3 ms·

I'm a little sympathetic to the author because I don't consider viewing the image all that damaging, but I'm not a fan of the general principle of hurting innoc

I'm a little sympathetic to the author because I don't consider viewing the image all that damaging, but I'm not a fan of the general principle of hurting innocent bystanders in order to cause second-order pain to a third party. I think you'd probably agree that, say, overwriting every file on the end user's computer with a text file complaining about how the iframe-wielding website steals content would be an unacceptable thing for the author to do. But the only difference would be the degree of suffering inflicted on the innocent bystander.

jonahx 3y ago
The difference is that I rate the amount of "hurt" to the viewers as essentially zero in this case, and I think the concern is misplaced pearl-clutching.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  Agree for adults. Don't agree for young kids. If you think this image is acceptable to show to young kids, are there any images you think are unacceptable to show them?
  - jonahx 3y ago
    Images of violence. Also the phrase "you think this image is acceptable to show to young kids" subtly alters my position in a disingenuous and (I think) intentional way. My position is not that you should "show young kids goatse" but that "a young kid seeing a flash of goatse isn't really a big deal". They might laugh, they might be a little grossed out, they might be curious why someone would do something so strange. I think the idea that they would be "harmed" or "traumatized" is pure adult projection.
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      Some apparent dichotomies are false, but "viewing/not viewing an image" is the real deal. (Do you want to make the case that a small exposure time represents a genuine midpoint between these extremes, to justify treating "a flash" of goatse as a special case, distinct from "viewing" it? If so, then right now I disagree, but would be interested in hearing your reasons why.) I think there is a genuine change in meaning, coming from your use of the word "should": >My position is not that you should "show young kids goatse But that's not a word I used (or intended). ETA: Agree on images of violence.

jonahx 3y ago

The difference is that I rate the amount of "hurt" to the viewers as essentially zero in this case, and I think the concern is misplaced pearl-clutching.

akoboldfrying 3y ago
Agree for adults. Don't agree for young kids. If you think this image is acceptable to show to young kids, are there any images you think are unacceptable to show them?
- jonahx 3y ago
  Images of violence. Also the phrase "you think this image is acceptable to show to young kids" subtly alters my position in a disingenuous and (I think) intentional way. My position is not that you should "show young kids goatse" but that "a young kid seeing a flash of goatse isn't really a big deal". They might laugh, they might be a little grossed out, they might be curious why someone would do something so strange. I think the idea that they would be "harmed" or "traumatized" is pure adult projection.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    Some apparent dichotomies are false, but "viewing/not viewing an image" is the real deal. (Do you want to make the case that a small exposure time represents a genuine midpoint between these extremes, to justify treating "a flash" of goatse as a special case, distinct from "viewing" it? If so, then right now I disagree, but would be interested in hearing your reasons why.) I think there is a genuine change in meaning, coming from your use of the word "should": >My position is not that you should "show young kids goatse But that's not a word I used (or intended). ETA: Agree on images of violence.