Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+436|2533
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opin … cking.html

NYT story about a girl whose videos as a minor showed made it onto PornHub and keeps getting reuploaded. Apparently this is common. Pornhub and other streaming sites have an issue with revenge and child porn. Reddit has a major issue with this that goes unreported and unaddressed for some reason. I am not a part of this problem on reddit by the way. I don't moderate any amateur porn subs.

The piece of shit in the White House has made a big issue out of a part of some internet communications law that gives immunity to internet service providers and platforms for what people post on them because he wants to to censor people pointing out that he deserve to burn in hell for all of eternity for his sins. People on both sides of the aisle are now taking a look at this law in order to scrub whatever they don't like from the internet. Liberals want to get rid of QAnon, racism, sexism, criticism of them in any form, and porn they don't like.  Conservatives want to get rid of LGBT, BLM, criticism of them in any form, and porn they don't like.

I think this is a terrible idea by the way. It would make places like bf2s liable for stuff we post here and spaces like this would no longer exist. It would mean more heavy handed and slower moderation on most other platforms and sites assuming they don't just decide to strip the ability to interact with others from their users. And I think liberals who want to push this are especially foolish since this would definitely be used to crush liberal advocacy groups more so than conservative groups.

I could be wrong about this though. I might only be interested in protecting my hundreds of thousands of porn subscribers and the ability to watch people get maimed and killed on the internet. So what do you think?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,871|5585|USA

This article makes a good point about pornhub putting on a positive public face on top of wads of cash made from shady vids. But shutting down sites like pornhub, facebook, twitter, google, your creepy subreddit, etc. won't stop child porn from existing on the internet. These sites should be viewed as a treasure trove of missing/exploited persons investigation. Find the people uploading this crap, and if it's within the jurisdiction of a government who cares, ask them to Take a Seat Over There.

At the very least I don't think that article extended to worries about censorship of qanon, racism, sexism, lgbt, blm, or criticism of a political party? The only search results for "law" came in the word "lawyer." And I don't think there's a whole lot Trump can do as president now aside from agitate and shuffle. I'm sure he'll be thumbing out a billion tweets a day in 2021, but how much scrutiny does he really want to draw towards the shady underbelly of international perverts?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+436|2533

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

At the very least I don't think that article extended to worries about censorship of qanon, racism, sexism, lgbt, blm, or criticism of a political party? The only search results for "law" came in the word "lawyer." And I don't think there's a whole lot Trump can do as president now aside from agitate and shuffle. I'm sure he'll be thumbing out a billion tweets a day in 2021, but how much scrutiny does he really want to draw towards the shady underbelly of international perverts?
I am not sure how closely you have been following the section 230 debate. Basically it is part of a law that protects internet sites from liability stemming from what people upload to them. Republicans want it repealed because they feel Facebook, Twitter, and other mainstream social media sites are censoring conservative speech. Trump has made section 230 a major issue of his. He wants it repealed.

The debate around section 230 is interesting since it is now a culture war issue. Conservatives want it repealed to spite internet companies and probably young people, internet people etc. Same with the TikTok ban. Liberals recognize there is a major issue with social networks not better policing themselves but since Trump made it his pet issue a lot of people are questioning whether the law is in their best interest since Trump and the GOP go out of his way to hurt democrats and cannot be trusted.

The interesting reason I bring this topic up again is because PornHub just took probably the majority of their content offline once credit card companies started investigating how PornHub is operating.
Mastercard, one of the world's biggest payment providers, pulled support for the site last week over the scandal.

A New York Times report had accused the site of being "infested" with child-abuse and rape-related videos.

Pornhub says its new measures are now more strict than any social media platform.

The move means that only videos uploaded by verified content partners and people featured in the videos, who are members of its model programme, remain online.

Most of the site's content was uploaded by unverified community members. Millions of videos have been removed from view as a result of the new policy.

Pornhub also claims it is being targeted by organisations that want to abolish pornography, rather than being assessed on its merits.
Other thoughts: I do think PornHub needs to do more to abolish bad porn on their networks. They aren't entitled to a credit card processing service either.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,871|5585|USA

Republicans wanting to control the internet really is cutting off their nose to spite their face.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+436|2533
Is it okay for internet companies to ban QAnon and other far right people from their platforms? Legally they are in the right. But some people are making the argument that internet companies shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose who they want to silence. Personally, I feel that this debate is an example of media people over exaggerating the importance of their field.
uziq
Member
+383|2265
the far-right and libertarians are complaining that *checks notes* private companies choose to ban them from their privately owned platform, when they are repeatedly in breach of said platforms' Terms of Service?

let me get my handkerchief. this is too awful, weep.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+436|2533
Yeah suddenly they discover that there are public goods that corporations shouldn't be the gate keepers of. The thing that made them discover this was stupid internet bullshit though.
uziq
Member
+383|2265
it is more complicated than my flippant post made out, you're right.

the thing is, though, weighing the balance here, in terms of avoirdupois, the tech companies have facilitated and done more to ghettoize people into populist, extremist, paranoiac, etc. echo-chambers than they've ever done to 'police discourse' or 'infringe free speech'. we are at the absolutely lamentable place we find ourselves almost solely because of the tech companies' inaction. 1984 and 'woke police' this decidedly is fucking not. if it was, this populist-demagogue, truth-denying mould would have been cleaned up in 2011.

