Anti-Porn Lobbyists Pressure Reddit To Shut Down Its NSFW Communities (vice.com) 187
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: An anti-pornography group that claims all adult content is unhealthy is taking aim at Reddit, one of the biggest online platforms for sharing porn and sex worker resources. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), formerly Morality in Media, celebrated changes to policy that resulted in adult performers losing their incomes, taken credit for pressuring Instagram to ban Pornhub from the platform, and encouraged its followers to help them shut down sites that host legal adult content, causing real-world harm to sex workers and pushing them toward the exploitation they claim to aim to prevent. The letter, signed by 320 "anti-sexual exploitation and violence experts," according to NCOSE, accuses Reddit of not doing enough to prevent image-based sexual abuse. The letter's co-signatories don't just push for better protection against non-consensual imagery, but demand that all adult content be banned from the site. This would result in a massive purge of hundreds of subreddits, many of them run by sex workers for posting consensual, legal content.
"Adopt strong policies against hardcore pornography and sexually explicit content, due to the inability for Reddit to ever sufficiently verify the age or consent of people depicted in such content," the letter urges Reddit. It also demands that the platform "ban users who upload sexually explicit material, especially if the material depicts child sexual abuse material or non-consensually shared intimate images, and prevent them from creating another account." "While these are steps forward, Reddit's failure to enact meaningful age and consent verirication[sic] practices and ineffective moderation strategy continues to allow such content to flourish on its platform," the letter states. "If they cause enough fuss in the media, over and over, eventually Reddit will decide it's not financially worthwhile to stand up for sanity, and they'll just nuke porn out of convenience," a moderator for r/cumsluts, a 3-million subscriber community for adult content, told Motherboard. "Eventually groups like NCOSE will get porn outlawed from the web in general. It's just a matter of time, and reintroducing the laws several times under different acronyms until people get tired of fighting. I'm very pessimistic about this. Unfortunately, mindlessly shrieking 'Won't somebody please think of the children?' over and over is a dangerously over-effective tactic."
A moderator for r/18_19 told Motherboard that they don't expect Reddit to ban adult content anytime soon, but if it did, that it could push people to decentralized platforms, or platforms that are more difficult to moderate or search. "I don't think Reddit should ban porn or adult communities. In the short term, banning adult content would suck," they said. "A huge number of people come here for that. But it wouldn't be a big deal in the long run. Porn will be available, it would just take a while for it to consolidate around new locations."
"Adopt strong policies against hardcore pornography and sexually explicit content, due to the inability for Reddit to ever sufficiently verify the age or consent of people depicted in such content," the letter urges Reddit. It also demands that the platform "ban users who upload sexually explicit material, especially if the material depicts child sexual abuse material or non-consensually shared intimate images, and prevent them from creating another account." "While these are steps forward, Reddit's failure to enact meaningful age and consent verirication[sic] practices and ineffective moderation strategy continues to allow such content to flourish on its platform," the letter states. "If they cause enough fuss in the media, over and over, eventually Reddit will decide it's not financially worthwhile to stand up for sanity, and they'll just nuke porn out of convenience," a moderator for r/cumsluts, a 3-million subscriber community for adult content, told Motherboard. "Eventually groups like NCOSE will get porn outlawed from the web in general. It's just a matter of time, and reintroducing the laws several times under different acronyms until people get tired of fighting. I'm very pessimistic about this. Unfortunately, mindlessly shrieking 'Won't somebody please think of the children?' over and over is a dangerously over-effective tactic."
A moderator for r/18_19 told Motherboard that they don't expect Reddit to ban adult content anytime soon, but if it did, that it could push people to decentralized platforms, or platforms that are more difficult to moderate or search. "I don't think Reddit should ban porn or adult communities. In the short term, banning adult content would suck," they said. "A huge number of people come here for that. But it wouldn't be a big deal in the long run. Porn will be available, it would just take a while for it to consolidate around new locations."
Four letter word (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not Safe For Work
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how it works. Imagine some HR department rules from a major employer. Would they allow it on your work computer or on display in your cubicle? If not, and if it's "adult", then it's NSFW.
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen this tolerated because employers are afraid of the consequences of disciplining certain employees.
