different methods than law to handle such people.
We just need to elect a wave of politicians that will hold the wealthy accountable. That's the single issue we should all be voting on at the moment. Once the lawless are brought to heel, and their wealth kicked out of politics forever, then we can actually start solving the other problems that face us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Black men are usually punished no matter how much money they have. Rich Women have a lower threshold than rich white men, if their crimes hurt or have the potential to hurt rich people. Holmes was punished for defrauding the investors, not the people who took her fake blood tests.
You don't address Epstein or Madoff in your retort.
Still, it's shameful how long all these individuals were able to operate large criminal enterprises in brazen defiance of the law without being called out on it.
If any of these people were scared enough of consequences to put even a little effort into covering their tracks we may never have become aware of their transgressions.
> > The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act Really? Even if we ignore all the implication of censorship and surveillance state, lying to the congress is already a crime. It's already regulated. If he can get away with it why another act would be different?
When was the last time a rich and/or famous person faced actual repercussions for their bad actions? Actions that, would they be comitted by the lower 99,9% of the world, would yield at least a fine that actually hurts, or jail. Serious jail, not "house arrest" in a big mansion. Jail time that actually lasted to the end and was not prematurely lifted after 6 months? When the current systems are failing the solution i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument wasn't "this is okay", the argument was "your past where the liars were punished never was". > Remember when lying could get you in trouble? > It's always been this way, though.
Contempt of court is a thing. Lying under oath is a thing. This did exist. Testifying to Congress under oath, lying did use to have penalties.
I haven't paid a lot of attention to this issue but after reading some of the statements in the article I can't help but agree with Tech Oversight's conclusions. It's just anecdotal but recently, when mindlessly scrolling reels, (yes, bad enough already) I came across a reel that was unquestionably sexually explicit (in USA, I think policy varies on locale). I reported the account and reel because after clicking on t…