Thursday, 8 February 2018

“Involuntary Pornography” Just Got a New Definition

quote [ Reddit follows several other platforms that have already banned deepfakes pornography. That includes Gfycat, Discord, and recently Pornhub, which said that deepfakes imagery counted as nonconsensual pornography. ]

Followup to this post. This ruling applies not only to video, but also GIFs and even still images. The subreddit for photoshopping celebrities which has existed for seven years and had some 50,000+ subscribers was banned today without warning.
[NSFW] [science & technology] [+4 Informative]
[by 7]
<-- Entry / Comment History

C18H27NO3 said @ 4:49pm GMT on 10th February
I'm guessing this poster believes you need to earn the right to vote. That means property ownership, a test, proof of employment, etc. If push came to shove, though, I'd say they think woman's suffrage did good things for women, but not society. I just had someone tell me the other day that women are meant to be nurturing in the first 8-10 years, and it's the mans responsibility to prepare them for life after that, and that's why we have a "soft" society. Further, it's normal for conservatives to take the worst example - like the left does with somalia when talking about libertarianism - to use as the shiny example that socialism doesn't work. Meanwhile, another tactic is to ignore context. You've touched on that above in previous posts in regard to a college education/ degree and a job. Originalism is much more prevalent in right wing circles than is acknowledged.

Besides, parts of socialism exist in this country already simply by nature of governmental interference. Or not. Speed limits, or regulations that protect it's citizenry like the release of chemicals into the environment, governmental bailouts of wall street or subsidies for BigAgra are all examples of somebody directing traffic. It's all hyperbole when a dystopian society is the result of socialism. It's just not true, and there are examples in history that the theory wasn't what fucked everything up, people did. Just like people are fucking up capitalism and "democracy;" and there are no examples of the supposed utopia capitalism and democracy supposedly brings. We most certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, live in a utopia. But I agree with you that there is nuance and subtlety in the social mechanism we choose. It's not either/ or binary choice, but when you want to win an argument or convince/ manipulate your constituency, straw men and false equivalencies are your friend.

But for me the bigger question is : Why have conservatives engaged in a war to eradicate liberalism when espousing the benefits of a free people? It's a double standard. Conservatives love to talk about the left wanting to impose authority, acting like daddy, but conservatives do the exact same thing with regulations intended to squeeze a person to engage in certain approved behaviors. The same daddy complex. It's no secret that the removal of a safety net is intended to force people into choosing between doing what the government says, leave, or die. Conformity is the only option. Which is what conservatives are so fearful of socialism.


C18H27NO3 said @ 5:29pm GMT on 10th February
I'm guessing this poster believes you need to earn the right to vote. That means property ownership, a test, proof of employment, etc. If push came to shove, though, I'd say they think woman's suffrage did good things for women, but not society. I just had someone tell me the other day that women are meant to be nurturing in the first 8-10 years, and it's the mans responsibility to prepare them for life after that, and the reason we have a "soft" society is because that has been disrupted. Further, it's normal for conservatives to take the worst example - like the left does with somalia when talking about libertarianism - to use as the shiny example that socialism doesn't work. Meanwhile, another tactic is to ignore context. You've touched on that above in previous posts in regard to a college education/ degree and a job. Originalism is much more prevalent in right wing circles than is acknowledged.

Besides, parts of socialism exist in this country already simply by nature of governmental interference. Or not. Speed limits, or regulations that protect it's citizenry like the release of chemicals into the environment, governmental bailouts of wall street or subsidies for BigAgra are all examples of somebody directing traffic. It's all hyperbole when a dystopian society is the result of socialism. It's just not true, and there are examples in history that the theory wasn't what fucked everything up, people did. Just like people are fucking up capitalism and "democracy;" and there are no examples of the supposed utopia capitalism and democracy supposedly brings. We most certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, live in a utopia. But I agree with you that there is nuance and subtlety in the social mechanism we choose. It's not either/ or binary choice, but when you want to win an argument or convince/ manipulate your constituency, straw men and false equivalencies are your friend.

