whoever loves Digit šµšøšŗšøš“āā ļøA lot of people don't realize the ideals this man stood for are the ideals they betray
SpikesOtherDogReal question though, was this about r/jailbait.
r/jailbait is protected expression.
free speech also grants everyone the right to object & condemn it.
And banning it was still a downgrade in freedom of speech for reddit
And the authorities allowing its supporters to be targeted for removal from political discussion is, in my opinion, a downgrade in constitutional protection of free speech
CSAM is not speech, itās a crime with actual victims.
I donāt think I have to explain how victimizing children is generally a bad thing.
Didnāt ask, do you have anything relevant youāre getting at here?
You are the one defending CSAM in the name of free speech.
Sexualized pictures of clothed children exist in a grey area that may or may not be CSAM depending on jurisdiction.
My understanding of jailbait (what an intro to a sentence) is that itās about adults who look young, not children at all. Maybe my terminologyās behind the times though.
Nah that subreddit was for younger ones but not fully nude
Thatās not what the sub was, it was adults posting images of underage girls in their underpants.
Are you saying it would be different if it was underage girls posting themselves in their underpants?
I think it would, but Iām surprised youād seem to imply the same in your wording, is why I ask. Most people on the internet donāt admit they agree with me on stuff like this
It would depend on the wider context of the community if it was a problem or not.
A community of grown men posting young girls for the express purpose of sexual gratification is the wider context for /r/jailbait, however.
Which is in my opinion not meaningful speech in any way and in fact actively victimizes the girls whose pictures are being creeped on.
That doesnāt seem like much of a direct answer to my question and instead seems to gradually segue from the topic to ridiculous nonsense
I agree with this except I donāt think the victimization is inherent/universal & Iām not sure if the context it depends on is the same for both of us. Still kinda wonder tbh
I didnāt know that it was possible to have negative knowledge about what freedom of speech is, but there your brainwashed ass is talking.
If you think knowledge is negative, youāre simply anti-intellectual
Your reading comprehension checks out. Iāll block you before I get more of your valuable thoughts
Where is the speech in sexualised images of children? What ideas are you putting forward that could be silenced?
people jerk off the images on the internet.
itās just the context of who is doing the jerking off and to what they are jerking off you find objectionable.
if a bunch of middle aged women made a sub jacking off to teenage boys would you find that equally as objectionable?
what if the images were fantasy/ai/drawn?
if a bunch of middle aged women made a sub jacking off to teenage boys would you find that equally as objectionable?
YES.
Itās not that hard to grasp.
Leave anything <18yo outside the internet.
I donāt think we need to have any children here. We should educate them about it, but maybe not let them participate.
AI must be trained on something to create images, so AI should not be trained on any children content, either.
Draw whatever the fuck you want.
But leave children to be children. Until they hit 18, then itās up to them.
So ban all pictures of anyone under 18 on the internet?
As I said - nobody needs children on the internet.
I used to be young on the internet, I did a lot of stupid shit, my peers did a lot of stupid shit. Nowadays you have billions of dollars forcing shit on vulnerable people in algos and content machines, while recording any interaction ever. Nothing for developing minds.
And guess what, if no young people entered the internet, they would not be relying on it for communications or fun, and perheps found other, more healthy options.
OK, well should we ban the eldery too? they are a vulnerable group.
Internet is only for people, what, 18-65?
thatās not how technology works.
should we go back to writing letters in the mail?
Going forward is such a weird statement.
Adding tech for the sake of it is going backwards in most regards. Usually losing privacy and agency.
And that is not OK, and I will not stand idly looking at this shit happening. I will always advise to selfhost everything, and use open-source software when dealing with tech.
Itās better to ignore the closed down technology than to let it take over you.
You can do what you want. Nobody is forcing you to do anything man.
But other people are not you. They donāt care about what you care about.
weāre already in fuedalism dude, always have been.
the post ww2 rise of the middle class is historical, a fluke. thatās not how human beings have ever lived or organized. we have always been a tiny percentage of rich peopel at the top, and masses of poor people at the bottom.
we are turning to the norm.
