OpenStars

joined 2 years ago
[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 26 points 2 years ago (19 children)

Thank goodness computers are never wrong. :-P

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 8 points 2 years ago

Somebody somewhere will eventually downvote it either way:-P.

Although there's also some truth to it, in being one of the reasons that people end up behind bars.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 5 points 2 years ago

Mexicans have it pretty good actually - most immigrants these days are people just passing through it from further south.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 57 points 2 years ago (11 children)
[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 17 points 2 years ago

Profits first, profits last, profits only.

ing

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 18 points 2 years ago

If you do not want something - an abortion, a vaccine, porn, to own a gun, etc. - then the solution is simply: do not take it. Beyond that, why heap heavy burdens upon other people, rather than offering to help?

I am saying that "children watching people having sex" is not the issue here. Some few sickos aside, I think MOST people are agreement on that point. The issues are all the other issues surrounding that topic - e.g. who should be the ones held responsible for stopping that.

Like, why not the parents? It is exceedingly easy to block websites from a home router, and from devices such as ipads, so why should the website be the one upon whom all of the blame and burden should go to? Will Amazon be next, b/c it is possible to find sex toys on it? What about Wal-Mart, b/c you can purchase dangerous ammunition there? For that matter, any child can go into a gun show and see rifles and ammunition on display - why are those not banned? Children have even been known to be able to purchase those weapons, which are literally lethal - which is far worse than merely seeing some skin!!!!

Fwiw I think you mean well, but are missing the nuances of this discussion. Children will end up seeing porn - someway, somehow, I guarantee you that it is possible, b/c that is simply how the internet works. It is like playing whack-a-mole and you can't stop them all, especially like 90% of all domain names are already registered to porn and pirate websites. This law will not have the effect that it is intended to stop - and there is a goodly chance that it will make things worse actually, bc when people go off the well-trodden pathways, they will find themselves in the... darker corners of the internet.

Then again, I am not a lawmaker, so what do I know. I was just sharing my thoughts, in case they would be of interest to you.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 29 points 2 years ago

So long as the libterds get pwnd. Which they definitely did. By blocking my porn. You see the way it works is uh...

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 155 points 2 years ago (91 children)

Studies have shown that in places where porn is blocked, rape occurs at higher frequencies than in places where that is not the case, possibly due to higher levels of feelings of frustration and repression. This may be only one website now, but if others likewise follow the trend out of fear of litigation... then Texas may become a much more dangerous state to live in in the very near future, even compared to what it already is now.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Looks like a fantasy/dream home! :-D

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If only wives could have the same rights as a frozen embryo!? 🥲

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago

Fair. Though that capability - e.g. the identical wikia software, implementing the MediaWiki protocol - already exists. Maybe federating it would somehow improve it, though it would also open it up to have greater vulnerabilities especially when non-scientists get involved, e.g. a w/article/conservative/vaccine vs. a w/article/real/vaccine. Scientists can handle these controversies, but people who do not have the base knowledge with which to properly understand, e.g. ivermectin, are not going to be able to distinguish between the truth vs. the lies.

So the people that would put it to the best use don't absolutely need it - sure it would be nice but peer-reviewed articles already exist - while the ones for whom it would be most damaging are almost certainly going to be the primary target audience.

view more: ‹ prev next ›