But for me the bigger question is : Why have conservatives engaged in a war to eradicate liberalism when espousing the benefits of a free people? It's a double standard. Conservatives love to talk about the left wanting to impose authority, acting like daddy, but conservatives do the exact same thing with regulations intended to squeeze a person to engage in certain approved behaviors. The same daddy complex. It's no secret that the removal of a safety net is intended to force people into choosing between doing what the government says, leave, or die. Conformity is the only option. Which is what conservatives are so fearful of socialism.


C18H27NO3 said @ 5:30pm GMT on 10th February
I'm guessing this poster believes you need to earn the right to vote. That means property ownership, a test, proof of employment, etc. If push came to shove, though, I'd say they think woman's suffrage did good things for women, but not society. I just had someone tell me the other day that women are meant to be nurturing in the first 8-10 years, and it's the mans responsibility to prepare them for life after that, and the reason we have a "soft" society is because that has been disrupted. Further, it's normal for conservatives to take the worst example - like the left does with somalia when talking about libertarianism - to use as the shiny example that socialism doesn't work. Meanwhile, another tactic is to ignore context. You've touched on that above in previous posts in regard to a college education/ degree and a job. Originalism is much more prevalent in right wing circles than is acknowledged.

Besides, parts of socialism exist in this country already simply by nature of governmental interference. Or not. Speed limits, or regulations that protect it's citizenry from the release of chemicals into the environment, governmental bailouts of wall street or subsidies for BigAgra are all examples of somebody directing traffic. It's all hyperbole when a dystopian society is the result of socialism. It's just not true, and there are examples in history that the theory wasn't what fucked everything up, people did. Just like people are fucking up capitalism and "democracy;" and there are no examples of the supposed utopia capitalism and democracy supposedly brings. We most certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, live in a utopia. But I agree with you that there is nuance and subtlety in the social mechanism we choose. It's not either/ or binary choice, but when you want to win an argument or convince/ manipulate your constituency, straw men and false equivalencies are your friend.

But for me the bigger question is : Why have conservatives engaged in a war to eradicate liberalism when espousing the benefits of a free people? It's a double standard. Conservatives love to talk about the left wanting to impose authority, acting like daddy, but conservatives do the exact same thing with regulations intended to squeeze a person to engage in certain approved behaviors. The same daddy complex. It's no secret that the removal of a safety net is intended to force people into choosing between doing what the government says, leave, or die. Conformity is the only option. Which is what conservatives are so fearful of socialism.



<-- Entry / Current Comment
C18H27NO3 said @ 4:49pm GMT on 10th February
I'm guessing this poster believes you need to earn the right to vote. That means property ownership, a test, proof of employment, etc. If push came to shove, though, I'd say they think woman's suffrage did good things for women, but not society. I just had someone tell me the other day that women are meant to be nurturing in the first 8-10 years, and it's the mans responsibility to prepare them for life after that, and the reason we have a "soft" society is because that has been disrupted. Further, it's normal for conservatives to take the worst example - like the left does with somalia when talking about libertarianism - to use as the shiny example that socialism doesn't work. Meanwhile, another tactic is to ignore context. You've touched on that above in previous posts in regard to a college education/ degree and a job. Originalism is much more prevalent in right wing circles than is acknowledged.

Besides, parts of socialism exist in this country already simply by nature of governmental interference. Or not. Speed limits, or regulations that protect it's citizenry from the release of chemicals into the environment, governmental bailouts of wall street or subsidies for BigAgra are all examples of somebody directing traffic. It's all hyperbole when a dystopian society is the result of socialism. It's just not true, and there are examples in history that the theory wasn't what fucked everything up, people did. Just like people are fucking up capitalism and "democracy;" and there are no examples of the supposed utopia capitalism and democracy supposedly brings. We most certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, live in a utopia. But I agree with you that there is nuance and subtlety in the social mechanism we choose. It's not either/ or binary choice, but when you want to win an argument or convince/ manipulate your constituency, straw men and false equivalencies are your friend.

But for me the bigger question is : Why have conservatives engaged in a war to eradicate liberalism when espousing the benefits of a free people? It's a double standard. Conservatives love to talk about the left wanting to impose authority, acting like daddy, but conservatives do the exact same thing with regulations intended to squeeze a person to engage in certain approved behaviors. The same daddy complex. It's no secret that the removal of a safety net is intended to force people into choosing between doing what the government says, leave, or die. Conformity is the only option. Which is what conservatives are so fearful of socialism.




Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur