ceol

65 ms·

601.
by ceol 15y ago
There is. They didn't introduce the rule without enforcing it. The initial subreddits removed are evidence of their enforcement of said rule.
602.
by ceol 15y ago
The rule itself is broad, and could encompass things like popular cartoons, artistic works, and even clips from television shows that hint at sexuality. However, that's not how it's been enforced, and I don't see the admins using it to remo
603.
by ceol 15y ago
You never actually looked at any of the subreddits removed, did you?
604.
by ceol 15y ago
>Comparing the content of /r/jailbait to child porn is akin to comparing the sights of an average day at the beach to the set of a hardcore porno shoot. It's completely bogus. This isn't about /r/jailbait. This is about the other subr
605.
by ceol 15y ago
>1) Some of these subreddits may have contained CP, the illegal ones were being actively removed by admins. CP was posted in the same subreddits. The admins were tired of spending their time determining if reported images were illegal
606.
by ceol 15y ago
>Again, why were those illegal and not the examples I gave? "Artistic value" is not a criteria of the Dost test. Why they were posted isn't either. Probably because the photograph wasn't meant to elicit a sexual response, nor were her
607.
by ceol 15y ago
The Dost test specifically mentions a minor does not have to be nude for the photograph to be considered pornography. That's just one possible criteria to consider.
608.
by ceol 15y ago
>Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement? Enough to determine there was no intent to post legal content. >And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large num
609.
by ceol 15y ago
>Have you looked at the majority of pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were illegal? I saw enough to make the judgement the majority of it was illegal. They had no intention of posting legal conten
610.
by ceol 15y ago
I never said it was legitimate content on Facebook. I said Facebook shouldn't be liable. Are you reading any of my replies? Or do you already have your answer formulated in your head before I type anything?
611.
by ceol 15y ago
Most of the images did not pass the Dost Test.[0] They were illegal. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test
612.
by ceol 15y ago
I never said the subreddit is illegal because it's titled "jailbait" or "teen girls". I said it's illegal because of the content it hosts and promotes. >Also, if you believe that the stolen facebook/photobucket photos are illegal, shou
613.
by ceol 15y ago
And you're in the same boat as before...
614.
by ceol 15y ago
>Ok, then first: did you look at all pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were all illegal? I said the majority of them were illegal. >What, do you really think the photoshoot of a naked Miley C
615.
by ceol 15y ago
To be honest, I don't feel comfortable researching cases where someone was prosecuted for owning a collection of images that, on their own, would not constitute child pornography.
616.
by ceol 15y ago
>Considering the subjectiveness of the legal rules, I find that impossible to know unless each pictures was considered by a court. Then this entire argument is moot, is it not? If you require a court to verify each photograph, you do
617.
by ceol 15y ago
The number of illegal pictures far outweighed the number of pictures you could construe as legal, and even then, the subreddit itself was illegal.
618.
by ceol 15y ago
The *bait subreddits they removed were illegal.
619.
by ceol 15y ago
Nothing they've removed is legal. A child does not have to be nude to constitute child pornography.
620.
by ceol 15y ago
> Most people don't take the word "bitching" as a sexist term when it's used to refer to an entire group of unspecified complainers. Just because your intent was not sexist does not mean the word isn't sexist.[0] It's the same reason
621.
by ceol 15y ago
No, not all gendered words are sexist, but gendered insults and slurs are. I'm sorry if that was not clear from my original comment.
622.
by ceol 15y ago
Its original root is "female dog", but the verb "to bitch", meaning "to complain", has its roots in the pejorative, gendered insult. Hopefully this isn't too off-topic.
623.
by ceol 15y ago
> That's why I started my post with "Let me contrive a hypothetical". Not here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3561964 This is the post I originally responded to, so this is the post I was assuming we were talking about. >
624.
by ceol 15y ago
> a lot of random bitching about how this or that is sexist Just thought I'd point out the humor in you using a gendered word to describe their tendency to talk about sexism.
625.
by ceol 15y ago
> It's misleading to ignore both possibilities and pretend that only one will ever happen. Then why did you ignore the third possibility? > Only if you misread my post. No, that's pretty much the definition of a false dichotomy.
626.
by ceol 15y ago
Or, if it's GPL, you won't take it, and you will write your own in-house version which you'll never release. That is the more likely scenario. You're presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. If a company that's adamant against open-sourcing
627.
by ceol 15y ago
The company in scenario A isn't the same one in scenario B. If a company isn't going to contribute their improvements to a BSD project, what makes you think they're going to open-source their entire code base just to "grudgingly" use a GPL
628.
by ceol 15y ago
I appreciate your concern about "abusers" who use your code without giving back, but that's what I mean when I say GPL isn't advocating true freedom: They should have the freedom to not give back. What GPL does is force developers to releas
629.
by ceol 15y ago
> As soon as you share that software with anyone and refuse to hand over the source, and deny the recipient the right to modify and/or redistribute your program, you are taking away that person's Freedom. I'm not taking away anyone's
630.
by ceol 15y ago
That's quite the extrapolation. When did I ever say I don't mind those things? I mind them very much. I also mind being forced to do something. I can make a proprietary fork and still give back; when are those two things mutually exclusiv

More ›