A honeypot. When Bernie Sanders corpse will win the presidential election in 2036, everyone who participated on Gab will be round up and send to the Gulag.
If you support free speech, you must support people posting their loli. It's completely legal speech. If you won't defend loli posting as free speech because you or someone else finds it disgusting, then no speech that you or anyone else views as disgusting is safe.
if it is in fact on shaky legal ground it's reasonable to not want to be the case that establishes it as illegal.
It's not, Gab is straight up lying to the ignorant (like yourself) to justify his prejudice. Loli being protected speech has long since been estabilished, as it has undeniable artistic merit. The only time it's been included under any obscenity laws is when someone is being charged with possession of child porn, so the state can slap them with more charges. The courts have been very careful to not charge anyone for loli, because they'd get their asses fucking annihilated by a higher court due to the firm precedence of loli being completely legal speech. Gab had nothing to worry about, this guy was just making shit up to fool people into thinking his censoring wasn't entirely personally motivated.
Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) [1] of the Communications Act of 1934), for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—
(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or
(b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or
(c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or
Whoever knowingly takes or receives, from such express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) 1 of the Communications Act of 1934) any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
People have actually been prosecuted because of this. See: Max Hardcore and Extreme Associates (two different entities).
Right-leaning censors never really went away, they just hid in the shadows like a stalker in a trench coat waiting for the right moment and the all-clear to strike.
So now banning simulated child porn is a evil right wing plot?
she was 12 or 13 in the novel, I'm not completely sure. For the movie they aged her up, bad choice in my opinion. But it's true that she wasn't prepubescent so the term really doesn't make too much sense.
The proper radical centrist thing to do is to tie a rope around both their necks and whoever chokes the other to death with it first gets a quick death instead.
CP carries with it the connotation of directly exploiting real-world minors. That's what makes it universally illegal to produce and consume. You can argue semantics and say "well technically it's porn that features a child character, thus it's child porn," but that's a weak statement considering--again--the definition society has applied to the term "child porn".
no control over what they like not over their urges. Some guys like thicc girls, some like big boobs, some like cute, short, flat chested girls with a lack of curves. But generally you don't get to choose what you like. If it was like that there'd be more gay guys
CMV: KiAtards just wanted a white loli for the Witcher TV series to masturbate to, which is proven by the more or less non-outrage about the token Black and Indian actresses.
Holy shit your persecution complex rivals that of evangelical Christians. What is it with wanting to rape children that makes you people feel so oppressed?
well saying women who look like kids is pretty shitty. So because they're short, petite and don't have an hourglass figure means they don't look like women?
If you support free speech, you must support people pinging other users. It's completely legal speech. If you won't defend pinging as free speech because you or someone else finds it disgusting, then no speech that you or anyone else views as disgusting is safe.
if it is in fact on shaky legal ground it's reasonable to not want to be the case that establishes it as illegal.
It's not, Gab is straight up lying to the ignorant (like yourself) to justify his prejudice. Pinging being protected speech has long since been estabilished, as it has undeniable artistic merit. The only time it's been included under any obscenity laws is when someone is being charged with possession of child porn, so the state can slap them with more charges. The courts have been very careful to not charge anyone for pinging, because they'd get their asses fucking annihilated by a higher court due to the firm precedence of pinging being completely legal speech. Gab had nothing to worry about, this guy was just making shit up to fool people into thinking his censoring wasn't entirely personally motivated.
Why do we need to ping people? If you wanna call someone a faggot then just do it in the linked thread. Worst that'll happened is a ban from some shitty subreddit that can't bants.
If you support free speech, you must support people posting their loli. It's completely legal speech. If you won't defend loli posting as free speech because you or someone else finds it disgusting, then no speech that you or anyone else views as disgusting is safe.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was the biggest case regarding it, which struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. The big note of the case is that many things that could be banned under the rules of it were considered classics like Romeo and Juliet, and that any law prohibiting it would be far too overbearing.
From my understanding as long as it obviously not a real person (lolicon requiring an anime or exaggerated artstyle in most meanings) or meant to depict a real person is considered protected under the First Amendment. So far all arrests for “lolicon” I could find either also had regular old child porn, or it was considered “too realistic or obscene speech.” (obscene speech being actually illegal in some manners).