Last edited by uziq (2021-01-12 08:02:45)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,871|5585|USA

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Yeah suddenly they discover that there are public goods that corporations shouldn't be the gate keepers of. The thing that made them discover this was stupid internet bullshit though.
Corporations should probably not be the gatekeepers of essential things like housing and medical care, but this does not extend to having a place online for someone's relentless political trolling.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,717|4919|eXtreme to the maX
Its a tricky issue, these corporations are absolved from liability so why would they feel the need to censor people?

Pretty well every part of the phone system and internet is privately owned, what next, we don't like your views so no internet for you and you can only make 999 calls between 11am and 2pm and not the lunchbreak?
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+383|2265
the american government has already been trying to approve a go-ahead for the internet’s infrastructure’s increasing marketisation. didnt the US phone companies want to effectively introduce ‘tiers’ of service depending on your customer package and ability to pay?

the crux of the problem with social media platforms is that they want to use their platforms to be news media outlets and publishers. they’re not only limiting themselves to communications networks and infrastructure: they want to command the spaces for news and information too, and keep users’ eyeballs on their feeds for, well, everything.

well, news media orgs and publishers are beholden to quite strict regulations and long-standing ethical codes (restrain your laughter in 2020; i know) about pernicious things like truth, fact, privacy, etc. at the very least, they’re far more liable in a court of law and more vulnerable to political censure and business consequences. the tech companies so far have floated far above all that, affecting an attitude of ‘who, me?’ at the same time they have knowingly created algorithms and ad-tech that their own in-house staff and consultants can foresee the dire consequences of. they’ve played a very cynical game when they know very well now much their sites game the dopamine-triggering, anger-harvesting clicks of their users.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,717|4919|eXtreme to the maX
Thats all great but banning individuals is a legitimate freedom of speech issue and twitter etc are the new forum.

Maybe people speaking in parliament should only have the microphone switched on if Tannoy approve of their views.

Obviously Trump is an extreme case but as usual I'm still right.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+383|2265
twitter isn't the new forum. do you use it? is it integral to public discourse? is it the only way to express a view?

it's a private platform, no different to bf2s being a private platform.

did i take it to the high court when orangehound banned uzique because 'mah freedom of speech'?

we used to have places where ideas could be contended in open discourse, in a reasoned, liberal, democratic ethos: but the right-wing turds have been smearing that as 'the MSM' for the last 5 years. too bad. now they get the tech-libertarian paradise they've dreamed of, where tech billionaires get to switch them off as soon as they're tired of them.

Last edited by uziq (2021-01-13 01:34:58)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,717|4919|eXtreme to the maX
Twitter is a little more significant than BF2S, apparently.

Also you're a lefty fag so obviously the answer would be no.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+383|2265
i swear only 2 years ago you, macbeth et al were denigrating twitter as some trivial, irrelevant, woke echo-chamber full of 'trans-LGBTQWTFLMAO' people all talking to one another in a fizz, and nothing more? now it's a vital tool of communication? make up your mind.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,717|4919|eXtreme to the maX
I believe you're thinking of myspace.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+383|2265
'fag', nice one. let me know when you can ever express your heterosexuality without using a visa card. you auto-cuck.
uziq
Member
+383|2265

Dilbert_X wrote:

I believe you're thinking of myspace.
no, you and macbeth were here explicitly talking about how twitter was stupid, you'd never use it, it's drivel full of 'woke' liberals, etc, etc.

now it's the cornerstone of free speech? you're such a dishonest schmuck.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,717|4919|eXtreme to the maX
Can't remember that TBH, I do enjoy Titania McGrath though.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,717|4919|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

we used to have places where ideas could be contended in open discourse, in a reasoned, liberal, democratic ethos.
AU Chats?
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+383|2265
free speech has always had a theoretical limit with the rule of law, anyway. when you’re using your ultra-radical right-wing tech-libertarianz-only! social network to incite riots, spread hate speech, share bomb making schematics, and plan domestic terror attacks, you don’t get to claim free speech.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,717|4919|eXtreme to the maX
Planning, conspiring, inciting to commit crimes and expressing opinions are different things, dur.

Preventing people from expressing opinions is a radical step.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+383|2265
was donald trump kicked off twitter for expressing opinions or for inciting people to violence?

? ? ?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,717|4919|eXtreme to the maX
Can he express his opinion now?

These forums come and go, but right now twitter is THE forum that matters, where the line sits on who can speak and who can't is at the whim of people like Zuckerberg and thats not right.

Maybe there'd have been fewer buildings burned down if BLM had been blocked from organising, maybe whichever app they were using should have been switched off, or just brick the phone of anyone found by geolocation to be at a protest google didn't sponsor and take the ad revenue from.

Or like I said let Jack Dorsey use his algorithms to vet your emails for the right opinions before they get through and cancel permanently [email protected] and turn off your e-scooter mid-ride if you go to far.

I'm not saying its wrong to ban Trump etc, but it does raise issues.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-01-13 02:15:30)

Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+383|2265
LMAO 'right now twitter is THE forum that matters'.

you would NOT have said this even 3 months ago. i can 100% fucking guarantee it. but now it's absolutely vital to the lifeblood of democracy.

i am LAUGHING in my chair at your wriggling.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard