this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
103 points (87.1% liked)

Technology

73534 readers
2480 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
103
Former Moderator Sues Chaturbate for 'Psychological Trauma' (www.404media.co)
submitted 5 days ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In May, a woman in Kansas sued Chaturbate, claiming that it was the site’s fault that her teenage son found her old laptop unlocked in a closet and used it to access porn without age verification in place.

Sounds like a parenting problem to me, but go ahead and blame porn. People like this should have to pay the legal fees of the defendants. Would anti-slapp (or whatever it’s called) apply here?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 47 points 5 days ago (9 children)

The case you've quoted is not the same one as the focus of the article.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 5 days ago (6 children)

But it is from the article and therefore relevant.

[–] Saffire@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It might be slightly relevant but that doesn't mean that the way you posted it wasn't disingenuous.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The fuck it was disingenuous. It's the part of the article on which I had commentary. That it wasn't the main focus does not say anything about my motivation to criticize people having the wrong take / solution.

[–] Saffire@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Hmm, you're right. I suppose disingenuous was the wrong word for me to use and for that I apologize. It just seems a little strange to me to title your post about one thing, but then in the body all you reference is an off handed mention the article makes about something that is barely tangentially related to the article. I don't know what to call it, but I guess technically you weren't disingenuous.

Edit: Perhaps click baiting is the correct term to use here.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, it wasn't clickbait because the article title isn't clickbait. I just happened to have an opinion on a section that wasn't in direct support of the title. I can call out a lack of proper attribution to the problem without the thrust of the article being inaccurate or deceptive. I can see why you take umbrage with it, but I think you're chasing something that isn't there. I just commented on a farcical take.

[–] Saffire@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You're right. I'm sorry, I had just woken up when I posted that and I think I may have woken up on the wrong side of the bed lol. Have a great day.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago

We all have those days. No offense taken. Cheers!

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)