The wording is still a little vague and gray for anyone to feel “safe” regarding it, but it has been brought up to the SCOTUS and they said it was protected.
Imagine knowing this much about gray areas in child pornography laws
If the left shouldn't be allowed to censor Nazis, unless the law says so, neither should the right be allowed to censor pedos, unless the law says so.
It's a total non-issue to begin with, though. Freedom of speech also extends to private platforms being able to restrict speech that they don't want on their platform. If somebody at a coffee shop got up at an open mic nite and started ranting about a race war, they'd probably get kicked out and the management would be well within their rights to kick them out. Internet moderation was a thing since before the WWW even existed so you can't even make the case that the internet was intended to be for completely unrestricted speech unless you're an idiot who doesn't know what you're talking about.
Except there are legitimate arguments to be made for social media as a public utility. The coffee shop analogy falls apart almost immediately simply because a coffee shop's customer base doesn't rival the population of most countries on earth.
Also, you can make the argument that in the past speech was a lot less restricted simply because it was also a lot less centralized. In the past we didn't have mega forums like reddit, so a single forum admin had a lot less power. Today, if the top five sites were to collude, you could virtually silence almost everybody. A lot of people just straight up don't use the internet beyond social media.
I don't know if antitrust laws actually apply in this case.
If you had a paper mail company that only delivered delivered mail to other customers of your company, that for example wouldn't be against antitrust laws even if you handled the vast majority of mail, right?
Acting like facebook, twatter or instagram have an 'audience' is ridiculous. Netflix has an audience, but with social media the user base provides all the actual content and the company does nothing but facilitate connectivity between them. In regards to the 'muh platform': Do you believe that ISPs should be allowed to decide who gets to use their platform i.e. internet service and for what purposes?
Acting like facebook, twatter or instagram have an 'audience' is ridiculous. Netflix has an audience, but with social media the user base provides all the actual content and the company does nothing but facilitate connectivity between them.
Facebook has 30,000 employees. They aren't just sitting on their laurels and letting facebook stay the same. They also build the website and add features. They do filter content and maybe for some people that's part of the appeal of the platform.
Do you believe that ISPs should be allowed to decide who gets to use their platform i.e. internet service and for what purposes?
ISPs actually ARE facilitating connections and don't have a platform. Facebook's website is something built by facebook. When you put something on facebook it goes on their servers. That's the facebook platform. ISPs do nothing like that. They have no platform. By the way funny that the right are arguing about this NOW when they all wanted to gut net neutrality to own the libs or suck up to their ISP donors.
If you don't want to use facebook there's a bunch of other options. If you don't want to use your ISP it probably has a local monopoly.
I mean, technically, I guess? I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people wouldn't care in the slightest if facebook/twitter had just gone into complete maintenance mode. The only real difference I've noticed besides some technical improvements is more ads. I still think that it's not remotely comparable to something like Netflix which has an actual audience it has built up by providing certain content.
ISPs do nothing like that. They have no platform
I just don't get the justification for that. Even ignoring that ISPs actually do store content temporarily on their servers, what's so fundamentally different about them? Why does them having a website fundamentally change the type of service facebook offers? The best I could potentially come up with is that it fulfill multiple services, but to me that would just be a reason to split them up.
Also, yeah, the right are hypocrites beyond belief, nothing new here.
If you don't want to use facebook there's a bunch of other options. If you don't want to use your ISP it probably has a local monopoly.
It's about what's feasible. If I don't want to use facebook or twatter, I'm shit out of luck because everyone who matters is on these platforms. Now, if they had some form of interoperability, sure, you could just use another one, but that's just not how it actually works. Theoretically you could also ask/pay another ISP to build the infrastructure, but that's just not feasible in the vast majority of times.
If I don't want to use facebook or twatter, I'm shit out of luck because everyone who matters is on these platforms
I know people who don’t use either and that’s not the only way to connect with people or discuss them.
It’s different with ISPs because you NEED an ISP to do ANYTHING on the internet. You don’t need Facebook or Twitter unless you’re one of the few people whose job title has the words “social media” in it. Social media isn’t a necessity the way the internet is.
Plus starting your own website is WAY easier than starting a new ISP.
