That's a great moment to start a company whose only focus is blackmail erotica authors into giving them money
Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#992Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually a pretty sound framework and I mostly agree. Usually it's justifiable to intervene when somebody is harming someone else and not before. I think it's a bit oversimplified, though. Do you think it might contribute to the incel epidemic and the associated violence? In that sense one could make a similar line of argument to that of the temperance movement's talk of alcohol contributing to wife-beating (…
> Do you think it might contribute to the incel epidemic and the associated violence? No actually I don't, not at all. I blame the patriachy and feminism for the creation of incels. Not in the sense that feminism is bad, but the contrary. What I mean is, incels have always existed. However, our tolerance for widespread misbehavior of men has grown thinner over the last 70 years. When I was in college, it was typical…
> Men have been, understandably, slow to evolve.
It's true, and for all the reasons you list, men are in fact genetically inferior.
At this point all male babies should be aborted or otherwise discarded at birth. Babies born with two X chromosomes can simply transition into the gender identity role of "man" during puberty, if they so choose.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#993Earlier quoted context omitted.
The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.
While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.
A society doesn't decide and can't decide, society is an abstraction. People have different morals, and they decide. The only thing that "putting it in the hands of society" is to put it in the hands of a small group of people who will force others to comply.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#994Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worry that young people across the political spectrum increasingly no longer see free speech as a foundational value. Both sides pay lip service and deploy it strategically but are quick to sacrifice it when it conflicts with other values and goals. The ACLU won our expansive free speech protections defending the KKK in the 1950s. But today, the ACLU has become short-sighted. They are more concerned with social pro…
>They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy That's absolutely not true In 2017 they filed a lawsuit defending conservative / far-right Milo Yiannopoulos [1] and spoke up for suppression of Trump [2]. Defended someone wishing death to gay people [3]. Filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA's free speech in '18 [4] And tons of other examples every single year after…
You're citing ACLU's PR and one source from a progressive site, most of which is pre-2019. Meanwhile, recent articles say things like this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnn...
There's a lot more where that came from but I don't need to lie by citation. The reality, as the electorate saw it, was that most liberal organizations in the 2020's suffered from mission creep. Planned Parenthood went on record supporting defunding the police, the Sierra Club redefined environmentalism as antiracism(?) etc
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#995Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you think it might contribute to the incel epidemic and the associated violence? No actually I don't, not at all. I blame the patriachy and feminism for the creation of incels. Not in the sense that feminism is bad, but the contrary. What I mean is, incels have always existed. However, our tolerance for widespread misbehavior of men has grown thinner over the last 70 years. When I was in college, it was typical…
> Men have been, understandably, slow to evolve. It's true, and for all the reasons you list, men are in fact genetically inferior. At this point all male babies should be aborted or otherwise discarded at birth. Babies born with two X chromosomes can simply transition into the gender identity role of "man" during puberty, if they so choose.
Bio-essentialism is an inherently patriarchal belief. I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but no - obviously men are not born evil. They're socialized in such a way that sets them up for failure, and they have to actively work to overcome this. Those that don't, fail.
For the record, I'm a man. If you want to argue against the things I say then actually address the things I say, instead of some obviously hyperbolic strawman.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#996Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's about stopping some of the addiction and damaging effects I used to think this was a valid point, but I read something that changed my opinion completely. Pornhub, plus other large sites, have a lot of attention on them. They're a long way from perfect but they do self police, probably far more than anyone here knows, because they don't want to get banned. If you get rid of them, you're boosting smaller and fa…
I don't really believe it. It's the big sites that have the monetary backing to employ the dark algorithmic patterns and monetization schemes. I don't really see much of an issue with the content of the porn if that's what you mean by nastier sites. To me it's more like if you ban cigarettes and now kids are all buying black market cigarettes without nicotine.
Pornhub has banned many videos already. It forbids and deletes any amateur video not posted by the original author (to prevent revenge porn, non-consensual porn, repost of videos since deleted by the author, etc.) and also forbids certain keywords related to non-consensual porn like rape, sleep.
Mindgeek (company owning Pornhub and many other porn websites) are by no mean a company respecting sex workers as good as they should but they are putting an effort to stop nasty shit from their websites if only not to be banned.
So I would agree that Mindgeek websites are better than others. Not good enough but better.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#997Why can’t we just have a meta tag that declares that content on a website is not suitable for minors? Or is it because, as others have mentioned, it’s not really about protecting minors from adult content?
Because then: whose computer is it? If it's my computer, it does my bidding. If a child is currently on the computer, should the computer decide and refuse to work as in "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" where the operator (Dave) is deemed a threat to its objective? In this case, the computer's programmed goal would be preventing any minor from seeing content with this tag. It has to decide if you're a min…
You could configure the user account to show tagged content or not.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#998Loophole to the Tennessee law: a disclaimer at the top of the site that the following is for scientific and educational purposes only. Problem solved.
“When taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#999Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Men have been, understandably, slow to evolve. It's true, and for all the reasons you list, men are in fact genetically inferior. At this point all male babies should be aborted or otherwise discarded at birth. Babies born with two X chromosomes can simply transition into the gender identity role of "man" during puberty, if they so choose.
Bio-essentialism is an inherently patriarchal belief. I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but no - obviously men are not born evil. They're socialized in such a way that sets them up for failure, and they have to actively work to overcome this. Those that don't, fail. For the record, I'm a man. If you want to argue against the things I say then actually address the things I say, instead of some obviously hyperbolic stra…
> They're socialized in such a way that sets them up for failure, and they have to actively work to overcome this. Those that don't, fail.
I can unquestionably see what you are talking about with respect to white culture, but it's literally racist for you to presume that all other cultures (e.g. Asian cultures) socialize all of their men to be evil.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#1000Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can’t configure content filters and dns servers then what right do you have to be a parent. You shouldn’t be a parent if you can’t enforce a mobile device policy better than an average Fortune 500 corporation.
Just to double check, this is a joke right? Because you suggested upthread (if I'm reading the sarcasm right) that consumption must be curtailed, but clearly this comment about not having a right to be a non-tech-savvy parent is a joke...or?!
It’s definitely sarcasm, expecting the average parent to administer their home network and outmaneuver adult website operators is unreasonable.
Plus comparing how to parent in the days when the only internet access point was a desktop computer in the living room vs now when everyone has multiple hand held devices is not helpful.