And some idiots also think "stand your ground / castle doctrine" laws mean you can legally shoot a kid for ringing your doorbell (no, you can't). Just because law is sometimes subject to misinterpretation doesn't necessarily make it a bad law.
Anti-discrimination laws do not preclude an employer from firing an employee who is violating company policy. IANAL, but router logs showing that the employee was browsing porn on company time seems like a fairly solid defense if the ex-employee claimed discriminatio
Re: Four letter word (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey look - complete indifference to freedom from censorship based on someone else's belief structure.
That's a healthy attitude. Today's actions are tomorrow's precedence. Just because you don't care about attempts at broad censorship on services you don't use, that means the same people will never start trying to censor stuff you do use, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You're criticizing reddit yet posting on /. ? ;-) That's the pot calling the kettle black IMHO. /s
Social media sites (/., reddit and even the community sewer Twitter) are the modern equivalent of the old community square about popular topics. i.e. No gamer is going post on Usenet but they _might_ on reddit.
Just because it you don't find reddit useful does not imply it has no value -- even if 90+% is just an echo chamber. The larger the sub the worse the S/N tends to be. Smaller subs tend to be more usef
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, the defense of apathy.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
---- Martin Niem
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Aww, is the poor racist misogynist feeling down because two jobs they could never get are being held by black women?
I sure can't imagine why you would have posted this inane drivel as an anonymous coward...
Re: (Score:2)
What the f*ck (pun intended) does NSFW mean?
Never Smell Your Footwear
Re:Four letter word (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, but I think it might be "Noteworthy Sucking, Fucking and Wanking".
Re: Four letter word (Score:3)
It's Not Safe For WIFE
What happened to Free Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I get it. Free Speech for THEM, not for you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hate to be the lawyer in the room but hasn't this been settled? Pornographic publications can be regulated, such as requiring them to only feature models over the age of 18.
They are calling for a total ban, but only because they have been calling for Reddit to fix it's revenge/underage porn problem for years and Reddit has been unable to, despite claiming it wishes to.
I don't think their plan will actually stop that kind of material being spread, but I also don't think your characterization of their positio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those people are clearly not free speech advocates.
It's probably religious extremists.
Re:What happened to Free Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
A bunch of God Damned Christians.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they believe in free speech, as long as it's only THEIR speech that is free.
See: all the bitching about "cancel culture" right up until they want to start cancelling drag shows through violence and government retaliation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty easy to glue everyone on the left or right as a massive blob of absurdity, and probably a strategy commonly used by politicians to squash things they don't want to grow.
For example, most common people both on the left and right leaning sides think the current copyright terms are too long, but with a bit of "the other side probably loves it" tossed around, they don't unite to fight it.
The free speech right (and for that matter left) wings are not the same bible pushers or media censorship to prot
Re:What happened to Free Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of like MADD they are nothing less than zealots who want to outlaw the things they don't like no matter the cost. They like to hide problems and blame victims. Kind of hard to do that when communities of performers and other sex workers can openly discuss things. That humanizes sex workers, and CANNOT BE ALLOWED. After all, sex workers should be hiding, living double lives, vulnerable to exploitation, because they're icky and evil sinners.
Plus if sex workers aren't shamed and living in fear then these religious zealot, and/or their spouses and friends, might be exposed as hypocritical SINNERS.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, sex workers should be hiding, living double lives, vulnerable to exploitation, because they're icky and evil sinners.
Look we live in a free society. You view here is extremely narrow minded, actually a lot more narrow minded than the religious zealots you are so afraid of.
Reality is this, laws against sex work exist for reasons that go beyond someone's prophet said so. These rules are still popular and if they were not so they'd have been repealed already.
What you are really saying is some variation on "it should be okay for people to flaunt laws I don't like" or "the rules should not apply equally if I like the violator
Rules against sex work (Score:2)
They mostly exist because women are bothered by the idea that their men could go out and buy sex anytime they want. It's not that complex. It's 'doing something' about the problem of habitual male infidelity without actually doing anything about it. So you go find some gold digger/addict to fuck instead. It's prostitution by another name.
Gun control exists because people have this false belief that if you make it illegal to own weapons, that the risk of death somehow goes down. But the risk of death is
Re: (Score:3)
Wow... just... wow. If you actually think that "40-hour work weeks and just cause for firings" and "do away with elections and install our guy as dictator" are in any way equivalent; you really are just beyond all reason or hope.