Acting like facebook, twatter or instagram have an 'audience' is ridiculous. Netflix has an audience, but with social media the user base provides all the actual content and the company does nothing but facilitate connectivity between them. In regards to the 'muh platform': Do you believe that ISPs should be allowed to decide who gets to use their platform i.e. internet service and for what purposes?
Except there are legitimate arguments to be made for social media as a public utility.
The internet? Yes. Social media? No, there is no good argument for a private platform to be treated as a public utility. And even if they were treated as public spaces, you can still get kicked out of a national park or a library for viewing loli porn and ranting about gassing the jews.
Also, you can make the argument that in the past speech was a lot less restricted simply because it was also a lot less centralized.
Speech wasn't any less restricted. Forum moderation was generally MUCH stricter than admin moderation on content-sharing websites. Exponentially stricter and usually far more arbitrary to boot.
In the past we didn't have mega forums like reddit, so a single forum admin had a lot less power.
They have more power over a greater amount of people, but they don't have much more power over somebody's freedom of expression unless you're talking in terms of somebody's level of exposure (which still has the potential to be much larger than it ever could have been previously even if somebody is kicked off of all the mainstream social media websites- also, freedom of speech isn't freedom to subject as many people as possible to your speech).
Today, if the top five sites were to collude, you could virtually silence almost everybody.
No you couldn't. That person could make their own website, join IRC, go to an alternative platform, etc. They can bring their friends too. The only thing that's lost here is the probability that their speech reaches a wide audience.
A lot of people just straight up don't use the internet beyond social media.
These arguments seem to amount to 'my attention-whoring won't be as effective if social media websites have content rules'.
Yeah, sure, but that's mainly because you're actively disturbing others.
Exponentially stricter and usually far more arbitrary to boot.
That doesn't contradict speech being less restricted overall though. I'm talking about how while individually forums had harsher moderation, there were just a lot more viable alternatives.
you're talking in terms of somebody's level of exposure
yeah. I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible for people to communicate their ideas with others without social media, but rather that you can just suppress it into irrelevance. Sure, you're still more effective than in the past simply because the internet is way more relevant to society today, but information always has to compete with other information which may still be able to use more effective channels. It's not restricting freedom of speech in the sense that people literally aren't allowed to talk about it, but if you just make it so ineffective that nobody bothers, well, you still achieved the same goal.
join IRC
I'm pretty sure it's nigh impossible to convince anyone to use IRC in 2018. Well, maybe pedos still use irc.
These arguments seem to amount to 'my attention-whoring won't be as effective if social media websites have content rules'.
Social media is more than just attention whoring though (well, occasionally). It has a huge effect on how information spreads today and how people communicate. Giving corporations the benefit of the doubt that they won't abuse their ability to control the flow of information? Eeeh, I really don't think that is a good idea.
Yeah, sure, but that's mainly because you're actively disturbing others.
You think that it magically becomes non-disturbing when it's posted to social media? Not to mention that there are new elements when social media is involved, e.g. the ability for extremist groups to recruit with more ease than they ever had before.
I'm talking about how while individually forums had harsher moderation, there were just a lot more viable alternatives.
There definitely weren't...now, if you get banned from a forum, social media website, or content-sharing platform, there are a billion other options, and depending on what you were banned for there may even be a platform created just for people who were banned for the same reasons as you. Before the internet was so centralized, most special interests had a handful of active forums (most of which with the same hard line about what you could get banned for with weird and inconsistent idiosyncrasies on top). If you got banned from all of them, you'd essentially be shut out completely from group discussion of that topic. Because they were smaller and more community-oriented, it was much more difficult to ban evade in those forums because there'd be a good chance that at least one person could figure out who you are. If you did get banned then you were severed from an actual community that knows each other as opposed to a mere source of attention.
I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible for people to communicate their ideas with others without social media, but rather that you can just suppress it into irrelevance.
What's so wrong with that? There's never been equality of exposure and never will be. And if somebody really wants to be heard, then they'll find a way. There are a number of white nationalists who have essentially been completely deplatformed but are still incredibly influential. They just use platforms that accept them and create their own, because the internet is supposed to be a medium where any given private entities can do what they want within the confines of the law. This extends to the platforms that they own.
but information always has to compete with other information which may still be able to use more effective channels.
