Fappers gonna fap to something. If the rest of us find it innocent, so be it.
The question should always be, "What's the harm of allowing this image to be displayed?"
potential embarrassment of subject
encourages others to think badly of the subject
encourages violence or unfavourable actions or attitudes towards individuals or groups
controversial
graphic depiction of sex act or position or torture or gore that may cause distress to viewers
Followed by "What's the good of allowing this image to be displayed?"
newsworthy
artistic
sentimental value
chronicle of event
instructional
Using these metrics ought to enable any reasonable person to tell the difference between what is or isn't generally acceptable. I know we wouldn't always get it right but that's how I would do it.
This guy is a complete and total loser. I say this because I have known him personally for many years and have witnessed him extort small businesses for a long time. He provoked the Dart officer and he is now getting compensated for it.
Extortion is a crime, as is witnessing a crime and not reporting it. Either prove your allegations or I'll think you're a liar.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Short term thinking begets short term soluti
That's why I'm not keen on revolutions. Those Americans who advocate for violent uprising have never been on the receiving end of a revolution that ended in a reign of terror that lasted for decades as the new ruling elite fought to consolidate their hold on power.
The user alone is responsible for what he or she posts. Stop trying to get us to agree that shaking platforms down for butthurt money is a good thing. It's not.
I've addressed this topic over and over again with regard to my own personal experience. You're just imagining things. My experience was real and I'm still here and still using my real name because I'm telling the truth: it's your own conduct more than what others say about you that affects your reputation.
The lives and businesses destroyed by comments on the internet are in your twisted mind.
RE: that Australian case, the individual's own conduct was the cause of her problems, not Google indexing links to people complaining about it.
Therefore, if you screw up and it ends up going viral online, take this advice. You're welcome.
I see we both thought of that naked girl running from a napalm attack during the Vietnam war. That helped to turn the tide of public opinion against the war and put an end to it.
While I tend to be a bit of a prude I also believe a nuanced approach is better than a blanket ban. CP only exists because some people are evil and like abusing kids because it's more difficult for them to assert themselves. It's a power thing. Bearing that in mind, there's a hell of a difference between a snap of Li'l Danny on the potty (his parents can embarrass him in front of his girlfriend when he's older) and an explicit or suggestive pose.
As some people have correctly pointed out there's a great deal of unwarranted panicking about this instead of careful thought and consideration, not to mention a good dollop of common sense. Blanket bans may be easier as less thought and consideration is required to decide whether it's "good" naked or "bad" naked, but they would, as Scary Devil Monastery pointed out, suppress important news and cultural items. Old Masters paintings featuring Putti (naked baby angels) would be banned too, you know.
It's the subjectiveness that makes moderation so hard. It's not as hard-and-fast as some people seem to think.
Eh, you're misinformed, Bloof. The earliest available writings begin at 30 years after the Crucifixion and are supported by Roman state documents, Josephus, and other Roman writers. There's actually more evidence to support the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar.
AC, real harm is done if someone spreads lies about you on the internet or whatever, and they are considered to be credible and true, resulting in a loss of earnings, etc., when you're fired from your job. Had I been temping and not full-time permanently employed and long out of probation, I'd have been sent home that day. Had my bosses been less friendly towards me, I'd have been subject to disciplinary action, which would have impacted my promotion prospects.
So then, being denied opportunities or being fired would have been a real, actionable harm. Tracking down the troll and holding him responsible would have been an uphill task at best. If, as I suspect, he was not resident in the UK, I'd have had to take my lumps and manage as best I could.
Something similar happened some years before when I was dismissed from a temporary role due to trolls spreading crap about me. Long story short, the agency held up my holiday pay and tried to deny it to me but I took them to a tribunal. A few days before the case was due to be heard I got my money so I cancelled it. That's why I freaked out when it happened again, and the troll contacted my employer directly. I don't like being poor, it sucks.
Despite those experiences I'm in favour of Section 230 protecting platforms from liability as it is the troll alone who is responsible for his conduct, and the troll alone who is liable. What a loser he must be to spend his life looking for people to attempt to ruin!
On the post: Photographer's Bullshit Arrest By A Dallas Transit Cop Nets Him A $345,000 Settlement
Re: Re: I think I might start hanging around cops with a camera.
Methinks that would only work if they were on the hook for the actual bill. As it is, it's We The People who pick up the tab.
On the post: Photographer's Bullshit Arrest By A Dallas Transit Cop Nets Him A $345,000 Settlement
Re: Re: Re: Waste of City Money for a total loser
Fair dues, but I call liar on "John Roberts." Either prove the allegations or get out.
On the post: Attorney General Calls FOIA Requests 'Harassment' During Long Rant About How Much It Sucks To Be Running The Nation
Re:
If Trump collapsed and was lying in a pool of his own pee, I can totally see Barr leaving him there to stew for hours before calling a doctor.
On the post: Attorney General Calls FOIA Requests 'Harassment' During Long Rant About How Much It Sucks To Be Running The Nation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Short term thinking begets short ter
True, but in a society where it ain't a problem till it's my problem, expect no change.
On the post: Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which, as I stated earlier, is the problem.
Fappers gonna fap to something. If the rest of us find it innocent, so be it.
The question should always be, "What's the harm of allowing this image to be displayed?"
Followed by "What's the good of allowing this image to be displayed?"
Using these metrics ought to enable any reasonable person to tell the difference between what is or isn't generally acceptable. I know we wouldn't always get it right but that's how I would do it.
