I find it interesting that there's loads of people who made a core part of their identity campaigning against trans women being in women's spaces and how it impacts women, who have gone completely silent about Grok being used to undress and brutalise w...
-
@GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social It's fascinating that payment processors and app stores happily bullied Tumblr over _female presenting nipples_ and have kicked adult game creators off of Steam, but have been completely silent on CSAM and misogyny generated on X
@Steve @ErickaSimone @GossiTheDog They are angry at women making money off their own bodies. Men creating nudes of women without their consent doesn’t bring any material aid to women, so it’s ok
-
@GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social It's fascinating that payment processors and app stores happily bullied Tumblr over _female presenting nipples_ and have kicked adult game creators off of Steam, but have been completely silent on CSAM and misogyny generated on X
@Steve @GossiTheDog Sure, if by "fascinating" you mean "entirely unsurprising and completely expected."
This is patriarchy + complicity toward fascism in action. -
@GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social It's fascinating that payment processors and app stores happily bullied Tumblr over _female presenting nipples_ and have kicked adult game creators off of Steam, but have been completely silent on CSAM and misogyny generated on X
I wish I could boost this a million times. @Steve @GossiTheDog
-
Could US law cover the *distribution* of such material?
Right now we have a popular “top ten” phone app with this garbage. Worse than if it were broadcast on public airwaves or put up on a poster in the public square.
This is a worst case scenario from bad internet debates about porn, gore and obscenity laws come to life.
And I feel like the worst creeps I’ve ever known are whispering “actually it’s called eubuphila” as if that were a serious argument.
@futurebird @cstross The simple grim fact of the matter is that the free speech absolutist position that a government able to ban speech will use this power to suppress its political opponents isn't wrong, and that the position that it is a necessary function of the civil power to suppress CSAM, never mind for-profit, mass production CSAM, isn't wrong, either.
It's a basic systems theory thing that if you get this kind of unresolvable deadlock you're looking at wrong scale.
-
Could US law cover the *distribution* of such material?
Right now we have a popular “top ten” phone app with this garbage. Worse than if it were broadcast on public airwaves or put up on a poster in the public square.
This is a worst case scenario from bad internet debates about porn, gore and obscenity laws come to life.
And I feel like the worst creeps I’ve ever known are whispering “actually it’s called eubuphila” as if that were a serious argument.
I believe it is already covered as a criminal offense in the US under Title 18 Section 1466A.
-
@futurebird @cstross The simple grim fact of the matter is that the free speech absolutist position that a government able to ban speech will use this power to suppress its political opponents isn't wrong, and that the position that it is a necessary function of the civil power to suppress CSAM, never mind for-profit, mass production CSAM, isn't wrong, either.
It's a basic systems theory thing that if you get this kind of unresolvable deadlock you're looking at wrong scale.
@futurebird @cstross Leaving aside the "just what are we doing wrong as a society that there is such a market" and the "computers aren't real" cultural lag, it's a choice; either there are things the civil power is obliged to suppress to permit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be possible, or that's all supposed to be handled by socially mediated means at individual scales.
Since we permit massive corporate entities, the later is equivalent to enslaving the population.
-
@futurebird @cstross Leaving aside the "just what are we doing wrong as a society that there is such a market" and the "computers aren't real" cultural lag, it's a choice; either there are things the civil power is obliged to suppress to permit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be possible, or that's all supposed to be handled by socially mediated means at individual scales.
Since we permit massive corporate entities, the later is equivalent to enslaving the population.
@futurebird @cstross It may well all come down to how corporations are defined, which was a specific project that didn't go through the legislature much; it's a lot like someone recreating an aristocracy through something that looks enormously like how charter land (that is, gifts of land in perpetuity to religious foundations since you couldn't give a temporary gift to an eternal god) created private property a thousand years and more ago.
tl;dr get rid of the special status of corporations.
-
Could US law cover the *distribution* of such material?
Right now we have a popular “top ten” phone app with this garbage. Worse than if it were broadcast on public airwaves or put up on a poster in the public square.
This is a worst case scenario from bad internet debates about porn, gore and obscenity laws come to life.
And I feel like the worst creeps I’ve ever known are whispering “actually it’s called eubuphila” as if that were a serious argument.