What's the problem with this? Why should a website be required to give everybody the same chance at getting attention? This whole argument is akin to saying that Amazon or Walmart should be a public entity because a lot of people use them and are inconvenienced by being unable to use them.
It's not restricting freedom of speech in the sense that people literally aren't allowed to talk about it, but if you just make it so ineffective that nobody bothers, well, you still achieved the same goal.
Because the internet allows private entities to do what they want within the confines of the law, alternative platforms are allowed to exist and give a chance at gaining attention to people who are banned from other platforms. Voat is also fairly popular, and there's not much restricting people from creating other 'alternatives'. For all of the complaining about reddit, twitter, etc's content policies, people who get banned for violating the policies can still get a considerable amount of attention elsewhere.
I'm pretty sure it's nigh impossible to convince anyone to use IRC in 2018. Well, maybe pedos still use irc.
Then that's their own damn fault. This amounts to complaining that you have to go to a dive bar after you got kicked out of the more popular one for breaking the rules. People who don't want to follow the rules of a social media platform should become familiar with alternatives that accept them, not whine and try to change the ones that don't.
Social media is more than just attention whoring though (well, occasionally). It has a huge effect on how information spreads today and how people communicate.
And when social media websites don't have content policies, it has a huge impact on how information spreads. Do you want to know why youths (and some boomers lol) are radicalizing like wildfire? It's because websites with lax content policies allowed outside entities (I'm not talking about foreign governments here, just actual radicals for the most part) to wage propaganda and recruitment campaigns, e.g. Stormfront's BUGs. Your argument is going to age very poorly within the next few decades as we begin to see the effects of this.
Giving corporations the benefit of the doubt that they won't abuse their ability to control the flow of information? Eeeh, I really don't think that is a good idea.
So your alternative is for the government to run websites like a utility? The government and technology don't really get along so well...
It's not like I'm saying we absolutely have to nationalize twitter. I'd be fine with even just some regulations for some kind of open social media standard that allows services to interface which each other.
We could also just shoot twitter and all that shit into the sun, I guess.
why? I can't think of a single social media site that has some super unique posts that couldn't be easily standardized and it's not like I'm saying that all services should be the exact same. I also don't see how interfacing wouldn't just be a straight up benefit to users.
Why do you hate innovative job-creating profitable American businesses?
I'm pretty sure Twitter will never ever be profitable. Facebook is profitable, but I'd also bet that they'd do literally anything as long as it increases profit, which isn't exactly comforting especially with how much power they have.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if social media was the great filter.
Facebook is profitable, but I'd also bet that they'd do literally anything as long as it increases profit, which isn't exactly comforting especially with how much power they have.
Sounding pretty red again there, comrade.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if social media was the great filter.
I'm not saying that all social media sites should be forced to offer the exact same service. I'm just talking about
If you can't think of a worse regulation, you're not putting in much effort.
They've posted profits every single quarter except one since they went public in 2014
I'll admit that I don't know much about finance, but does it really make sense to trust non-GAAP profits? I always just took GAAP earnings as gospel and in that regard it doesn't look all that rosy for twitter.
Except there are legitimate arguments to be made for social media as a public utility.
In the far future, as societal values change and are recognized as such, maybe (and that's a big maybe). Until then, lobbying to create Govbook will just get you laughed at.
Internet moderation was a thing since before the WWW even existed so you can't even make the case that the internet was intended to be for completely unrestricted speech unless you're an idiot who doesn't know what you're talking about.
No, its just an issue of social norms instead of law, and the ideal of free speech vs its legal implementation. But i understand why you dont get that, because youre an idiot.
If you want to live in a culture with a social norm that pressures companies to let you shit up someone's social media feed with toddlercon then power to you, I suppose
What about all the hentai where the 10-year old looking little girl is actually a 37 year old or some shit? Or does stating their age kill the fantasy?
neither should the right be allowed to censor pedos, unless the law says so.
This isn't a right wing thing though. There are plenty of right-wing lolitards who support lolishit, and don't forget about the hamplanets who lynched Shadman for some pedo jokes.
