3 ms·

Don't have to subject anyone to it. Don't have Facebook.

by asark 7y ago

TallGuyShort 7y ago
I have never distributed child pornography or snuff films. I'm already not subjecting anyone to it. Communications channels exist. Unless you want to undo that, or enable this behavior, you have to deal with it somehow.
- asark 7y ago
  We don't have to have huge, centralized communication sites where anyone can sign up and post stuff and the operator's shielded from liability for what's posted so long as they subject a bunch of humans to it in order to filter it out, even if there's tons and tons of it posted constantly. We only have to have that in order to keep supporting the current ad-tech business models, which isn't a given. I'm not saying if Sally starts a forum and it gets hacked and someone posts illegal stuff she should be fined or charged with anything. I'm not saying she should even be in trouble if she gives one person who turns out to be a jerkass posting rights and that person posts illegal stuff. But if she opens up public signups, gets a billion or two users, then says "well I guess I'll just have to pay a bunch of people money to look at all this gore porn that's getting posted" the rest of us should go "uh, no, you should instead just stop".
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    That's a very arbitrary line that's really just based on you making a judgment call for things you like or against things you don't like. You'd probably do well in American politics.
    - asark 7y ago
      I don't like subjecting a bunch of people to horrible images on an industrial scale, no. And I don't think "it's making us money and we can't think of a better way" is an excuse to keep it up. [EDIT] and given that second sentence, no, I'd get nowhere in American politics.
      - TallGuyShort 7y ago
        So your solution here is that instead of all these people voluntarily seeking other jobs, their department shouldn't have a reason to exist, ergo shutdown Facebook and now all these people and more are involuntarily unemployed. Riight.

Don't have to subject anyone to it. Don't have Facebook.

by asark 7y ago

Don't have to subject anyone to it. Don't have Facebook.

I have never distributed child pornography or snuff films. I'm already not subjecting anyone to it. Communications channels exist. Unless you want to undo that, or enable this behavior, you have to deal with it somehow.

asark 7y ago
We don't have to have huge, centralized communication sites where anyone can sign up and post stuff and the operator's shielded from liability for what's posted so long as they subject a bunch of humans to it in order to filter it out, even if there's tons and tons of it posted constantly. We only have to have that in order to keep supporting the current ad-tech business models, which isn't a given. I'm not saying if Sally starts a forum and it gets hacked and someone posts illegal stuff she should be fined or charged with anything. I'm not saying she should even be in trouble if she gives one person who turns out to be a jerkass posting rights and that person posts illegal stuff. But if she opens up public signups, gets a billion or two users, then says "well I guess I'll just have to pay a bunch of people money to look at all this gore porn that's getting posted" the rest of us should go "uh, no, you should instead just stop".
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  That's a very arbitrary line that's really just based on you making a judgment call for things you like or against things you don't like. You'd probably do well in American politics.
  - asark 7y ago
    I don't like subjecting a bunch of people to horrible images on an industrial scale, no. And I don't think "it's making us money and we can't think of a better way" is an excuse to keep it up. [EDIT] and given that second sentence, no, I'd get nowhere in American politics.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      So your solution here is that instead of all these people voluntarily seeking other jobs, their department shouldn't have a reason to exist, ergo shutdown Facebook and now all these people and more are involuntarily unemployed. Riight.