• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • It’s not a legitimate competition, that’s the entirely point. The claim is AI models rely on stealing content and changing it slightly or not all. And if a “regular” journalist does this, they would get into trouble. Just because the entity switches to an AI company doesn’t make this business model legitimate.

    A few years ago there was a big plagiarism scandal on IGN because one of their “journalists” mostly took reviews of other people, changed a few words, and published it. Obviously that’s not fine.




  • Kids being able to openly participate on porn sites would be a feast for pedophiles and groomers. We already have enough trouble with that on social media and dating sites/apps. And while in an ideal situation there just wouldn’t be bad people, sometimes we need to protect people from themselves because of others.

    So while I am open for a discussion about lowering the age requirement, I still firmly believe a minimum age is required. But whether that’s 14, 16, or 18 I don’t know.


  • I am in favor of stricter age verification for certain content. Not only for porn but also dating apps, social media, online shops, etc. But the current methods of age verification are a privacy nightmare and go well beyond what is reasonable. Especially since companies can’t be trusted to not do bad stuff with that information.

    What is necessary is a double anonymity age verification service. Ideally run by a company that by law is required to be very transparent. That way we don’t have to provide personal information to companies that have no actual need for it but can still reduce the amount of minors getting into places they shouldn’t be.

    Yes, it won’t be perfect, yes there will always be bad actors, but it will still do more good than harm.

    I personally am open for a discussion about reducing the minimum age to view porn. I don’t have strong feelings either way.




  • YouTube doesn’t have a say in this, it’s up to the copyright holder of each individual song. YouTube just detects if a song is copyrighted or not then gives the owner the option what to do. The three common ones are

    • Disable the Video.
    • Claim Monetization of it.
    • Do nothing.

    So whoever holds the rights to Phil Collins song is the one responsible for your video being disabled. While whoever holds the rights to the song Joe Schmo decided to go with option 2 or 3.

    This process has mostly been automated. So it feels like YouTube is doing it but they are just following the orders of the copyright holder.

    The system is a bit overzealous in some cases and even fair use gets flagged.That’s on YouTube. But to be fair, it’s very hard to have an automated system detect the difference between fair use and not. YouTube should just implement a better way to dispute false copyright claims.




  • As a man I never considered pants to be uncomfortable. They are the perfect mix of range of motion, hiding the private parts. and support. Dresses, skirts, and robes seem like a nightmare to wear. You either restrict your range of motion or have to constantly worry about showing your underwear. And I would wear boxer briefs underneath by choice anyhow, so I still end up wearing pants.

    I think the bigger issue is that most of us men are too lazy to look for different kinds of pants and end up wearing the same stuff year-round. Which can indeed become uncomfortable due to changes in temperature. But that issue wouldn’t be fixed by having access to dresses or robes. As again, some would either be too cold or too hot.