He's actually not. People have been successfully prosecuted and imprisoned for lolicon based on the 2003 PROTECT act. It's only a "grey area" because nobody's challenged that particular law up to the Supreme Court yet and they want to believe that the supreme court would think their child porn was protected speech.
He's not even right, because the protect act is the relevant law these days and it hasn't been tested at the supreme court yet.
It's actually a pretty interesting area of first amendment law for reasons beyond being a sick fuck, though. The limits of obscenity have always been ambiguous, and any major court ruling on the subject would have ramifications beyond dudes who jack it to Caillou.
Counter-point; I'm fine with banning loli-shit (I don't advocate it because I don't care about cartoons) and I don't partake in abrahamic blood-moon rituals.
I'm not a blank slate, don't back off of your shitty argument. According to you I must be inclined to allow loli-freedom, so I'm going against my religious morals (as an atheist. But that doesn't matter because we all setour morals upon religion, according to your semitically cucked mind).
But how is that possible? How can someone be okay with images of children getting fucked banned?
I'm afraid I don't know the answer. By definition, every highly logical actor must disapprove of private entities banning fictional paintings of children getting fucked; it's likely a litmus test of how logical someone is, really.
I guess I'm highly irrational for letting Torba take the bag with this one!
Literally everything you say is incorrect. You're in complete denial that someone would be okay with private entities banning lolishit without that person also being some moralfag. You've officially lost my interest, fuck off 10 IQ brainlet.
Again, wrong assumptions. I'm -bothered- by your attempt at guesswork on my background. Frankly if I was like 90% of the users here (Hans; Generic Mayo), you'd be right about me, and you'd even feel smug about it for no good reason.
I approved of this one guy banning lolis from his site, and made fun of KiAtards for getting so riled about fictional CP getting banned. And your response is "you're mad".
Imagine the levels you're projecting at right now.
I have lost interest in the "guessing background of a random user in the 90% WASP website" game, I'm just rehashing this shitty convo we had so you can self-reflect and think about why you care so much about people not liking CP 😊
What's the one major thing missing from all action movies these days, guys? Full penetration. We're going to show full penetration, and we're going to show a lot of it. I mean, we're talking, you know, graphic scenes of Dolph Lundgren really going to town on this hot, young lab tech. From behind, 69, anal, vaginal, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl - all the hits, all the big ones, all the good ones. And then he smells crime again. He's out busting heads. Then he's back to the lab for some more full penetration. Smells crime, back to the lab, full penetration. Crime, penetration, crime, full penetration, crime, penetration... And this goes on and on, and back and forth for 90 or so minutes until the movie just sort of ends.
You think like this because you're not a pedo. The counter-argument to this is that if the names are kept anonymous & faces are blurred, there is no victim (given the footage was already recorded by criminals)
Look you nigger I'm not advocating for child porn I'm just parroting what the retarded pedofucks over at 8ch are saying. Don't expect me to brew some counter-argument for your entertainment pleasure.
People should be allowed to spout these retarded opinions and then get sent to jail to get the chomo treatment after their internet gets monitored and they obviously get caught participating in pedo degeneracy
Libertarians mind their own business and don't think the government should intervene unless necessary. It's the party of freedom. A lot of them are authoritarian MAGA alt righters.
Imagine, just for a second, that you are the type of person who types this sentence:
The thing that concerns me is that most of the people in this thread think it's a settled issue and that there is some mountain of precedent protecting loli,
We're a group of people who will sit for hours, days, even weeks on end performing some of the least legal, most crime record demanding tasks. Over, and over, and over all for nothing more than a little digital folder on our desktop.
We'll punish our selfs doing things others would consider disturbing, because we think it's fun.
Libertarians are retarded in general. If the government censors even one person they lose their minds, but social media platforms could ban everyone they don't like and they would still defend them. Libertarians have no principles, they just pathetically cling to whatever is the law at the moment.
Why am I not surprised that KiA would get outraged about child porn getting removed. Muh ethics they mumble whilst furiously jacking it to cartoon kids.
Everyone's up in arms over dirty drawings, meanwhile, actual CP is still being distributed across Twitter and people are still using Facebook , Kik and Craigslist to traffic children.
It's a peak first world problem when people consider the well being of a drawing over the well being of actual people.