Re:What happened to Free Speech? (Score:5, Informative)
Reality is this, laws against sex work exist for reasons that go beyond someone's prophet said so. These rules are still popular and if they were not so they'd have been repealed already.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the cultural "sex is icky" meme entirely does stem from religion. The rules are still popular because religion itself is also still quite popular, and there's a large contingent of religious folks who aren't satisfied with keeping their rules confined within the walls of their place of worship.
As a gay man, religious bullshit has been a continual thorn in my side. If your religion says you can't have gay sex or marry a man, then those are your rules to live by, not mine. If car ownership was like religion, you'd have idiot zealots trying to get people to put gas in their Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is this, laws against sex work exist for reasons that go beyond someone's prophet said so. These rules are still popular and if they were not so they'd have been repealed already.
No, that's not the case at all. The laws originally were because someone's religious text said so. And they've been on the books for so long that it's now woven into unconscious societal fabric, just like other laws that prohibit things that religion frowns on because the only way to effectively limit the malicious byproducts of that activity was to completely outlaw it through religion; because knocking the bottom off prostitutes in trade for eternal damnation wasn't a good value proposition for the devo
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is this, laws against sex work exist for reasons that go beyond someone's prophet said so. These rules are still popular and if they were not so they'd have been repealed already.
You know what else is popular in Utah? People's belief in a prophet that says sex is amoral. https://www.pewresearch.org/re... [pewresearch.org]
The rules *are* popular. That doesn't mean they aren't the direct result of someone being told their sky-daddy decreed it so.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.newsweek.com/moms-... [newsweek.com]
https://bookriot.com/moms-for-... [bookriot.com]
How about el
Re: (Score:2)
https://ministrywatch.com/wisc... [ministrywatch.com]
https://www.pillarcatholic.com... [pillarcatholic.com]
https://www.sltrib.com/news/20... [sltrib.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01... [cnn.com]
https://www.newsweek.com/male-... [newsweek.com]
That's not even close to complete list, and leaves out many of the less savory things in most of them... like child sexual abuse. People like that want to control the others so they can't be exposed as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of like MADD
That is not the best example as the purpose of MADD was to criminalize a very specific dangerous behavior which is drinking AND driving. It was not drinking OR driving. In that regard the behavior presents a danger to the public at large that was ignored for decades.
Drinking Age (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
States go along with it now because it's great revenue and helps the private prison system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in my neck of the woods, Scott Wiener has been trying to get legislation passed to extend last call at the bars and nightclubs from 2am to 4am. And every time he tries, MADD foams at the mouth and, thus far, have always managed to sling enough FUD to get the bills killed.
There's never been a clause to eliminate DUI offenses in these bills. We'd all still have to get home via MUNI Owl lines, taxis, Ubers, Lyfts, Cruises, Waymos, et cetera, just like we do now after drinking... just a couple of hours
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I get it. Free Speech for THEM, not for you.
Nate Hentoff addressed that in "Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee" [amazon.com]
Why is it (Score:5, Insightful)
that people who are against porn are usually also the people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place, i.e. the main reason for the existence of porn?
Re:Why is it (Score:5, Funny)
Even though you are modded as troll and I never agree with you, I partly do this time. It seems like these are all the wives who think their husbands will finally be interested in them again if they could just ban all porn. But it turns out they're just insufferable and nobody wants to be around them.
Re: (Score:2)
Or wrap quotes around it at the very minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly didn't know that, but I guess it comes naturally when you think about it.
Alternative proposal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Strike all laws against consensual activities with or without compensation from the books at both the state and federal level and treat recorded videos and pictures under the same copyright laws which govern any other photograph or video.
There is no reason for special sex related laws, the entire concept is highly antiquated and a violation of personal liberty. Legally speaking we don't need laws beyond what we have governing shaking hands or any other non-damaging physical interaction between humans for non-damaging sexual interaction or different from those governing damaging interaction for damaging sexual interaction.
