3 ms·

Is there any censorship in this space which you think is acceptable, or is all censorship inappropriate, in your opinion. Obviously, the public gets no benefit

Is there any censorship in this space which you think is acceptable, or is all censorship inappropriate, in your opinion. Obviously, the public gets no benefit when you censor some guy from doing his business in private. But you're also in danger of providing sexualised child characters for people to jerk off to. How do you square all of this, I'm interested in hearing how you approached this problem

bobcoi 2y ago
I think I'm taking the Twitter approach. As long as it is not illegal it's fine
- majestik 2y ago
  How do you know if it’s illegal?
- notavalleyman 2y ago
  Can you explain more about how you settled at 'fine' when it comes to providing sexualised child characters for pedos to jerk off to? Like, is there not some part of that which you feel less than 'fine' about? I'm not saying that you're wrong or need to stop - just very curious about how/whether you approached the issue.
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    Not author, but these are just pixels.
  - nh23423fefe 2y ago
    do you imagine caring about pixels is moral and good behavior? isnt it demented and unhinged to concern yourself?
- krapp 2y ago
  That isn't the Twitter approach. Twitter bans legal content all the time.
paulluuk 2y ago
> Obviously, the public gets no benefit when you censor some guy from doing his business in private. > But you're also in danger of providing sexualised child characters for people to jerk off to. I would say that anything is fine in private, even that. Better than them looking for the real thing, right? I guess some people are afraid that such content will actually turn people into pedo's, but I don't think that's true any more than watching gay porn will turn you gay.
- toasteros 2y ago
  Please do not attempt to find nuance in the argument "CSAM is bad".
  - paulluuk 2y ago
    CSAM is bad, no nuance. Which is why I welcome an alternative that could collapse the entire CSAM market and therefore save thousands of lives. But, this is probably not the forum for this topic anyway. I understand that there are many complications to this, including the risk for normalization.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
evoke4908 2y ago
For public consumption, yeah I think it's reasonable to censor the most egregious stuff, but for private use there's really no point. If people want something, they will always find a way to get it. 100% of the time. There is absolutely no amount of censorship or even laws that can prevent it. Censoring anything meant for private use seems like a pretty pointless exercise. It will either get un-censored, or users will find what they want elsewhere. E: You also need to ask yourself: assuming that you can't simply suppress other people's desires for things you find objectionable (because you can't), would you rather they use fictional CP with fictional people, or the real deal with real children? Because the real thing very much exists and is quite available despite the laws and social stigma. If you make some vain attempt to prevent anyone from ever creating fictional CP, then what do you think those people will get next?
swatcoder 2y ago
There's a reasonable philosophy where toolmakers don't involve themselves in fine, disputed, and frequently changing cultural differences. It's one thing to build guardrails into tools where the impact is immediate and catastrophic, like a safety guard on saw, so that people don't permanently lose a finger to distraction or casual negligence. It's a different thing -- to be reasonably argued both for and against -- to build guardrails against concerns that are abstract, indirect, cultural, political, etc And you can tell that your example is more cultural than catastrophic because not everybody frets over what people do by themselves and in their own mind.

bobcoi 2y ago

I think I'm taking the Twitter approach. As long as it is not illegal it's fine

majestik 2y ago
How do you know if it’s illegal?
notavalleyman 2y ago
Can you explain more about how you settled at 'fine' when it comes to providing sexualised child characters for pedos to jerk off to? Like, is there not some part of that which you feel less than 'fine' about? I'm not saying that you're wrong or need to stop - just very curious about how/whether you approached the issue.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  Not author, but these are just pixels.
- nh23423fefe 2y ago
  do you imagine caring about pixels is moral and good behavior? isnt it demented and unhinged to concern yourself?
krapp 2y ago
That isn't the Twitter approach. Twitter bans legal content all the time.

paulluuk 2y ago

> Obviously, the public gets no benefit when you censor some guy from doing his business in private. > But you're also in danger of providing sexualised child characters for people to jerk off to. I would say that anything is fine in private, even that. Better than them looking for the real thing, right? I guess some people are afraid that such content will actually turn people into pedo's, but I don't think that's true any more than watching gay porn will turn you gay.

toasteros 2y ago
Please do not attempt to find nuance in the argument "CSAM is bad".
- paulluuk 2y ago
  CSAM is bad, no nuance. Which is why I welcome an alternative that could collapse the entire CSAM market and therefore save thousands of lives. But, this is probably not the forum for this topic anyway. I understand that there are many complications to this, including the risk for normalization.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

evoke4908 2y ago

For public consumption, yeah I think it's reasonable to censor the most egregious stuff, but for private use there's really no point. If people want something, they will always find a way to get it. 100% of the time. There is absolutely no amount of censorship or even laws that can prevent it. Censoring anything meant for private use seems like a pretty pointless exercise. It will either get un-censored, or users will find what they want elsewhere. E: You also need to ask yourself: assuming that you can't simply suppress other people's desires for things you find objectionable (because you can't), would you rather they use fictional CP with fictional people, or the real deal with real children? Because the real thing very much exists and is quite available despite the laws and social stigma. If you make some vain attempt to prevent anyone from ever creating fictional CP, then what do you think those people will get next?

swatcoder 2y ago

There's a reasonable philosophy where toolmakers don't involve themselves in fine, disputed, and frequently changing cultural differences. It's one thing to build guardrails into tools where the impact is immediate and catastrophic, like a safety guard on saw, so that people don't permanently lose a finger to distraction or casual negligence. It's a different thing -- to be reasonably argued both for and against -- to build guardrails against concerns that are abstract, indirect, cultural, political, etc And you can tell that your example is more cultural than catastrophic because not everybody frets over what people do by themselves and in their own mind.