Big communication platforms contact the FBI when they find evidence of CP and human trafficking, though, and the average person either doesn't know about the problem or can't do anything to combat it, because the average person doesn't randomly stumble across CP/a human trafficking ring and combating human trafficking is incredibly different even for the authorities and the main export hubs don't give a shit. In the meantime some of the more discreet pedos like to spam loli, and social media platforms are well within their rights to ban it as they ban CP. This is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Removing porn posted by some helpless weeb is way easier than tracing a crime syndicate trafficking girls out of Moldova.
I only just created it, but it's getting downvoted like crazy. KiA REALLY doesn't want to tackle the ethical implications of allowing fucking lolicon on their precious Twitter alternative.
I'm usually pretty strongly pro-KiA but this is totally alienating to me.
Imagine dedicating yourself to studying law, but not all law, not enough law to become a lawyer or anything important. Imagine if the only law you know is law specifically relating to anime child pornography and it’s legality
Only SFW stuff like what I post. There is almost no loli hentai on Reddit though. Sometimes subs pop up but they get banned quickly again, are super inactive and still rather safe (you might get some nudes but almost never any sex).
So far all arrests for "lolicon" I could find either also had regular old child porn, or it was considered "too realistic or obscene speech." (obscene speech being actually illegal in some manners).
regular old child porn
too realistic
Imagine being such a degenerate animefag that actual, real, taken-with-cameras child porn only registers as "too realistic" to you and not "horrifically disgusting"
291 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-10-17
Your condescending, contradictory bullshit isn't attractive to anyone except your frothing, basement-dwelling, virgin army.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 a_cute_grill 2018-10-17
the fuck is Gab?
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-10-17
Facebook for wh*toids who think Facebook isn't mayo enough
1 squishles 2018-10-17
I thought it was a twitter clone, I know google hates there shit though.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-10-17
What's a twitter crone?
1 cmakk1012 2018-10-17
fucking m*yoids 🤮🤮🤮
1 aqouta 2018-10-17
It's notable as being part of a crypto federated social media scheme. Like reddit where mods are the highest power with no admins.
1 youcanteatbullets 2018-10-17
Nazi Twatter
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-10-17
inbred*
1 GeorgeLouisCostanza_ 2018-10-17
Redundant
1 Think_Once 2018-10-17
A honeypot. When Bernie Sanders corpse will win the presidential election in 2036, everyone who participated on Gab will be round up and send to the Gulag.
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2018-10-17
if it is in fact on shaky legal ground it's reasonable to not want to be the case that establishes it as illegal.
It's not, Gab is straight up lying to the ignorant (like yourself) to justify his prejudice. Loli being protected speech has long since been estabilished, as it has undeniable artistic merit. The only time it's been included under any obscenity laws is when someone is being charged with possession of child porn, so the state can slap them with more charges. The courts have been very careful to not charge anyone for loli, because they'd get their asses fucking annihilated by a higher court due to the firm precedence of loli being completely legal speech. Gab had nothing to worry about, this guy was just making shit up to fool people into thinking his censoring wasn't entirely personally motivated.
Edit: fixed autocorrect.
Lmao
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
he's not wrong, only retarded countries criminalize harmless drawings
1 SpotNL 2018-10-17
And only retarded people defend its existence.
1 Nes370 2018-10-17
We're all retarded on this based day.
1 moush 2018-10-17
better start banning all porn except missionary position between a husband and wife
1 SpotNL 2018-10-17
Is it that much to ask to not have children (fake or not) in your porn?
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
Yea.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-17
oh my god your submission history is horrific
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
How so.
1 Kiru-Kokujin13 2018-10-17
Yes
1 shallowm 2018-10-17
The US government's response to you is "this, but unironically":
The Communications Act of 1934 defines "interactive computer service" as follows:
People have actually been prosecuted because of this. See: Max Hardcore and Extreme Associates (two different entities).
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-17
All them words won't bring your pa back.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-17
weebs are first against the wall
1 seenten 2018-10-17
Excuse you furries are first
1 100_Percent_not_homo 2018-10-17
found the pedo
1 M3mph 2018-10-17
cartoon kiddie cunt is free speech. wat r u sweaty, sum kind of biggot?
