https://qoto.org/@olives/110400288665794817 Porn has nothing to do with crime...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31432547/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042055/
Also, teens appear to be fine, even with porn...?
#NoToCensorship #NoToObscenityLaws #ukpolitics #OnlineSafetyBill
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/17/free-the-nipple-meta-facebook-instagram
"Meta’s oversight board has called for an overhaul to the company’s rules banning bare-chested images of women – but not men."
"Meta" might be sick enough to "equalize" that ban by banning that for both. Lol.
I don't know what they will do.
Obviously, everyone is hoping they'll make progress to unwind some of this puritanical censorship, although it is Facebook after all.
https://reason.com/2023/07/17/doj-opens-probe-into-jail-where-inmate-died-covered-in-insects/ Ugh, the prison system is as nasty as ever...
https://reason.com/2023/07/17/brickbat-im-gonna-be-sick/
"The Brownsburg Police Department say Sara Seymour, who taught at Brown Elementary School, forced a 7-year-old student with special needs to eat his own vomit."
wtf
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle
Here's something a Q activist "discovered". An article apparently advocating to legalize viewing child porn.
On it's own, it's a bit weak. It was written 20 years ago, and it was a reaction to a new phenomena.
It's problematic in the sense that it doesn't become "okay", simply because a usage of it isn't causally linked to abuse.
If someone was viewing something which didn't involve actual abuse (hey, U.K. censors got upset over a controversial historic German band cover, although no one has ever been *arrested* for it), this article might've been more persuasive.
That said, what is with these people and their wild conspiracies...
Can't someone just be an obscure writer (seemingly a former academic) voicing a controversial opinion?
What really throws doubt on this Q conspiracy fuel though is as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/jan/08/rod-liddle-outspoken-figure
Despite nominally being a "leftist", he holds many conservative positions.
He is also infamous for writing incendiary pieces.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/rodliddle
Also, The Guardian dropped his column not long after this article after running it for years.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/07/14/florida-state-guard-desantis-national-guard-training/
"In a statement, Haas said the State Guard was a “military organization” that will be used not just for emergencies but for “aiding law enforcement with riots and illegal immigration.”"
https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-use-declines-as-users-complain-about-dumber-answers-and-the-reason-might-be-ais-biggest-threat-for-the-future Sounds like they're trying to save resources and cut costs.
His most brazen gesture so far in his latest run. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that this is pandering.
That is another thing which makes me seriously doubt that spying on everyone with a Chat Stasi would be helpful (asides from other caveats which should be abundantly clear at this point).
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/13/new-lawsuit-against-bing-based-on-allegedly-ai-hallucinated-libelous-statements/
I personally think they have more of a *point* about Bing's stupidity here, than the one who sued ChatGPT (which everyone knows is powered by an algorithm), in how they presented the information.
In my opinion, they should add some kind of disclaimer, at the very least. That would be the ethical thing to do.
I'm not so sure this would be unlawful though.
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights. Anime. Liberal.