It’s always seemed strange to me that free-speech absolutists seem to argue that what people say doesn’t have much effect on the world.
If it’s so insignificant an act… Why are they so invested in protecting their right to do so without any constraints?
I think it’s the least worrying of possible stances protecting possession of CP
I’m not sure I’m willing to force my brain into considering the relative shadiness of different arguments for child pornography. It is a worrying stance, splitting hairs over whether he could have said something worse or not seems like an unproductive discussion.
I think it’s possible to recognise that valid concerns are hijacked for other purposes without needing to take a stance against the concerns themselves though.
IE I think child porn is a bad thing and we should work as a society to address it in a multi-faceted way. I also think that using that as a way to gain legal capabilities to infringe on people’s rights in a way that is not actually related to the prevention of child porn is also a bad thing. Those aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. Though I did see the claim that he was 16 at the time he wrote it, so it’s possible he worked that out later?
Such a weird stance to take and to make a point of wedging in there. I thought perhaps on reading I’d find he’s being misinterpreted or taken out of context but he’s very explicitly like “child porn isn’t an issue and we should do nothing about it.” Quite a worrying position for him to take.
People are confusing (probably due to intentional prompting by those trolls trying to have bystanders fight their battles for them) the very real problem on Reddit that if you chase karma there were benefits to be had in terms of credibility and reach of your messaging and so whatever entities might benefit from such would tend to fill the space over in Reddit with content like that. Realistically that doesn’t change the most common content much as it really comes down to the sort of thing people will upvote but it did make it a bit worse. That’s being confused with some notion that somehow anyone who wasn’t chasing karma was entirely ignored. That just isn’t true. You might not be the absolute center of attention unless you’ve either post or said something especially worthwhile but so what?
True. But then you got 1 karma for every comment you made anywhere on the site and often the requirement was like 50 karma.
Restricting posts to users who have managed to make a maximum of 50 comments that didn’t overwhelmingly piss everyone off isn’t actually very restrictive.
I really don’t buy into any of this “oh, you had to only say what people wanted you to say!” handwringing. I never once saw a user with negative karma who wasn’t just there to actively cause trouble. I’m quite certain this notion that you had to subscribe to some sort of groupthink to make it through the karma system originates from a very tiny number of people who perceive not being actively anti-social in a social space as oppressive persecution of their “totally valid” “alternative opinions”. By all means, show me accounts that were actually participating in good faith that were pushed out of the conversation by the karma system and I’ll loudly complain with you on their behalf.
But you can’t do that. Because they’re always some flavour of racist nazi troll dickhead.
I said whatever the hell I wanted and was frequently confrontational or contrarian and still had some embarrassingly high amount of karma simply because I participated a lot and wasn’t actively there to fuck things up by intentionally being a toxic edge-lord troll.
Iirc Forbes ran an article about it.
You have. Normally they are much smaller to the point where they can be nearly invisible.
Yes. This image is claiming that some people who support Russia/oppose Ukraine self-identity as anti-fascists and argue their point from that perspective. Not that those people represent everyone who would identify as anti-fascist nor the majority view of anti-fascists.