As I've already pointed out, the same is true of photos and pictures, there should be no special exceptions and rules around this but apply the same ones which apply to anything else. If someone takes a picture of a politician shaking hands with a Klansman with consent and then shares it without consent how is that any more or less harmful to them [or a different level of their responsibility] than engaging in some sex act or nude? It isn't any different [minus any exceptions because that example happens to involve a public official, swap in another which doesn't and the point remains the same] and it should be treated the same way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Alternative proposal... (Score:2)
The problem is that the concept of what counts as a kid changes over time. Until the 15th century adulthood was defined as 13 years ofage. Then it began increasing at a rate of roughly 2 to 3 years per century. The current default of 18 has been in the books for a long time, and there have been more and more calls to extend it fully to 21, and even some already asking for it to be set to 25.
Leaving kids out is therefore a problematic criteria, as there moralistic groups will then try to force increasing the
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. There is no reason to have special treatment for nudity/sex. If you don't need consent to take a photo of a kid and share it and that is a problem then the law should be changed... it shouldn't matter that it relates to sex or something else. If you do need consent then all the same rules should apply.
The only thing that changes because it is a kid is they can't legally consent for themselves, their legal guardian is the person who has the next greatest personal stake in their protection and con
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason for special sex related laws, the entire concept is highly antiquated and a violation of personal liberty. Legally speaking we don't need laws beyond what we have governing shaking hands or any other non-damaging physical interaction between humans for non-damaging sexual interaction or different from those governing damaging interaction for damaging sexual interaction.
Rape is no different from an unwanted handshake?
I'm mostly in agreement with your comment as it applies to activities between consensual adults, but I think this notion that we don't need sex-related laws is wrongheaded and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. While unwanted sexual interaction that leaves no physical damage appears no different from other unwanted physical interaction on some levels, this view ignores deeply-ingrained, evolutionarily-generated psychological factors.
I
Re: (Score:2)
"Similarly, I disagree that equating nude or sex photos with other photos makes any sense. People have deep, visceral reactions to the former because evolution has wired us -- especially women -- to care strongly about reproduction and issues closely associated with it."
We shouldn't base our laws on social pseudoscience but on reality. These views might be common and understandable but they are also irrationally disproportionate to the offense. We should be basing laws and consequence on the actual harm don
Re: (Score:2)
A small clarification, when I say 'treated the same way' I mean be handled under the other charges and laws which already apply not that the outcome should be the same. The differences and nature of the crime should impact the punishment levied in court and any civil damages. Also whether charges are brought at all.
In the case of the handshake, it is technically assault but I don't think you'd find many prosecutors willing to prosecute that case and if they did and you were technically found guilty you'd be
You don't have to look at it (Score:4, Insightful)
Reddit doesn't make it easy to look at it "accidentally" either. If you see it, you wanted to see it. That is an issue between you and your maker.
Re:You don't have to look at it (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. Reddit is actually one of the better sites for this. I'll admit I have some NSFW sites in my feed that I view from home, but since Reddit tags NSFW content and censors until you click on it, I typically can still browse Reddit at work without too much fear of someone walking by my desk and seeing a tit hanging out. The same can't be said of Twitter for example.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair it doesn't seem that their issue is with porn in general, just that Reddit and most other user content websites are incapable of properly policing it to stop exploitation. How do they tell the difference between someone consensually sharing photos and someone who is getting revenge on their ex?
It's the wrong approach. Punishment for the people sharing without consent is the only way to stop it.
Couching (Score:2)
To be fair it doesn't seem that their issue is with porn in general, just that Reddit and most other user content websites are incapable of properly policing it to stop exploitation.
No, their problem is with porn in general. They use alleged and possible cases of exploitation to shut down every porn site they can manage, and anything talking about sex in general. They pressured Wal-Mart to pull Cosmo from the checkout lanes because the front covers talked about sex. They're also a big fan of banning books.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be what they'd like you to think, but they are in fact a group that takes issue with porn in general, that operates by concern-trolling about some form of exploitation or another. Don't forget that they used to be named "Morality in Media."
