People really should stop trying to be the mutaween of the internet. It's getting tiresome.
The reason the world has moved on from calling it "child porn" is
- because the world has generally moved on from thinking consensual pornography is always morally indefensible
- because consensual pornography is generally legal
- and so because "porn" doesn't truly describe what is happening
It's not a euphemism. It's a clarification. A minority of pornography with adults involves abuse. But _all_ of the material you think should not be "euphemistically" called CSAM intrinsically involves abuse.
It's just like "ISIS". Every organization had an opinion on whether to call it "ISIL" or "the so-called Islamic State" or "Daesh", but the fact is everyone not making a press release just called it "ISIS". Nobody thought that that name was endorsing their self-claimed statehood, and nobody thinks "child porn" somehow justifies it. But using constantly-changing ("CSAI", "CSEM") jargon just confuses anyone not in the know and makes the topic harder to search
_All_ revenge porn involves abuse, but that's still the common term. It's still porn, in the same way that rape is still sex
Because it was normal porn when it was made, and the abuse is external to the actual content.
Oh dear. This is appallingly misinformed.
CG-CSAM also covers photoshop editing, I think.
As I say, this term appears to be used in the past broadly to include the kind of 3D animations that appear in conventional porn adverts, and also to face-swap and other Photoshop-type edits.
All I can say is that prosecutions in the UK for example have often mentioned such material alongside conventionally shared material.
I don't think I've read about any prosecutions where fake material was the only material justifying prosecution. But I could have missed that.
I have absolutely no interest in getting into the rest of the argument, which is tedious and IMO kind of obvious on many grounds.
Which is more mild? “Sexual abuse material”, or “pornography”?
Anyway, the point of bringing up CSAM or child pornography is to point out that you don’t think it’s bad idea to allow “the New Zealand police ordering websites to remove content they dislike and hand over user information about anyone who so much as discussed it” in every context. In some cases you (or if not you, then at least the vast majority of society) thinks it’s appropriate.
So, now we know that there is line, and it’s a matter of discussing as a society where that line should be. I happen to agree that we should keep the government very far away from regulating speech, as much as possible, but I don’t view your argument as the best way of getting there.
Children cannot defend themselves. Adults can. No one is particularly interested if this fine line escapes you. The line exists, no one is interested in changing it (other than pedophiles, of course), and the proletariat would quite like it if the bourgeoisie could leave us the hell alone, thank you very much.
Also, allow me to clarify one point: I don't have an argument. I have a class interest. I am not interested in convincing you one way or another. If arguments actually worked to protect our rights then we wouldn't have to go through this merry-go-round of nonsense every few years. I am stating quite simply that the proletariat has certain rights and attempting to infringe upon the same as the bourgeoisie has done for the last decade is a sure-fire way to result in the same being subject to boycott and ruin... and if you don't think that is the case then ask Budweiser how they're doing at their next quarterly earnings report.
My only message is for bourgeoisie who may be reading: If you value your profits then maybe you should consider leaving your customers the hell alone, because the incident with Budweiser shows that customers incensed with your manipulations can and will stop doing business with you. No one is exempt from this fact, including ISPs, NSPs, payment processors, or other intermediaries who perhaps justifiably think that they are untouchable.
Lest there be any room for doubt: KiwiFarms has been under assault for the better part of a year and change... and now we're talking about it on Hacker News. This story is being talked about here and now because some people have had enough of this nonsense. Maybe everyone should take a break... pause, reflect... and ask whether trying to manipulate their customers to their own financial ruin is really something they want to pursue to the bitter end.
This is part of him exalting capitalism for laying the groundwork that he believed would make socialism possible. E.g. later:
> The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
So this notion of making an argument that it is about class couched in left wing terms does not change that by that same left wing thinking, this process is progressive. Not by intent, but firstly because bigotry and hate is bad for business, as your yourself point out when you talk of Budweiser boycott (ironically mostly benefiting a more progressive company), and so while some short term losses will be had by people pushing to hard too fast, the regressive parts of the working classes will not just be left to its own, but will be battered over and over by both the bourgeoisie and the progressive parts of the working classes, because bigotry and hate is bad not just for business but also for people.
Class warfare predates Marx by roughly two thousand years (if not longer). I am not interested in what he has to say on the matter. It was sufficiently described by greeks, along with where it ultimately leads, as the Kyklos or Anacyclosis.
> So this notion of making an argument that it is about class couched in left wing terms does not change that by that same left wing thinking,
Class warfare is not a left wing concept. The left and right wing are a result of class warfare, which predates Marx and the rest of his gang of thieves masquerading as revolutionaries.
TL;DR I don't care about your bourgeoisie rhetoric of who said what. The proletariat has an absolute right to freely speak its mind without your interference. Deal with it.
It's also fascinating that you favour the idea of cycles, as in that case trying to fight the bourgeoisie is an inherently lost cause and you'd be better off trying to become part of it.
But in any case, the major point was that while you may be free to speak your mind, so are others, and they are also free to choose to not want to associate with people who want to spread hate and bigotry, and you're facing a losing battle. Doubly so if you believe in social cycles (an utterly idiotic concept to buy into today given the amount of change since it was conceived), in which case you're doomed to keeping losing this battle forever.
In any case: Marx is irrelevant, these people are on the wrong side of history, as is anyone who sides with them. Have fun screaming at a wall.
Because business is a two-way transaction. This sounds like an argument in favor of HE's position. If their owner finds KiwiFarms' behavior reprehensible, They're not obligated to do business with it.
Yes.
> Because business is a two-way transaction. This sounds like an argument in favor of HE's position.
Only because you are deliberately mischaracterizing it. No man has the right to void a contract without just cause, nor interfere in the contractual relations of others. When Hurricane Electric unilaterally decides that someone downstream of them has violated their terms of service that is precisely what they have done. Furthermore, someone holding themselves out as a business does not have the right to arbitrarily refuse service to anyone... that much has been made abundantly clear over as many decades of the struggle for civil rights.
Put simply: customers can freely choose not to do business with you. You, however, generally do not get to choose who your customers are. Green is green. This is the system you and yours have designed, and you are free to choke on it.
Sorry, but with respect: you misunderstand the Civil Rights Act and its peer legislature.
CRA and its peers carved out specific categories in which service, if provided at all, must be provided, more or less centered on intrinsic properties that do not impact or reflect the content of one's character. That carve-out is as exceptions to the default common law sense that any company may choose to refrain from doing business at any time. That's the bedrock and we make exceptions.
A cop was recently refused service at a bakery because they have a no open weapons policy (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4174109-san-francis...). "No shirts, no shoes, no service" is pretty bog-standard recognized restaurant boilerplate. In most states, bartenders can kick out someone who's dressed like a Nazi. And in HE's case, their terms of service refuse use of their services for illegal activity. In their opinion (and this could, perhaps, be tested in a court of law), this includes providing service to a company that is allowing illegal activity through its network and looking the other way ("data laundring," if you will).
You're right that green is green, and that generally serves as a practical counterweight for abuse of this privilege. But the privilege stands, and if a company decides the money isn't worth the loss to reputation or anything else they value, they may, with few carefully-carved exceptions, leave it on the table.
It's a high hill to climb to justify why we should stud these ground rules with an additional civil rights exception for the likes of KF. What societal benefit? Because it's pretty easy to see the content of their character, and their state of being isn't intrinsic to them and inextricable from their character ("just stop being cyberbullies").