I think it is important that in the past grok did not generate such content, but Mr.Musk decided and implemented changes to make this kind of content possible. Implicitly this is an attempt to either challenge the law, or based on a deep belief that the law should not apply to him.
Which reminds me of the Epstein files, and all of those child marraige cults.
Every time we fail to hold the powerful accountable they increase the abuse.
-
I think it is important that in the past grok did not generate such content, but Mr.Musk decided and implemented changes to make this kind of content possible. Implicitly this is an attempt to either challenge the law, or based on a deep belief that the law should not apply to him.
Which reminds me of the Epstein files, and all of those child marraige cults.
Every time we fail to hold the powerful accountable they increase the abuse.
Wilhoit's Law
-
Wilhoit's Law
At some point the conservative needs to stop playing coy and come out and just say who is a person and who isn’t to them.
They don’t want to do this because they don’t even agree.
We are being asked “is a not poor lesbian white lady a person or not?”
And that is the debate.
-
@futurebird @cstross The simple grim fact of the matter is that the free speech absolutist position that a government able to ban speech will use this power to suppress its political opponents isn't wrong, and that the position that it is a necessary function of the civil power to suppress CSAM, never mind for-profit, mass production CSAM, isn't wrong, either.
It's a basic systems theory thing that if you get this kind of unresolvable deadlock you're looking at wrong scale.
@graydon @futurebird @cstross The other grim fact of the matter is that I've yet to find anyone with a free speech absolutist position that isn't completely full of shit. So far every "free speech absolutist" I've ever known has been the kind of free where "I'm free to speak as I wish, and you are free to speak as I wish" type of absolutist.
-
@futurebird @cstross It may well all come down to how corporations are defined, which was a specific project that didn't go through the legislature much; it's a lot like someone recreating an aristocracy through something that looks enormously like how charter land (that is, gifts of land in perpetuity to religious foundations since you couldn't give a temporary gift to an eternal god) created private property a thousand years and more ago.
tl;dr get rid of the special status of corporations.
@graydon @futurebird Corporations act as mechanisms for diffusing responsibility. It seems to me that corporations need to be held accountable by making the executives and board PERSONALLY responsible for criminal actions, with actual jail time for anyone responsible for building a CSAM broadcasting machine (as an example).
Yes, this will royally fuck the execs of any corporation so large that they can't oversee every questionable initiative. Good: that's the idea.
-
Wilhoit's Law
-
@futurebird @cstross It may well all come down to how corporations are defined, which was a specific project that didn't go through the legislature much; it's a lot like someone recreating an aristocracy through something that looks enormously like how charter land (that is, gifts of land in perpetuity to religious foundations since you couldn't give a temporary gift to an eternal god) created private property a thousand years and more ago.
tl;dr get rid of the special status of corporations.
-
@futurebird @lemgandi Yep. We're ALSO being asked to believe amazing bullshit like "pregnant women are not people" (they lose rights to bodily autonomy because magic sky daddy said ectopic foetus is more important than life) at the same time as "corporations are people".
Both these propositions are, I repeat, bullshit on stilts.
-
@futurebird @lemgandi @cstross No, no, the uncertainty is part of the attack.
You never know what to do to avoid the abuse, so you oppress yourself.
See also the spotty enforcement of speed limits, etc.
-
The crucial point is that corporations are not humans, and therefore have no human rights.
@bsdphk @futurebird @cstross Well, except that de jure they do, and de facto they've got a privileged condition where nothing they do has any real consequences.
Which is to say, I don't think corporations as we have them are fixable and we'd need to start over.
-
@graydon @futurebird @cstross The other grim fact of the matter is that I've yet to find anyone with a free speech absolutist position that isn't completely full of shit. So far every "free speech absolutist" I've ever known has been the kind of free where "I'm free to speak as I wish, and you are free to speak as I wish" type of absolutist.
@tclark Popehat or rahaeli would be counterexamples.
The position does exist; it gets coopted harder than libertarian concerns by those after primate band status, but it was and is there as its own thing.
-
Do I need to say “of course she is” —Do I need to say this isn’t how you treat a person?
I’m thinking of so many people who are gone forever without a whisper. I’m looking at every brash and angry conservative voice who is trying justice shooting a person for not being meek and wondering why they don’t realize they are vulnerable too.
Do we keep the gay republicans? the brown ones? what about the ones who can’t ignore mr. epstein?