I donāt see why that wouldnāt be included
If you mean the actual discussion he was having, idk, that subreddit wasnāt hugely discussed that year / not sure if it existed yet
fatpeople hated was banned years after jailbait was. get your facts straight guys.
No, fatpeoplehate definitely hadnāt been created yet at this time
No Schwartz died before /r/jailbait was banned.
XEmoCatX@iloveDigit He was murdered, his dad said it
Also someone need to create internet 2.0
This is one of the those āthis system has the potential for abuse, so the system canāt existā conundrums. Doing no moderation because āfree speechā is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Itās just that the moderation needs to be answerable to the population is moderating.
accountability is a thing people who are in power though desperately avoid, in order to hold onto their power.
Yes, Iām aware of the Iron Rule of Oligarchy. Doesnāt change the baby with the bathwater of it all.
ArghblargPatadox of tolerance. if some use their free speech to actively/directly hurt or incite harm to others, consider that they may have broken the social contract, and thus might no longer expect their harmful speech to be tolerated by others.
define harmful speech.
I used to be free speech absolutist until we get to the conundrum as you presented. For me, free speech will never be settled and is a perpetual debate. I think what is considered hate speech is on a case by case basis. Like an individual human who is being tried on a court and his/her case is examined, what is considered harmful or free speech is kinda like that. We examine the minutae of the speech based on the context, semantics, syntax logic, reasoning etc. if the speech can be considered harmful or not. Itās a perpetual debate.
RememberTheApollo_You are conflating things that are not the same in a fence-straddling argument. There are things that objectively cause harm. Using Xās Grok to make CSAM. Using AI to deepfake people telling outright lies or giving damaging instructions to the public. Inciting people to engage in illegal behavior. We already have definitions of harmful speech, what we also have is people arguing that it isnāt harmful because it serves their agenda.
Disagreeing with someone is not even close and shouldnāt even be part of the discussion when considering actual censorship. Philosophy is a lovely fun exercise in arguing every point on the curve of a circle, but it doesnāt keep the Nazis from taking power.
Right, so if you disagree with someone punch them in the face, until the agree with you.
Because you are somehow the sole arbiter of what objectively causes harm? And you will enforce that objectivity with your fists.
From a philosophy teacher I expected better than hyperbole and a binary argument.
Do better.
Dude, you did that. You set up a binary and called me a fence sitter. and now you are personally attacking me. Bravo. Be more of a bad faith actor.
Youāre being deliberately malacious. And you wonāt own up to it, you will just sit there and blame me and everyone else for not adhere to your personal standards you think are superior, such that you get the authority to harass, name call, and blame everyone else. And also justify your violent attitude.
You see nothing wrong with violence, as long as itās down to those you dislike and disagree with. Just like the Nazis you think you are fighting, because in your binary world everyone is for you, or against you.
Lol I clearly stated at a demarcation between objectively damaging speech and disagreement. Try again dude. What are you, a closeted republican? As soon as someone challenges you devolve into āno, u!ā, make accusations of being attacked, and make shit up about your opponent while engaging in projection?
F off. Weāre done.
You didnāt define any of those terms. You are not engaging, you are harassing and accusing and personalizing everything I said, and going to the ābut the nazisā nonsense.
Youāre an absolutist. By definition thatās a binary way of thinking. And your doubling down, āoh you must b ea republican if you donāt agree with my world viewā. As if your worldview is definitivity anti-republican or something?
Your fault is in thinking you are the center of the universe and the arbiter of others beliefs. You arenāt. You might stop being so hostile towards others if you stopped believing that you were.
āa cop shoots a murderer to prevent them from killing any more victims, ergo, heās the same as the murdererā
So youāre saying that quote is intolerant of cops? Huh?
One issue is that speech and action are blurred online.
In real life, my friends would disinvite me from things if I started using the n-word
Online, you permit the n-word and you end up with Nazis and no black people.
