4 ms·

No one is arguing over what disturbs you. Many people are rightfully arguing that vulnerable populations should not be needlessly exposed to content that is wid

No one is arguing over what disturbs you. Many people are rightfully arguing that vulnerable populations should not be needlessly exposed to content that is widely considered to be disturbing. Have you heard of tor? There’s tons of disturbing in every flavor imaginable with seedy purveyors ready to create whatever content you desire, if you can afford it. Let’s keep that off the clear net and amongst the criminals, for the good of, oh geez, everyone? I encourage you to get your kicks there so that regular people on regular internet can go about their business without seeing CSAM/gore/violent crimes/etc. Communities that harbor disturbing content *will not* scale because the majority of people are not interested in these things so the stakeholders of these venues rightfully police their domains to make them as inviting as possible to as many people as possible. I’m not sure what you’re actually arguing for here. Do you actually want to happen upon beheading videos or CSAM while you read this site or something?

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
No one is advocating for looking at CSAM (well, except you). In fact there wasn’t even the suggestion of that. They have a right to enjoy the content they choose, as long as is it law-abiding. Regardless of if that upsets your sensibilities or not. Frankly, aside from trying to pull the age old “think of the children” routine, do you even have a point? You are arguing that harboring (legal) disturbing content is tantamount to CSAM and should be censored because it “will not scale”, meaning you are focusing on a for-profit lens. Despite the fact that the conversation topic, the Fediverse, is not for-profit. Why does someone enjoying their time in a legal way bother you to the point of indirectly accusing them of viewing CSAM?
- Gordonjcp 3y ago
  > Regardless of if that upsets your sensibilities or not. So you'd be happy if I surrounded your house with huge billboards covered in pictures of dicks, and puppies being thrown into scrap metal shredders?
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    Why are you spending so much money to buy and post billboards around my house specifically? That’s not a viable return on investment. Let alone a sensible argument.
    - Gordonjcp 3y ago
      Why would you spend money to run a website?
      - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
        Websites and billboards are not comparable. If anything ads would be more comparable. So now I have to ask, why are you wanting to advertise dicks?
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    If that's really how you want to spend your money, what the billboard owner wants on their signs, and legal content thensure why couldn't you do that? We can't be censoring anything we find offensive, or even worse anything we think might offend someone else. Trying to draw a line for what is legally banned content is enough of a gray area, there's absolutely no way to draw a line when the metric is what may offend someone.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
  >No one is advocating for looking at CSAM (well, except you). In fact there wasn’t even the suggestion of that. You’re being awfully charitable with such a contrived interpretation of the comment above mine. Fact is they didn’t say what bad stuff they think should be allowed in prominent online spaces frequented by children and vulnerable populations, legal or otherwise. Having read enough about the salacious corners of the clear net, it’s rather safe to assume CSAM is among the bad stuff this person was vaguely referencing. It would be helpful if they provided an enumerated list of the crap they enjoy seeing but that would also require them to expose themselves. Do you see the contradiction and need to read between the lines here?Every platform, even moderated one’s, faces this problem: Twitter, Facebook, instagram, Reddit, all of them. I’m not encouraging people to seek this stuff out, and your accusation that I am stands in stark contrast to the charity you gave the person above. Concerning. Regardless, if that’s their thing I hope they walk right into a honeypot. >You are arguing that harboring (legal) disturbing content is tantamount to CSAM and should be censored because it “will not scale”, meaning you are focusing on a for-profit lens. Despite the fact that the conversation topic, the Fediverse, is not for-profit. Bad faith argument and patent misinterpretation. Reddit, the front page of the internet, is mentioned in the context above and largely what I’m arguing in regards to. To be explicit, Reddit is not a federated platform and is for profit, and it’s reasonable to speculate on the intentions of the platforms leadership, especially when they state explicitly that they want more money. I’m not interested in arguing about what grimy stuff nobodies get up to on the fedoverse. It’s probably a lot like 4chan or the sites that spring up when abusive groups get hit by a ban wave on larger platforms: gab, truth social. The fefiverse will likely remain fringe for the foreseeable future for this very reason and isn’t an interesting discussion due to the limited audience. grimy people drive valuable/helpful users away necessitating the removal of said bad actors. Also, I’m not interested in the profitability of platforms. I’m interested in the health of the communities and grimy content pushes normal people away reducing the health of the community. I don’t care that the person above wants to look at grimy stuff, I care when the same people want to see their perverse interests made mainstream which is exactly what many people are arguing for, with concerningly vague terminology, in this thread. Gross. ETA Interesting you didn’t speak to beheading videos…

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

No one is advocating for looking at CSAM (well, except you). In fact there wasn’t even the suggestion of that. They have a right to enjoy the content they choose, as long as is it law-abiding. Regardless of if that upsets your sensibilities or not. Frankly, aside from trying to pull the age old “think of the children” routine, do you even have a point? You are arguing that harboring (legal) disturbing content is tantamount to CSAM and should be censored because it “will not scale”, meaning you are focusing on a for-profit lens. Despite the fact that the conversation topic, the Fediverse, is not for-profit. Why does someone enjoying their time in a legal way bother you to the point of indirectly accusing them of viewing CSAM?

Gordonjcp 3y ago
> Regardless of if that upsets your sensibilities or not. So you'd be happy if I surrounded your house with huge billboards covered in pictures of dicks, and puppies being thrown into scrap metal shredders?
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  Why are you spending so much money to buy and post billboards around my house specifically? That’s not a viable return on investment. Let alone a sensible argument.
  - Gordonjcp 3y ago
    Why would you spend money to run a website?
    - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
      Websites and billboards are not comparable. If anything ads would be more comparable. So now I have to ask, why are you wanting to advertise dicks?
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  If that's really how you want to spend your money, what the billboard owner wants on their signs, and legal content thensure why couldn't you do that? We can't be censoring anything we find offensive, or even worse anything we think might offend someone else. Trying to draw a line for what is legally banned content is enough of a gray area, there's absolutely no way to draw a line when the metric is what may offend someone.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
>No one is advocating for looking at CSAM (well, except you). In fact there wasn’t even the suggestion of that. You’re being awfully charitable with such a contrived interpretation of the comment above mine. Fact is they didn’t say what bad stuff they think should be allowed in prominent online spaces frequented by children and vulnerable populations, legal or otherwise. Having read enough about the salacious corners of the clear net, it’s rather safe to assume CSAM is among the bad stuff this person was vaguely referencing. It would be helpful if they provided an enumerated list of the crap they enjoy seeing but that would also require them to expose themselves. Do you see the contradiction and need to read between the lines here?Every platform, even moderated one’s, faces this problem: Twitter, Facebook, instagram, Reddit, all of them. I’m not encouraging people to seek this stuff out, and your accusation that I am stands in stark contrast to the charity you gave the person above. Concerning. Regardless, if that’s their thing I hope they walk right into a honeypot. >You are arguing that harboring (legal) disturbing content is tantamount to CSAM and should be censored because it “will not scale”, meaning you are focusing on a for-profit lens. Despite the fact that the conversation topic, the Fediverse, is not for-profit. Bad faith argument and patent misinterpretation. Reddit, the front page of the internet, is mentioned in the context above and largely what I’m arguing in regards to. To be explicit, Reddit is not a federated platform and is for profit, and it’s reasonable to speculate on the intentions of the platforms leadership, especially when they state explicitly that they want more money. I’m not interested in arguing about what grimy stuff nobodies get up to on the fedoverse. It’s probably a lot like 4chan or the sites that spring up when abusive groups get hit by a ban wave on larger platforms: gab, truth social. The fefiverse will likely remain fringe for the foreseeable future for this very reason and isn’t an interesting discussion due to the limited audience. grimy people drive valuable/helpful users away necessitating the removal of said bad actors. Also, I’m not interested in the profitability of platforms. I’m interested in the health of the communities and grimy content pushes normal people away reducing the health of the community. I don’t care that the person above wants to look at grimy stuff, I care when the same people want to see their perverse interests made mainstream which is exactly what many people are arguing for, with concerningly vague terminology, in this thread. Gross. ETA Interesting you didn’t speak to beheading videos…