HexesofVexes

You know, there’s a fun observation to be made here: for every perversion you ban, the more niche ones move further up the view list. In essence, short of a complete porn ban (which is their final goal), they’re likely to make the problem worse.

In terms of boys learning violence from this kind of porn - surely the online safety act is doing that right? Of course not; that act has failed gloriously and this proposed change evidences that.

The real solution they should be considering is strong messages about “safe, sane, consensual”. Stick it up on posters, make it a mandatory banner on porn sites (who would complain, really), even take that shit into schools (it’s good practice even for vanilla). The real issue isn’t the acts themselves, it’s the way we talk about them, or more don’t!

And during those billions of minutes, most of them are cursing the existence of the spyware experience that is teams.

4chan is an extreme example of an unmoderated site - indeed it’s what the OSA was designed to combat. If this legislative test fails, it would undermine the acts legitimacy, and provoke questions as to it’s existence.

It’s a shit law - it’s not fit for purpose. Its sole reason for existence is to controle public speech, not protect the children.

Neat summary and cleanup - editing original post to point at this.

https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/30326565624343-How-to-Complete-Age-Verification-on-Discord

Check down on data security ;)

So, I looked at age verification - it was made clear photos were on device only and never transmitted.

If this turns out to be false, then the legal fallout would be apocalyptic.

(Edit: or not, see the comment by ambitiousprocess below)

I was thinking that, you’d think they’d strike once the pot is a little larger.

This was kind of breach so predictable even surprisedpikachu.txt isn’t enough, but it must be done.

⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣤⣶⣶ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣀⣀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⠿⠿⠻⠿⠿⠟⠿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⢰⣹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣷⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢾⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠠⣿⣿⣷⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢄⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿

I often come up with a fun nickname for UK leaders - from “Creepy Uncle Boris”, through “Sussy Sunak”.

I’d like to inaugurate “Stasi Starmer” in memory of this absolutely insane decision.

Didn’t know he had a degree in mathematics - that’s a fun one to share with my students.

Thanks!

So, if the damage increased the value of the building, it would necessitate the courts paying? Sounds reasonable.

Just allow companies to charge a small fee to process a DMCA takedown, and establish a daily compensation rate based on view counts for the uploader (cost payable by the company issuing the takedown - not the entity they represent). Suddenly you only issue a takedown for clear infringement, with the cost paid by the uploader only when clear proof is given that it is a DMCA infringement. If there is a long delay, the uploader gets more compensation, whereas the uploader is only liable for the initial takedown fee.

Oh no, someone might not be paying them for their user generated content (!)

To be fair, it’s probably best that history forgets this period of the web…

Good to know, I’ll go ask one if the profs in our school of built environment for more info. See if they can offer more insight there.

Definitely a good point to raise; thanks for doing so!

Here’s a fun one - where do you stand on those forced to commute dur to housing prices near inner city work (e.g. I live in near poverty paying a mortgage for a small place near where I work due to poor public transport so I can walk to work - how does this figure into the anti-car vision? Is it an employer issue, a government issue, a personal sacrifice, or something else entirely?)

I dunno, the use of AI Ethicist fits as they’re not against the concept of generative AI as a whole, they’re against unethical generative AI (in terms of stolen training data and environmental harm).

If the world transitioned to a post-IP (intellectual property) society (as we need to), with AI eating less power, then AI Ethicists are unlikely to object.

Would you happen to be a vegan who is also anti-car by any chance?

If so, I can recommend fuckcars on ml as they share your viewpoint.

I applaud folks like this - they make a choice and stick with it. No “I’ll never use AI to generate art but I vibe code to save time” hypocrisy. No “I use it to help me with maths, but I’d never use it to steal artistic work”.

Just straight up “it is an environmental hazard, it is unethical, not engaging”. Should be called “AI Ethicists” rather than “AI Vegans”.

*so that the government can say kids won’t watch porn.

Rule 1 of computers that everyone who has taught an ICT class learns - if little Timmy wants titties, he finds a way.

That sounds a bit like fear mongering from Reform: a VPN is safety 101 when using public networks, and most businesses make use of VPNs to secure their data. They are also a key component if WFH (you use the company VPN).

If Labour are stupid enough to go after VPN usage, I suspect it would guarantee their loss at the next election.