1 randomdude3873 2018-10-17
KIA makes the best pasta
1 Chicup 2018-10-17
So now banning simulated child porn is a evil right wing plot?
1 throwaway_999912 2018-10-17
If loli is banned, the right wing would lose its youth group
1 Chicup 2018-10-17
Loli seems more what I'd expect some mid 30's neckbeard to be into.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
loli is very popular with the youth
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-17
I'm not comfortable with you being knowledgeable of "the youth."
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
huh, don't worry. The youngest ones I'm around are 18/19
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
Lolicon isn't even necessarily pedo. E.g. a lot of stuff that is still tagged as lolicon is with teenage girls, ages 12 and older.
1 VidiotGamer 2018-10-17
Not doing yourself any favors man.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
well it's by definition not pedophilia
1 TUMS_FESTIVAL 2018-10-17
What is the term for finding a 12 year old girl attractive?
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
Hebephilia, I think
1 SpotNL 2018-10-17
Walked right into that, didn't you?
1 HailSanta2512 2018-10-17
has basic knowledge of one of the internet's oldest slapfights
fkn gottem
1 BeastTrinity 2018-10-17
t. hebo
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-10-17
By these standards, lolicon itself is a misnomer, since in Nabokov's book, Lolita was like 14.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
she was 12 or 13 in the novel, I'm not completely sure. For the movie they aged her up, bad choice in my opinion. But it's true that she wasn't prepubescent so the term really doesn't make too much sense.
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
I think she was 10.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
no, it was either 12 or 13
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
Hmm. I remember the girl he had his almost-first-time with when he was still a boy himself was that age. I thought Lolita was younger though.
But if you're right then dootwiththesickness is indeed correct, 13 is too old for lolis.
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-17
Of all the hills to die on.....
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
you sound like an SRDine, they love that phrase
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-17
not an argument
1 dratamard2 2018-10-17
🚔🚔🚔🚔
👮👮STOP! u stand accused of being a MASSIVE FAGGOT👮👮
wat say u in ur defense?
Yamete is a degenerate weeb pedo, but 🤮SRDines🤮 need to rope 😌😌😌
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
The proper radical centrist thing to do is to tie a rope around both their necks and whoever chokes the other to death with it first gets a quick death instead.
1 BeastTrinity 2018-10-17
Neither is ^ this ^ retarded moralposting.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-10-17
CAN
1 sockerpopper 2018-10-17
Isn't the term lolicon used by the general populace to talk about any kind of schoolgirl, including highschool? Either way, shut up pedo.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
by the Japanese? idk I thought it was their term for pedo.
1 Kiru-Kokujin13 2018-10-17
it means both pedo and 2d
people here aren't retarded and know the difference
theres 小児性愛者 which is usually used instead when it comes to someone who actually fucked a kid
1 Steve_Blackmom 2018-10-17
no
1 pausei144 2018-10-17
Loli isn't even about the age of the characters, it's about how they look. She's 30 and she's 14, yet the former is a Loli while the later isn't.
1 sockerpopper 2018-10-17
Shut up weeb, I'm talking about human beings here.
1 Yiin 2018-10-17
Imagine being attracted to traits that literally don't exist except in fiction.
1 Momruepari 2018-10-17
fuck you
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
why are you mad at me though?
1 Momruepari 2018-10-17
Because you molested my son
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
That's gay, I wouldnt so that
1 Momruepari 2018-10-17
better lawyer up, fucko.
1 Tenshimaru_tokugawa1 2018-10-17
lmao the dude defending pedophilia had his account suspended
1 Momruepari 2018-10-17
piece of shit deserves that and worse
1 HadakaApron 2018-10-17
And some of it is with 10,000 year old demons who just look like eight year olds. Who could object to that? *vomits*
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
stale meme
1 mphjackson7 2018-10-17
Doesn't make it less true
1 GandalftheChromatic 2018-10-17
Lolifags deserve to be locked into a pillory in the middle of town and be harassed by people with superior tastes.
1 demotecontrol 2018-10-17
So you want to be able to fuck 12 year olds, right?
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
no, I don't but I might look up related manga
1 demotecontrol 2018-10-17
dude loli lmao
1 TotesMessenger 2018-10-17
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 mphjackson7 2018-10-17
Is that . . . legal?
