I avoid this by not watching porn that makes me sad. There’s plenty of consensual, happy, joyful sex-positive porn out there.

While your point is valid about this particular situation (which is horrible and criminal on multiple levels), your overbroad generalization of porn and the implied assumption of guilt in the viewers is what’s led folks to react negatively to your statement.

On a larger level, this kind of statement plays into the puritanical doctrines towards sex that paint it as a negative force, and subsequently leads to the twisting of a positive, creative act into a negative expression of power and rape in those that accept those doctrines.

Porn is not at fault here, nor are its viewers. Those at fault in this crime are the producers and publishers, who were well aware of the abuses happening under their watch, and deceived their viewers into believing they were observing consensual performance acts. I hope that these women get every cent and more, and it would be excellent to see a class action suit from Pornhub’s subscribers arise in tandem to and in support of their complaint.

Great username. Worth a follow.

"I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Spezymandias, Admin of Kings;
Look on my Reddit, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

The news here is that, contrary to popular belief, 5% of NFTs actually still hold some value.

Why looky there - love to see a post get legs… have a boost and an upvote, matey!

Silently hoists the Jolly Roger…

Working fine on my end - sounds like ISP filtering or possibly a firewall setting. With an ad blocker to handle popups, you could also try g o k u dot s x - not quite the same server collection, but you might find what you’re looking for.

It looks like the key in the ruling here was that the AI created the work without the participation of a human artist. Thaler tried to let his AI, “The Creativity Machine” register the copyright, and then claim that he owned it under the work for hire clause.

The case was ridiculous, to be honest. It was clearly designed as an attempt to give corporations building these AI’s the copyrights to the work they generate from stealing the work of thousands of human artists. What’s clever here is that they were also trying to sideline the human operators of AI prompts. If the AI, and not the human prompting it, owns the copyright, then the company that owns that AI owns the copyright - even if the human operator doesn’t work for them.

You can see how open this interpretation would be to abuse by corporate owners of AI, and why Thaler brought the case, which was clearly designed to set a precedent that would allow any media company with an AI to cut out human content creators entirely.

The ruling is excellent, and I’m glad Judge Howell saw the nuances and the long term effects of her decision. I was particularly happy to see this part:

In March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said.

This protects a wide swath of artists who are doing incredible AI assisted work, without granting media companies a stranglehold on the output of the new technology.

The first rule about no Github club is that we don’t talk about no Github club

Y’all are beginning to crack me up. You know each time you drop a reply, you’re increasing the exposure of this particular theoretical site right? I didn’t say they had perfect plausible deniability, just an extra layer of it, and whatever action taken against it won’t stop the servers they’re aggregating from, which are accessed by a lot of other apps that do exactly the same thing. Nuking this theoretical aggregator is like plucking a dandelion and thinking you’re done with weeding the lawn - it’s really just not worth the time unless they go after the servers themselves.

Possibly true, but what you’re theoretically looking at isn’t hosting pirated content. It’s a link aggregator that finds an available file to stream to you from servers that already have the full file, which may or may not have been assembled from a legitimate source or torrent. Legally, this gives them a layer of plausible deniability - disclaimer IANAL.

So if this one goes down, as it probably will, someone else will just build another streaming link aggregator that does the exact same thing - there’s more than few out there. This is just basically round 238,592,394,321 of internet whack-a-mole.

For all the Redditors now breathing a sigh of relief, grab a beer, take a load off, and remember, remember, the 5th of November.

Oh man. The Bigfoot hunters are gonna go nuts over this tech. Cryptozoologists too - there’s some recent supposed sightings of the Tasmanian Tiger that have been getting a lot of attention.

Wow - bit overblown all in all. While it sounds like the quinoa guy is kinda a jerk, I’m not seeing any proof of racism on his part. He just boosted a legitimate news article (the Fediverse servers being seized that popped up yesterday) posted by this Eris character, who had been flagged as a racist troll in the past. This isn’t confirmed or denied in the various posts aside from a profile link on thebadplace.com - which has no information aside from a few racist tags on that profile (can’t tell who the profile is for).

This sounds more like the admins got snippy at each other in off-site discord drama and decided to take their toys and go home. Interesting for the /popcorn, but hey, if mastodon.art doesn’t wanna play with firefish, that’s their decision, regardless of the reasoning, end of story.

Just hell no. Sounds like a spray paint campaign is in order. I’m gonna go post this on the anarchy subs and see how they feel about it (unless you already got there first).

Yeah, I know, it’s just not really worth the time, as it’s gonna be a completely unscientific poll anyway. Plus, looks like they’re tying your vote to the email address via the submission form - I’m guessing that’s a single post to the database, so not terribly convinced they have privacy in mind. That they’ve got a checkmark to confirm that you’re not an EU citizen means the submission form doesn’t meet GDPR privacy standards.

Heads up that they’re running the poll to get the email addresses of the recipients - can’t vote without giving them your info.

Lol - my family being on Facebook is one of the reasons I post here instead.

I actually think the dynamic you speak of helps the quality of the Fediverse specifically. I’ve seen it in play with other emerging platforms, where the adventurous sorts leap onto the new software and start creating content, while the more social sorts like to hang on to what they’re familiar with because they value the community… up until the content begins to dry out, because all the adventurous sorts are usually the ones driving the creative soul of a platform.

Then the real migration begins (which I believe we’re at the beginning of with Reddit & Twitter), and you see an influx of the social sorts. This is the point at which you and I chuckle and say “cool, you’ve got a new Fediverse account? I’ve been posting there for awhile - I’ll follow you - can’t wait to see what you’ve got”.

Then you have that sweet spot where both the creative/adventurous sorts live in harmony with the social sorts and that’s what makes a vibrant internet community, until Spez spazzes or Elon buys it out, making the community miserable. That is until, like Leif Erikson seeking a warm land to grow grapes on to make wine to have a fuckin’ raging party, the adventurous sorts once again venture out into the great wide expanse of Open Source to find the next digital kegger.

Such is the circle of life.

They didn’t eat it up, although they certainly want you to think they did, and it’s clear they convinced you.

I’ve been on the internet since the BBS days. Centralized services rise and fall, and people said the internet was dead when AOL became the big portal, and then they said it with Yahoo, and Digg, and Facebook, and now Reddit and Twitter. It’s kinda like people who are always saying the world is gonna end - it never ends - it just changes.

I’d actually argue that we’re at a point of an internet renaissance spurred by the combined failures of Reddit, Twitter, and Meta to maintain contributor trust. They can’t control the flow of human imagination that pulses through the internet, they can only channel it. If they try to dam it, well, it’s just gonna overflow into fuckSpezicles all over /r/place and carry the cream to the Fediverse and beyond.

I’m not saying that big corporations aren’t a problem, I’m saying they don’t have to be our problem now that we’re here, and anyone who says the internet is dead isn’t looking in the right places.

I mean if I had an advertisement for my organization, I would pay to keep it from appearing on Twitter. The potential brand damage from the association far outweighs any benefit from the additional audience.