Every time such a group uses this tactic, it's helpful to imagine an SPCA-style ad showing the poor exploited porn stars with sad faces sitting in their LA mansions, shown in black and white and set to sad Sarah McLachlan music :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, fair enough. Thanks for giving me the history. I have to say, TFA is rather lacking due to its decision to take a very clear position.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I'm not making the exploitative record contracts bit up, e.g. Prince: https://www.np [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Can't speak to the former, but at least in the case of church music, there is rather a lot of historical significance in the history of Western media for both art and music with overtly Christian themes. There's even a bit of a joke to it, that many composers would write some music and then just slap a random passage from the Christian bible or some rote bit of liturgy on it. The church has been a good patron for the arts and let centuries of composers and performers get by without tending to fields or dig
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of. Lots of things are NSFW that aren't porn and they are all under the same blanket cover. You really don't know until you click on it why it is considered NSFW (which only matters if you are at work).
Dilemma (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to see that crap nor my kids if I had any. On the other hand I don't want to tell people what to do. With that said, I don't really think kids should be let loose on the internet unsupervised which would sort of solve the problem itself. The problem arises in the fact that parenting skill are very lacking for the most part and kids are going to find this stuff. So the powers that be or individual groups are going to try to control it.
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked it's not that easy to accidentally see any sexual content, on Reddit or anywhere else. So I guess I have the solution for you: Just don't hunt it down.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. Google is actually really good at not showing you stuff until you get specific. You can search for jobs all day long, but until you specify "handjob", Google will keep talking employment.
Re:Dilemma (Score:5, Interesting)
Kids are an excuse to these people - a way to get their foot in the legislative door. They typically are not for letting adults view or create pornagraphy either.
It's crazy but things get very anit-porn on both the extreme left and extreme right end of the political spectrum.
The far left typically is against porn because they believe it exploits women and that pretty much all creators of the material or trafficked or otherwise coerced into making it.
The far right sees porn as immoral degeneracy, and often says that the reason that men in society are having less sex now is because of easy availability of porn which is causing men to settle for a "good enough" wank instead of being forced to go out and find a woman.
Realistically in modern society people ARE having less sex, but taking away porn would be akin to removing the gruel from the prisoner's meal hall and letting them starve. It's more likely that we get more mass shootings and attacks than men magically become gigachads and go find some tail.
I call BS. It's anti-sex, not politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Kids are an excuse to these people - a way to get their foot in the legislative door. They typically are not for letting adults view or create pornagraphy either.
It's crazy but things get very anit-porn on both the extreme left and extreme right end of the political spectrum.
The far left typically is against porn because they believe it exploits women and that pretty much all creators of the material or trafficked or otherwise coerced into making it.
The far right sees porn as immoral degeneracy, and often says that the reason that men in society are having less sex now is because of easy availability of porn which is causing men to settle for a "good enough" wank instead of being forced to go out and find a woman.
Realistically in modern society people ARE having less sex, but taking away porn would be akin to removing the gruel from the prisoner's meal hall and letting them starve. It's more likely that we get more mass shootings and attacks than men magically become gigachads and go find some tail.
The far-left doesn't hate porn. Frigid,anti-sex broken humans claiming liberal values use it as an excuse to force their issues onto others. If you hate porn, you're a broken human being...get some help...get some therapy. I guarantee you have personal issues that extend far beyond your views of sex. Sure, lots of porn is gross, but if the notion of someone getting paid to show off their body or have sex raises your blood pressure, you have issues with sex. It's OK, I get it...everyone else is having so much fun and you can't for one reason or another. I don't know your situation. However, just because sex doesn't work for you, doesn't mean you have the right to force your ideals on the rest of us.
It's like sports. I don't like sports. I never did. It bores the shit out of me. I can't even pretend to care. I don't "get" it. But...unlike anti-sex pieces of garbage, I don't try to ban things I don't enjoy or understand. You want to watch the big game? I don't care...enjoy...have fun...leave me out of it!
Just because someone says they're a "feminist" or a "liberal" doesn't mean that feminists and liberals claim them. The anti-sex feminists of the 70s were discredited and their views abandoned. You never saw any ranting about that from women with healthy personal lives...just broken people like Andrea Dworkind...look her up...she had MANY issues beyond sexuality. Most feminists hate porn they find gross, but can find something somewhere that works for them. They've learned that it provides benefits for marginalized communities and an opportunity for people to earn money. They've learned you can have sex work without exploitation and exploitation and sex work or not implicitly linked.
I call BS. The far left doesn't hate porn. People who claim to be the far left hate porn. The far left rejects them. It's like the Republicans and white supremacy. David Duke thinks he represents the Republican Party. The Republican Party doesn't! Just as the Republican Party rejects David Duke, the far left rejects anti-sex pathology.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Does porn usually come with sex trafficking, or does sex trafficking usually come with porn? These two are not the same thing.