Therefore, there is a case to be made that free speech absolutism is the act of empowering the loudest and most offensive minority at the cost of any and all diverse voices.
Iām not sure I agree with any of that necessarily There are black people who are Nazi dude, tons of counter examples to play with.
I would say online anonymous speech, is very different from public speech and private speech. If you only make racists comments in your home, and body hears them, is that action? Or is that more akin to personal thoughts? Also, lots of people misread the intent of such things. If there was an online community of black users using the n word in a comical or therapeutic textā¦ is that permissible? Certainly many people looking at that from the outside may think differently and fail to grasp the specific context.
Public speech is very different. It would be like public speaking, protest, or other such public acts. Iām not sure private discourse is an action. But itās probably true if you made racist remarks your friends would not want to hang out with youā¦ but then again maybe some of your friends would agree with you and youād form a new closer friend group based on that. Iāve personally met many closeted racists (who identify as anti-racist publicly), a lot more than Iāve met openly public racists. Though I admit there is tonal shift has happened where public racism is more tolerated than it was a decade or two ago.
Iām also disagree though about offensive minorities though. in my experience of reddit, a lot of subs became dominated by loud offensive types as long as there was popular agreement and they used the ātoleranceā approach to push their toxic agendas. a lot of people love the ādramaā of loud offensive people pushing hateful agendas, as long as they do so āpolitelyā using euhapnisms and dog whistles. Challenging this type often resulted in mods banning you. Hell, I was banned from my local city subreddit last year for pointing out racism and sexism against my cities mayor being perpetuated by sock puppet accounts.
there are black nazis
the main is issue is not that occasionally there are black nazis, really. Letās table that for another discussion.
if you only make racist comments at homeā¦ is that an action?
In a loose definition, yes. However, again, to keep us on track here, I donāt think we need to focus on the exact definition of an extended qualia phenomenon in epistemology/alethiology.
I think its reasonable to assume we are talking about observed, lived and experienced phenomena by two conscious humans.
lots of people misread
thatās why I went with the n-word, hard R. Thereās little to be misread.
I do find that kind of discussion tedious so if weāre going to get into ābut what do we mean by a word? a thought? a person?ā - Iām out, thatās sophistry that i find frustrating.
If there was an online community of black users using the n word in a comical or therapeutic textā¦ is that permissible?
uno reversi: how does one ensure an online community of black users without moderation? doesnāt it presuppose a selection process to suggest that closed communities can exist? And if there is no moderation (/ācensorshipā) there is no āfrom outsideā because no one can possibly be excluded.
maybe some of your friends would agree with you and youād form a new closer friend group based on that.
kinda my point: racists find each other and piss in the pool until thereās only racists left. Thatās only not a bad thing if you think racist communities should exist, or all communities should be racist - something i donāt think is worth debating.
, a lot of subs became dominated by loud offensive types as long as there was popular agreement and they used the ātoleranceā approach to push their toxic agendas
how is that disagreeing with me? thatās what Iām saying is the problem: if you donāt remove an issue, it compounds. Reddit has a level of moderation, and this statement seems to be saying that you should censor it more
so leave the pool?
frankly, thatās what I do. ever āgroupā i have been a part of inevitable tips over into exclusionary thinking over time. they start open and welcoming, and then insecure people start taking over and policing peopleās words and beahviors, and then I leave.
I also see the flipside, a established group gets criticized for not changing itās discourse to be more āinclusionaryāā¦ but often those critics have no interest in joining, they just want to police from the outside because they too are insecure and controlling types of people.
Personally I donāt think itās for me to tell other people how to live their lives, or what to say or think or do. Let racists be racist in their racist pool. I donāt believe in a social project of imposing my form of justice on other people, because to me thatās just authoritarian. I also regard a lot of contemporary āanti racistā rhetoric as incredibly racist. I also donāt think certain words are universally wrong or offensive given they are used in context.
ke I donāt think Huck Finn is a racist book, but in 2025, a lot of people certainly seem to think that. Because of the use of a word they think is universally wrong, and they have no concept of context, historical or literary.