6 ms·

How will they stop kids from running stable diffusion locally and generating any kind of porn they like? I suspect that will be an unintended side effect of th

by cbeach 3y ago

How will they stop kids from running stable diffusion locally and generating any kind of porn they like? I suspect that will be an unintended side effect of this authoritarianism. The Conservative Party was previously the more libertarian option in the U.K. (effectively) two-party system. I’m not sure how we push back against authoritarianism?

jstarfish 3y ago
> How will they stop kids from running stable diffusion locally and generating any kind of porn they like? A dedicated chip that slaps Margaret Thatcher's face on all generated output.
blitzar 3y ago
The Conservative Party has always been the party of curtain twitching NIMBY authoritarians. The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist, the greatest trick the conservatives ever played was convincing the world that they were conservative.
wait_a_minute 3y ago
> I’m not sure how we push back against authoritarianism? This is one of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment is a good thing. However in the UK they lost track of why a population needs to be able to defend itself when a tyrannical regime tries to take over…
- PhasmaFelis 3y ago
  In the US, the party in favor of unrestricted gun access is also the party that performatively hates porn, so I'm not sure if that would help in this case.
  - wait_a_minute 3y ago
    I do not think there is enough data to base this statement on. I am not aware of any high quality surveys or polling or better that would assess what overlap there is between people who highly favor freedom, with those who highly favor the 2nd Amendment, with those who highly oppose porn, with those who highly favor face scans.
- Joker_vD 3y ago
  The 2nd Amendment is worded as a conditional ("since well-trained militia is required for the state security, the citizens must be allowed to bear firearms") and its premise is actually false, so shouldn't it, technically speaking, have lost its legal power?
  - wait_a_minute 3y ago
    No, and your understanding of it is not reflected by the SCOTUS. You do not need to be in a militia to benefit from the 2nd Amendment or access it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - beaeglebeach 3y ago
      Basically every able bodied citizen male is in the 'unorganized militia' anyway per US code.
    - _w1tm 3y ago
      I thought he meant it the other way around. Since militias are not required for the security of the state, citizens don’t need to bear arms.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      If you’re a male American citizen of a certain age, you are in the militia. Thats what “militia” means—it refers to the part of the citizenry capable of military service.
      - wait_a_minute 3y ago
        Fair enough as it's a very loose definition and doesn't require formalities or any kind of actual restrictions on the right.
        philwelch 3y ago
- mindslight 3y ago
  I'm a gun owner and a believer in the natural right to keep and use tools. But small arms in the context of modern government technological authoritarianism amounts to little more than a security blanket - telling yourself both that you can protect yourself from it, and also that things aren't bad enough "yet". But at best you can go out in a blaze of "glory" while further contributing to the system's advance.
  - cymian 3y ago
    The primary reason a government in control of a strong military (e.g. U.S.) wants to restrict private gun ownership is so that they can scare the populace indirectly by means of rampant crime, riots, etc. which they tacitly permit (or secretly encourage) The population is thereby forced to go along with ever more draconian laws and regulations because their safety is (or is perceived to be) threatened.
  - wait_a_minute 3y ago
    History is full of examples showing that you're wrong. That is not the best case scenario at all. Is it a possible scenario? Sure, but not the best case or only case by any means. The country itself is founded on examples of you being incorrect.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      I don't really know what you're referring to from history, given that this level of technological development and fine-grained agile government/corporate perception/control is a pretty recent phenomenon. Our society is no longer kept in line by force projection from groups of humans with small arms, but rather surveillance tech, dispatchable forces, and the economic advantages of specialization/cooperation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gsz7Gu6agA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gsz7Gu6agA
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - beaeglebeach 3y ago
vidarh 3y ago
> How will they stop kids from running stable diffusion locally and generating any kind of porn they like? And/or just AI generate the faces to prove their age.

by cbeach 3y ago

jstarfish 3y ago

> How will they stop kids from running stable diffusion locally and generating any kind of porn they like? A dedicated chip that slaps Margaret Thatcher's face on all generated output.

blitzar 3y ago

The Conservative Party has always been the party of curtain twitching NIMBY authoritarians. The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist, the greatest trick the conservatives ever played was convincing the world that they were conservative.

wait_a_minute 3y ago

> I’m not sure how we push back against authoritarianism? This is one of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment is a good thing. However in the UK they lost track of why a population needs to be able to defend itself when a tyrannical regime tries to take over…

PhasmaFelis 3y ago
In the US, the party in favor of unrestricted gun access is also the party that performatively hates porn, so I'm not sure if that would help in this case.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  I do not think there is enough data to base this statement on. I am not aware of any high quality surveys or polling or better that would assess what overlap there is between people who highly favor freedom, with those who highly favor the 2nd Amendment, with those who highly oppose porn, with those who highly favor face scans.
Joker_vD 3y ago
The 2nd Amendment is worded as a conditional ("since well-trained militia is required for the state security, the citizens must be allowed to bear firearms") and its premise is actually false, so shouldn't it, technically speaking, have lost its legal power?
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  No, and your understanding of it is not reflected by the SCOTUS. You do not need to be in a militia to benefit from the 2nd Amendment or access it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - beaeglebeach 3y ago
    Basically every able bodied citizen male is in the 'unorganized militia' anyway per US code.
  - _w1tm 3y ago
    I thought he meant it the other way around. Since militias are not required for the security of the state, citizens don’t need to bear arms.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    If you’re a male American citizen of a certain age, you are in the militia. Thats what “militia” means—it refers to the part of the citizenry capable of military service.
    - wait_a_minute 3y ago
      Fair enough as it's a very loose definition and doesn't require formalities or any kind of actual restrictions on the right.
      - philwelch 3y ago
mindslight 3y ago
I'm a gun owner and a believer in the natural right to keep and use tools. But small arms in the context of modern government technological authoritarianism amounts to little more than a security blanket - telling yourself both that you can protect yourself from it, and also that things aren't bad enough "yet". But at best you can go out in a blaze of "glory" while further contributing to the system's advance.
- cymian 3y ago
  The primary reason a government in control of a strong military (e.g. U.S.) wants to restrict private gun ownership is so that they can scare the populace indirectly by means of rampant crime, riots, etc. which they tacitly permit (or secretly encourage) The population is thereby forced to go along with ever more draconian laws and regulations because their safety is (or is perceived to be) threatened.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  History is full of examples showing that you're wrong. That is not the best case scenario at all. Is it a possible scenario? Sure, but not the best case or only case by any means. The country itself is founded on examples of you being incorrect.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    I don't really know what you're referring to from history, given that this level of technological development and fine-grained agile government/corporate perception/control is a pretty recent phenomenon. Our society is no longer kept in line by force projection from groups of humans with small arms, but rather surveillance tech, dispatchable forces, and the economic advantages of specialization/cooperation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gsz7Gu6agA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gsz7Gu6agA
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - beaeglebeach 3y ago

vidarh 3y ago

> How will they stop kids from running stable diffusion locally and generating any kind of porn they like? And/or just AI generate the faces to prove their age.