2) How do feminists feel about male gay porn?
3) Parents want their kids to stay kids and never think about sex at all until they turn 18 and should be in the process of providing grandchildren.
4) I don't care what people who don't believe in observable reality think about anything, really.
5) Conservatives hate everything, news at 11. They're also the biggest consumers of porn; jus
Re: (Score:3)
Anti-pornography was never Far Left or Far Right, or extremist. Clamping down on pornography has ALWAYS been across-the-board and unilateral, regardless of political, religious, or apolitical and areligious stance:
1. Law enforcement hates it, because it almost always goes hand in hand with sex trafficking, drug trafficking and child pedophilia.
Stop treating it the same as we treat the actual crimes you listed, and it would stop being associated with those crimes because it wouldn't have to hide behind the same drape they try to cover themselves with. Much like the war on drugs, this is a cause/effect issue that EVERYBODY seems to see backwards, because it's convenient for the moral outrage brigade.
2. Feminists hate it, because it both degrades women as well as teaches men that women are just there for sexual fulfilment only.
Name me one thing, one thing anywhere, that outspoken feminists don't hate. This argument is like thinking the wind agrees with you because it blew the
Re: Libertarian Playing the Moderate Again. Oh dea (Score:2)
The anti-pornography segment is very much an extremist movement because they advocate for the repression of free speech and free expression of the majority because they happen to be at odds with what is being expressed. What they, and you, fail to understand here is that in a free society, public approval is not a prerequisite for free expression of concepts and ideas. Your approval is not a requirement for pornography to exist.
Your argument is a logical fallacy mix of a slippery slope and correlation/causa
Smart (Score:4, Insightful)
They jumped on the exploitation/rp/cp bandwagon instead of arguing morals, pretty smart wording too. Seems a little too smart and disingenuous for some church mom's though.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably some porn-for-pay peddlers that want to see their failed business propped up.
Don't like porn ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now do that argument with uteruses.
Re: (Score:2)
Now do that argument with uteruses.
It would be kind of cool if you could buy uteruses, along with the technology to implant them in anyone. I’m certain that once that is possible the pushback will be even more than the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Now do that argument with uteruses.
Ok:
Don't want a baby - don't have unsafe sex.
99% of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't like crypto? Don't fucking buy it!
I have no inkling as to why you would say that leftists particularly would demand a crypto ban over people on the right. The popular sentiment is that 'crypto is a dumb idea, keep my money out of it'. I could at most see regulations that restrain institutions from putting your money at risk in ways you don't consent to, which seems like a pretty universal sort of desire.
Don't like guns? Don't fucking buy them!
Over 20,000 people died to guns last year that didn't fucking buy the guns that killed them. Somehow refraining from purchasing firearms
Re: (Score:2)
I have no inkling as to why you would say that leftists particularly would demand a crypto ban over people on the right.
Biden Wants to Tax the Hell Out of Crypto Mining [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You ever read the comments section here on any crypto story?
Yes, and I don't think I see a difference between 'right' and 'left' on this point. This one does not seemed to have a particular alignment.
Too bad. Just because you think it makes such a difference whether a criminal shoots or stabs you - does not make it okay to violate other people's rights.
I suspect we agree that, for example, a person should definitely be allowed to have a knife, but definitely not allowed to have a nuclear warhead. Now the question is where is the line drawn, and how hard that line is for what degree of weaponry (ban versus regulated). Note that when the constitution wrote that amendment:
-The most severe weaponry they had at the time
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, what a bad troll.
Don't like guns? Don't fucking buy them!
The correct statement should be "Don't like guns? Don't fucking get shot with one of them!". People don't object to guns because they don't want the gun nut to own guns. They object because the gun nut uses the gun to shoot other people, who never got a choice. If you can solve this problem and make sure no gun can be used against non-consenting adults (or school kids, if you're American), then I'm sure most objections to guns will go away. But you can't, and you're just trolling.
The ca
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference and I understand parents being concerned with that difference.
If I watch a porn with a woman, I want to have sex with that woman.
If I watch a woman get murdered on TV with a woman, I do not feel the desire to murder that woman.
