Dweller1622

I'm curious if you're familiar with the particulars of how Huggingface was hacked. They were negligent in their own ways and rights. Mounting a host path volume in a Kubernetes pod is really not "super hacker" territory!

> I think there needs to be a certain level of intention to make the fantasy reality for it to be a kink.

Hopefully this isn't to imply that people with fantasies actually want to have non-consensual sex in some capacity. If so then this completely misunderstands sexual fantasy!

Unfortunately, for this to be an answer to my question, it would actually have to elaborate. Bare assertions aren't an explanation, and as it stands this message communicates nothing to me.

> I want every platform to be safe

> We don't allow arsenic in bread

I'm curious what work the verbiage of "safety" is doing throughout these posts. It's particularly interesting to me because I'd also like to consign things like infinite scrolling and adversarial algorithmic recommendations to the dustbin of history. I'm simply not sure how we describe this as being a question of "safety" in any appreciable sense, much less compare looking at things to eating things. That's really not a useful analogy here.

The world at large seems to have descended into moral panic on all sorts of subjects and it's difficult for me to understand precisely how or why. Perhaps it's no coincidence that over the last decade and change there seems to have been broad political shifts to the right. Certainly the various moral panics would have interplay with that, but I'm not sure which came first if either.

I can find a "US v Fletcher" from 2008 that deals with obscenity law, though the only "US v McCoy" I can find was itself about charges for CSAM. The latter does seem to reference a previous case where the same person was charged for "transporting obscene material" though I can't find it.

That being said, I'm not sure I've seen a single obscenity case since Handly which wasn't against someone with a prior record, piled on charges, or otherwise simply the most expedient way for the government to prosecute someone.

As you've indicated in your own comment here, there's been many, many things over the last few decades that fall afoul the letter of the law yet which the government doesn't concern itself with. That itself seems to tell us something.

What in the world is this referring to?

uBlock Origin Lite is available for Safari on mobile, though that's not exactly the same extension. Orion supports standard uBlock Origin on mobile, but then that's not a browser "of note."

You win this round!

I'm not the biggest fan of how I phrased some of this. Perhaps "and so I'm opting not to speak to those point."

Unfortunate how short the edit window for comments is on here. In either case, I suppose what I'm saying is clear enough.

There's a number of things being said here, but much of it seems orthogonal to the original discussion and so I'm not going to address it.

Rather, if these characters aren't agents, I wonder where this leaves us re: sex positivity and "media [that] sexualizes women to a problematic degree." I don't think anything here tells me.

No, that's fine, since I think it's not only the case that these are sufficient, but that I simply wasn't explicit enough in my rejection.

What I'm disputing is any application of objectification theory to media analysis wherein there are no actual agents involved. Neither The Handmaiden nor Night Sister Mirrin ever possessed any agency, nor were they deprived of it. There is simply no moral valence in how one treats or regards them.

The demand here is that they be treated as if they possessed agency. I see no reason or obligation to do so.

I've definitely seen people say it's about agency, though exactly what they mean by that and why they think that matters tends to vary. That said, I suspect your response is in line with the person I was originally responding to.

In a different context I might be more sympathetic to this specific formulation of the concept since it's not always clear how much agency the background dancers in a music video or advert have. However, on the original topic of video games, the notion of "character agency" is rather pernicious.

Can you give me an example of this? As far as I understand it sex positivity doesn't seem to be concerned with "media sexualizing women" in and of itself. Consequently I'm not sure what "media [that] sexualizes women to a problematic degree" is or would even look like.

What does it mean to "handle online media?" How is it you would say "most adults" fall short of this?

Product development disagreements are largely immaterial to me, though the discussion around their integrations with Yandex remind me of prior discussions around their integrations with Brave.

Either way, thanks for sharing.

What is the direction that things are going at Kagi now? What were they before?

It’s not entirely clear what this is in reference to or what you’re attempting to say.

The supposition that this is “more nuanced than I think” given the particular example you’ve chosen strikes me as quite bizarre.

Does “17 year olds collecting nudes of 14 year olds to gawk at and bully them over” not strike you as abusive and/or exploitative? Because it certainly does to me.

I think you’ve chosen to interpret my post in an excessively literal manner (i.e only adults abuse or exploit teenagers) rather than the far more obvious alternatives I intended (e.g a 16 year old “sexting” their 17 year old partner).

Or, put another way, if I say we’re opposed to abuse and exploitation, and then you present me with a situation involving abuse and exploitation, of course I’d be opposed to it. Certainly you’re capable of figuring out this isn’t the sort of thing I was talking about.

> It's trying to exclude "innocent" things like selfies or "simulated" things like drawings, but those are just as illegal in some or all countries.

Selfies shared between teenagers are innocent! When an adult enters the picture is when it becomes a problem, because yes: it’s abuse and exploitation that we’re objecting to. Unless we think morality is a question of aesthetics, then yes, this also means drawings are not in and of themselves our concern.

Why do think this is unreasonable?

> then what's with the pronouns

It's been the case that when I encounter people with non-normative pronouns they're trans, but you're right that isn't necessarily the case. My mistake!

I know I asked the initial question, but I guess I'm confused what exactly this conversation is about. Is the idea that people are only ever attracted to sixteen year olds because they learned to be? That feels like a challenging thing to demonstrate in the same way it being "in the genes" is, but perhaps I'm being overly reductive.

> and it is cultural not innate

> he/they

I sometimes see people make this assertion, and interestingly enough it's usually trans people. What exactly makes you say this?

Take a guess at what they might have been into when they were kids!

Ah, alright. I suppose it comes down to the fact that even thought labeled as such, this speech isn't actually fictitious. I see your point here.

> or depending on the "speech" when properly labeled as fictitious (though some speech is wrong regardless of its labeling).

What's an example of this?

> what is morally good is objective and not fully accounted for by consent, or utility.

Could you elaborate here? I'm curious what is meant by this.

> I suspect tentacle porn is creating mass shooters at scale.

This is a rather fascinating sort of assertion. I wonder how we, or the people in question, move from one to the other.

> [...]if you subscribe at least partially to the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis[...]

Why would anyone subscribe to the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis, in whole or in part?

> Loosely, addiction can be useful-- the thrill seekers[...]

This seems like a strange conception of addiction, unless we aren't seriously comparing mountain climbing with heroin. If we are then I wonder what utility the classification of addiction is actually supposed to provide to us.

> On the flip side if you attach value to what you have and are, then it logically follows that if you have the chance to "ask your ancestors to screw" - you would.

Why does that follow?

> He's trying really hard to disprove Haidt's post by poking holes in many of the studies.

Because this is how evidence based reasoning works. If the evidence that is supposed to support the hypothesis is fundamentally flawed, then our hypothesis doesn't actually have any support.

The fact that we can apparently so easily find flaws in what is supposed to be empirical evidence should make us more cautious about drawing firm conclusions. In fact, low quality literature is something of a plague in many social sciences at the moment (e.g. the replication crisis in social psychology).

This post presents a decent discussion of this sort of issue https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/beware-the-man-of-many-studies