whats_a_refoogee @ whats_a_refoogee @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

93

Joined

2 yr. ago

Anyone thinking that Microsoft's recently found appreciation for open source isn't a Trojan Horse is a fool.

As long as it's not being used to target ads at me

It's Microsoft. They will gather every bit of your data they can and use it for whatever makes the most money. Which is usually personalized ads.

Like, nobody ever says "you people" unless they're about to commit injustice.

Lmfao what? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read.

He said "all you people", referring to the media and the comments. He wasn't referring to any demographic.

Obviously, when "you people" is used to refer to a demographic, it's followed by something negative. But it doesn't mean it can't be used in normal conversation.

Jail time for what crime? Do you have an example of this happening?

I can find one case in 2014 in Arizona. The man burned a bible in front of a Christian-oriented homeless shelter. He was detained on suspicion of one count of unlawful symbol burning.

That seemed like a very strange law, so I looked it up.

A. It is unlawful for a person to burn or cause to be burned any symbol not addressed by section 13-1707 on the property of another person without that person's permission or on a highway or any other public place with the intent to intimidate any person or group of persons. The intent to intimidate may not be inferred solely from the act of burning the symbol, but shall be proven by independent evidence.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

If I had to speculate, this law was probably put in place against cross burning by the KKK or similar intimidating acts.

He was arrested on suspicion of unlawful symbol burning, but I can't find any updates on the case, which likely means he was not prosecuted for it.

I can't find any more cases besides this and someone being jailed for 11 years for burning a bible. In Egypt.

What ideology did he promote?

Being against Judaism is not the same as being a Nazi whatsoever, so your analogy is just incorrect on a fundamental level. And frankly, it's so obvious that it feels like a bad faith argument.

And yes, if you had relatives killed by jewish (religion, not ethnicity) people justified by their religion, it would be completely in your right to burn their religious text.

Hell, you're in your right to go burn any religious texts you want without a reason. (Not recommended in Islamic countries, might lead to a severe case of a death penalty).

How do you know anyone is a verified adult? A 17 year old can look like a 22 year old. Should we ban all porn unless its of verified adults? Should one need a license to use their body in pornography?

Do you verify everyone to be of age in all pornographic material you consume? Unless you do, there is a decent chance you've unknowingly seen pornographic content involving someone just not quite of age.

To answer your question more directly, pornography companies where images usually originate obviously don't hire underage actors. Sites for posting/selling self pornography also require documents, but that's pretty prone to forgery.

When it comes to self posting on social media, all bets are off. Someone not quite of age can post pornography of themselves on twitter or reddit or they can even post it on self hosted blog.

So you have 2 solutions: Ban all pornography of people who would be asked for a driver's license when they are buying alcohol. So probably like 30+ years of age. Requires a government license to post pornography of self, which would also require disclosing your legal name and other identifiable information when posting pornography.

Or we can continue being pragmatic and use our best judgement while understanding that our perception can't tell who is 17 years and 363 days old and who just turned 18.

Right.

You missed what the drama is over.

You can't baselessly accuse whoever you want of posting and viewing CSAM because it looked like it to you, and then continuing to insist on that being the case after being proven wrong.

Are women with small breasts considered vulnerable people by blahaj.zone or as pedophile enablers? Does them being gay or minority affect this?

Oh no! Barely 18? As in an adult? Adults in porn?! Call the fucking cops. Not like there is a 1000 porn studios with 18 in their name.

And if you're taking action because of how right wing propaganda might misinterpret it to paint you in a bad light, that's just pathetic.

You're mostly right, expect video playback doesn't need high quality bandwidth.

Video players usually keep a forward buffer of a few minutes of video, which means your connection can be extremely unstable and still provide smooth playback as long as your average bandwidth is sufficient.

No matter how good an AI is, it cannot restore details that were lost. It can approximate them, but if you have a 4k photo of a piece of paper with a small stick figure drawn on it and compress it to 144p, you will have a gray blob in its place at best or just nothing.

The most advanced AI from 50 years into the future would still not be able to restore the original stick figure.

I don't believe that you're consistent on this position.

I would be incredibly shocked if you had the same stance towards white supremacists, Nazis, or pedophiles that want to remove age of consent.

If you do, then cheers. You're practically a unicorn (in the sense that it's extremely rare). I don't disagree with that position as long as it's consistant

Smart kid. Isn't falling for fear mongering articles.