On the post: Photographer's Bullshit Arrest By A Dallas Transit Cop Nets Him A $345,000 Settlement
Re: Waste of City Money for a total loser
This guy is a complete and total loser. I say this because I have known him personally for many years and have witnessed him extort small businesses for a long time. He provoked the Dart officer and he is now getting compensated for it.
Extortion is a crime, as is witnessing a crime and not reporting it. Either prove your allegations or I'll think you're a liar.
On the post: Attorney General Calls FOIA Requests 'Harassment' During Long Rant About How Much It Sucks To Be Running The Nation
Re:
Indeed. One rule for the peasants, another for the masters.
On the post: Attorney General Calls FOIA Requests 'Harassment' During Long Rant About How Much It Sucks To Be Running The Nation
Re:
^This.
On the post: Attorney General Calls FOIA Requests 'Harassment' During Long Rant About How Much It Sucks To Be Running The Nation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Short term thinking begets short term soluti
That's why I'm not keen on revolutions. Those Americans who advocate for violent uprising have never been on the receiving end of a revolution that ended in a reign of terror that lasted for decades as the new ruling elite fought to consolidate their hold on power.
On the post: Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As do I, but where do you draw the line? And how can you do it at scale?
On the post: Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well
Re: Re:
The user alone is responsible for what he or she posts. Stop trying to get us to agree that shaking platforms down for butthurt money is a good thing. It's not.
On the post: Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well
Re:
I've addressed this topic over and over again with regard to my own personal experience. You're just imagining things. My experience was real and I'm still here and still using my real name because I'm telling the truth: it's your own conduct more than what others say about you that affects your reputation.
The lives and businesses destroyed by comments on the internet are in your twisted mind.
RE: that Australian case, the individual's own conduct was the cause of her problems, not Google indexing links to people complaining about it.
Therefore, if you screw up and it ends up going viral online, take this advice. You're welcome.
On the post: Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well
Re: Re: Re:
It's the fapping, both real and imaginary, that's the problem where the censorious are concerned.
I'm sure you're all well aware that the more sexually repressive the population in a given area is, the higher the rate of porn watching taking place.
By that metric, addressing puritanical attitudes would go a long way towards solving the problem.
On the post: Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well
Re: Re: Re:
I see we both thought of that naked girl running from a napalm attack during the Vietnam war. That helped to turn the tide of public opinion against the war and put an end to it.
While I tend to be a bit of a prude I also believe a nuanced approach is better than a blanket ban. CP only exists because some people are evil and like abusing kids because it's more difficult for them to assert themselves. It's a power thing. Bearing that in mind, there's a hell of a difference between a snap of Li'l Danny on the potty (his parents can embarrass him in front of his girlfriend when he's older) and an explicit or suggestive pose.
As some people have correctly pointed out there's a great deal of unwarranted panicking about this instead of careful thought and consideration, not to mention a good dollop of common sense. Blanket bans may be easier as less thought and consideration is required to decide whether it's "good" naked or "bad" naked, but they would, as Scary Devil Monastery pointed out, suppress important news and cultural items. Old Masters paintings featuring Putti (naked baby angels) would be banned too, you know.
It's the subjectiveness that makes moderation so hard. It's not as hard-and-fast as some people seem to think.
On the post: Evangelical 'Financial Whiz' Who Apparently Hates Gossip, Sues YouTuber For Criticism
Re: And the lord did say, 'always make sure to be armed'
Anyone who thinks that pulling a gun is a solution to gossip needs their head read.
On the post: Evangelical 'Financial Whiz' Who Apparently Hates Gossip, Sues YouTuber For Criticism
Re:
Eh, you're misinformed, Bloof. The earliest available writings begin at 30 years after the Crucifixion and are supported by Roman state documents, Josephus, and other Roman writers. There's actually more evidence to support the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar.
On the post: Evangelical 'Financial Whiz' Who Apparently Hates Gossip, Sues YouTuber For Criticism
Re: This lawsuit must be alowed to continue
Which planet is he from?
Given that one's own conduct can completely trash one's reputation, that's either a stupid law or a stupid man.
On the post: Federal Judge Asks DEA To Explain Why All 179 Of Its Stash House Sting Targets Are Minorities
Re:
"I don't see a problem with jailing people for imaginary crimes as long as you jail them proportionally."
Neither do I. Imaginary conviction and imaginary jail time. Sorted!
On the post: Music Collection Org: Revenues Are Booming... And That's Proof Why We Need Even More Draconian Copyright Laws
Re:
Reminds me of Mike's oft-quoted saw: Those who can't innovate litigate.
On the post: Andrew Yang's Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Tech Policy
Re:
All true, Stephen.
AC, real harm is done if someone spreads lies about you on the internet or whatever, and they are considered to be credible and true, resulting in a loss of earnings, etc., when you're fired from your job. Had I been temping and not full-time permanently employed and long out of probation, I'd have been sent home that day. Had my bosses been less friendly towards me, I'd have been subject to disciplinary action, which would have impacted my promotion prospects.
So then, being denied opportunities or being fired would have been a real, actionable harm. Tracking down the troll and holding him responsible would have been an uphill task at best. If, as I suspect, he was not resident in the UK, I'd have had to take my lumps and manage as best I could.
Something similar happened some years before when I was dismissed from a temporary role due to trolls spreading crap about me. Long story short, the agency held up my holiday pay and tried to deny it to me but I took them to a tribunal. A few days before the case was due to be heard I got my money so I cancelled it. That's why I freaked out when it happened again, and the troll contacted my employer directly. I don't like being poor, it sucks.
Despite those experiences I'm in favour of Section 230 protecting platforms from liability as it is the troll alone who is responsible for his conduct, and the troll alone who is liable. What a loser he must be to spend his life looking for people to attempt to ruin!
Next >>