Re: (Score:2)
Impossible to police minors getting into it (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with Twitter and Reddit is that they combine SFW and highly NSFW content on the same site and the most that Reddit provides for parents is a "pinky swear you're an adult" level warning before minors can dive right into everything from nudes to simulated rape and incest porn.
This is a new frontier and a breaking of the traditional balance that allowed for "consenting adults" to indulge in porn while keeping minors out. Right now, a 10 year old can sign up for a burner email account, create a burn
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's not like you could ever stop minors from looking at it BEFORE the age of the Internet, either. I think it must have been 3rd. or maybe 4th. grade when my classmates were circulating copies of Playboy and Hustler magazine.
But honestly, the vast majority of the free content you find on sites like Reddit is really just marketing for women who run their own OnlyFans site, or something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this seems like common sense to me. Move the NSFW stuff to it's own domain where it can be limited by block lists and allows for clear delineation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kids will find a way. It's important to monitor them (especially when online) but we can't keep them in a bubble their entire life.
Kids in the US are far less mature than kids just about everywhere else in the world because our society likes to pretend they have no ability to think before they become adults.. then we just toss them out on their own. I do
320 signatories? (Score:2)
320 is a manageable number.
Re: (Score:3)
320? wow, that must be a majority! of.. something?
They need help (Score:2)
They don't need help banning porn, they need help finding mental health treatment.
Being so obsessed over what others are doing, almost certainly because you're oppressed by your own hangups and want to feel like you're the one who is right? That's not healthy.
They all ought to be under treatment of mental health care professionals. Or at the very least forcibly informed they should STFU and GTFO.
Okay.... know what you're asking for, though. (Score:2)
You're asking reddit to "not be there anymore". I mean, I can't speak for everybody (clearly), but when I end up on reddit it's because I'm trying to find out if some public figure "has nudes".
Hard Options For Reddit (Score:2)
Reddit is in a tough spot. NSFW makes up like 1/2 of their platform and they need those traffic and user numbers to prop up their value if they hope to go public. But at the same time once they go public, the pressure increases to get rid of the adult content, which cost a lot to moderate and manage. A public company can't leave moderation and the risk it brings to simple volunteers. It's not really an option to let the community police itself.
Imgur Is getting rid of adult content right now. Certainly a sig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really their choice and it's a choice in direction they made long ago. They've accepted hundreds of millions in VC funding. Those VCs want a return on that investment and Reddit agreed to head towards going public in return for receiving those investments.
Additionally, many startup employees are brought on at a lower salary than they'd get elsewhere, lured by the promise of equity in the company that'll be worth big money when they go public. They'd likely be in breach of contract with those empl
Oh, dear! (Score:2)
Pr0n on the Web! Horrors. I mean, if we were meant to run around naked, we would have been born that way....
wish the puritans (Score:2)
Never tire (Score:2)
But people will not get tired of fighting this. The idea that people will just "give up" if these crazies keep on is ridiculous. We have a federal court system ready to strike down most of these regulations even if only 1 person objects. T
fearmongering (Score:2)
"If they cause enough fuss in the media, over and over, eventually Reddit will decide it's not financially worthwhile to stand up for sanity"
Oh please. You are asserting that the evangelical christian anti-porn league carries a lot of financial leverage on Reddit?
Right.
Goodbye Reddit (Score:2)
Imagine the porn these censors consume (Score:2)
Anyone seen the horse? I've just shut the door (Score:2)
With no actual evidence of real harm, of course... (Score:2)
As usual, anti-porn activists should mind their own fucking business.
An afternoon well spent (Score:2)
I just spent the afternoon scrolling /r/cumsluts, thanks for letting me know about this wonderful subreddit, Christian prudes!
Re: (Score:2)
Why not create a standard HTTP flag or subdomain for sexually dubious content such that families optionally can have ISP's block those for designated users? Without such, religious groups will use a hammer instead of tweezers to block everything first and ask questions never.
So you expect everybody on the Internet to abide by a certain set of rules? That probably will not work.
Some countries will take a hands off approach (like topless beaches in parts of Western Europe) while others will take a strong arm approach (like those non-existent prisons in far west China).
In the end your idea will devolve into a gooey mess that accomplishes nothing.