AFNobody

15 ms·

121.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Correct. Them being shat on (along with others) was timed to disrupt their influence.
122.
by AFNobody 9y ago
So do I. Sadly, we are not living in that world.
123.
by AFNobody 9y ago
> That's a narrative (like the comment I was responding to), not backed by any studies as far as I can tell. The legalization narrative is about sexual abuse (in the general sense both for sex workers and the broader population) and
124.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Fair enough if you meant the purely legal/policy sense rather than the actual people involved.
125.
by AFNobody 9y ago
https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bi... Go read that.
126.
by AFNobody 9y ago
https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bi... Please read that instead of pretending this is some academic debate that won't result in women being abused as a result. People will suffer long
127.
by AFNobody 9y ago
It was not passed for that reason. https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bi...
128.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Why? It is blindingly obvious to the EFF and anyone else who has dealt with politics. This is literally just to wrap it up for the rubes and to find a packaging that could pass. Craigslist, Patreon, Reddit, Youtube, etc. have all started se
129.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Correct. It is not a monolithic block of supporters and that is _precisely_ why they had to wrap it up as they did. The goal was to find a way to do this that would win enough popular support to pass. I fully expect all the non-professional
130.
by AFNobody 9y ago
And multiple previous times. This isn't the first time stuff like this has been amended to an unrelated bill.
131.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Exactly as planned. The goal is creating chilling effects that create self-censorship to be reasonably sure you are safe. And this will begin a slippery slope of "questionable" court cases until they find where the line is. They j
132.
by AFNobody 9y ago
They tried that trick before but I suppose you can argue its not.
133.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Every time there is an unpopular bill they cannot get passed but their financial backers do shit like this happens. They keep trying to pass variations of it in various shady ways until compassion fatigue sets in.
134.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Except they could do that now (its called rape / sex slave trafficking) and the women would know it was safe to contact the police. Part of the power of abusing people is taking away people's paperwork and convincing them the poli
135.
by AFNobody 9y ago
> . People are free to sleep with whom they choose, but when it's done for money, it's far too easy for exploitation to occur. If we say it's always illegal, we remove the veneer of respectability that enables one person t
136.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Operating revenue for "U.S. Information Solutions" is up $29 million over 2016 for the period right after the breach in 2017. + various third parties (i.e. the one linked to) have said its likely they made money off the breach.
137.
by AFNobody 9y ago
To be honest, #3 is a very broad generalization. It wasn't Silicon Valley that gave it up, it was Reddit, Google, Twitter, and FB. The problem is, public perception of "tech" is largely driven by those three companies as they
138.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Yup. No secret, once recorded, stays secret forever and the surveillance state's expansion is making it worse. It'll just be a bigger pot to steal and no one bothers to pay for security because they don't have to. Equifax mad
139.
by AFNobody 9y ago
If you had no assets in the UK and you accept you can never enter the UK.... You could get away with saying No. As long as the UK doesn't talk to the US and ask them to turn you over (which likely requires some serious criminal activit
140.
by AFNobody 9y ago
> Why do we have to "believe"? There are many examples to learn from, to see what works and what doesn't. The discussion was about abuse, not about total number of trafficking incidents. Those _estimates_ are not actual nu
141.
by AFNobody 9y ago
It increases the sexual abuse of marginalized women statistically. Legal brothels have much lower rates of abuse.
142.
by AFNobody 9y ago
The intention is a lie. Much like the Patriot Act was a lie. The chilling effects are 100% intentional. The goal is to target any personal section that does not actively moderate content.
143.
by AFNobody 9y ago
To me, the odd thing is they focus on that instead of legalization and helping people report abuses. Legalization is far from perfect but abuse in Nevada brothels is much lower than as street walkers. It seems it's more a puritanical b
144.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Possible, I know that a couple times a year but I would think a professional in that situation would use a completely different service for personal use. (I.e. Personal Twitter, Professional Reddit)
145.
by AFNobody 9y ago
It does if you do not have your personal stuff on the same physical network/equipment as your professional stuff.
146.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Working with recruiters to hire the same position that was part of a layoff in the same calendar year is problematic for obvious reasons.
147.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Correct in most cases but if they put an identical job title out at an identical location, they are still vulnerable so you have to pick someone a grade more junior or a grade more senior to replace them.
148.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Or you simply avoid consumerism, do your best to improve your situation, and try to hit the $50k/year point where its practical (in much of the US) to retire early if you are willing to live on a living wage rather than an inflated mid
149.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Talking to the cops when you are the victim makes sense. Otherwise, not so much.
150.
by AFNobody 9y ago
They are not but ultimately, a farmer's problems are best solved by interacting with the farmer...not suburban SF techies. People still need to meet but it doesn't mean every company needs to be in the same city for one industry.

More ›