1 MX21 2018-10-17
Have you considered not broadcasting your paedophilia to everyone? Retard
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-17
WE NEED PINGING BACK REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
1 HailSanta2512 2018-10-17
Go into the thread and call him a faggot then. Literally nothing stopping you except the fear of being from gasp KiA 😲
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-17
they already benned me for being mean to the DDF.
1 HailSanta2512 2018-10-17
this is why the god of autism created alt accounts
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-17
too lazy
1 error404brain 2018-10-17
Already banned for pointing out banning people for being SJW is the exact same as banning goobergater for being goobergaters.
1 Momruepari 2018-10-17
pedocide when?
1 youcanteatbullets 2018-10-17
We tried to pedocide, but then #GamersRoseUp and defended themselves.
1 NotAllPedophiles 2018-10-17
Rude
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
killing people for something they don't choose and have no control over? Literally what Hitler did
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
Let's be real, no one would be calling him bad if he had targeted pedos instead of jews.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
He also had homosexuals and sexual offenders killed. He would have had killed non-offending pedos too if they had been aware who was one
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
Which is the only thing lolicon will ever be useful for.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
to locate non-offending pedos?
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
Yes.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
yeah stigmatize people for something they don't choose and have no control over. Real nice
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
Yes.
1 Jewdankdied4mysins 2018-10-17
I tell myself you're a troll because I refuse to believe anyone that watches kiddie porn then insists THEY are the victim really exists.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
loli is usually in comic form, separate drawings are nice too though. It harms literally no one and yes stigmatizing people over it is harmful
1 JeanPeuplu 2018-10-17
How about you think about therapy before you catch a stray bullet?
1 Wheretheflowersgrow 2018-10-17
If you're attracted to pornographic drawings of children you need to kill yourself.
1 Doomblaze 2018-10-17
I usually think he’s kidding but he’s super serious about this shit lmao
1 Aoede 2018-10-17
Pedos aren't people tho
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
dehumanizing people isn't nice either
1 Tetragrade 2018-10-17
Sounds like a great HOI4 mod.
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-17
Imagine having no control over your urges.
Proof that we cant pedocide soon enough.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
no control over what they like not over their urges. Some guys like thicc girls, some like big boobs, some like cute, short, flat chested girls with a lack of curves. But generally you don't get to choose what you like. If it was like that there'd be more gay guys
1 Momruepari 2018-10-17
you can choose not to be jewish
1 Think_Once 2018-10-17
CMV: KiAtards just wanted a white loli for the Witcher TV series to masturbate to, which is proven by the more or less non-outrage about the token Black and Indian actresses.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
is she hot though?
1 Think_Once 2018-10-17
She looks like 12.
1 cmakk1012 2018-10-17
That’s not a problem for Mr. Yamete, I’m guessing
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
Its a good thing for women to look young, everyone knows that
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
could've just said yes. she's kinda cute
1 Think_Once 2018-10-17
Here's your Halloween costume:
https://www.amazon.com/Winsome-Saddle-24-Inch-Counter-Walnut/dp/B001E95R3G/
https://www.amazon.com/Koch-5011635-Twisted-Polypropylene-Brown/dp/B002T44UGA/
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
haha, hilarious. I should kill myself just because I have different preferences which doesn't hurt anybody.
1 Think_Once 2018-10-17
What you do with these two things is up to you.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
I won't and it's fucked up to even suggest it. Suicide isn't a joke.
1 Think_Once 2018-10-17
As is lolicon.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
maybe it offends you but it doesn't actually hurt anybody. Just leave people be
1 Jewdankdied4mysins 2018-10-17
That's a shame
Holy shit your persecution complex rivals that of evangelical Christians. What is it with wanting to rape children that makes you people feel so oppressed?
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
I don't do that, I like adult women
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-17
aka diddling kids.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
I don't, I like cute, short, flat-chested women, preferably East-Asian
1 DayyyTripper 2018-10-17
So women that look like kids, gotcha
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
there's literally nothing wrong with liking small, cute Asian women
1 DayyyTripper 2018-10-17
Did I say there was? 🤔
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
well saying women who look like kids is pretty shitty. So because they're short, petite and don't have an hourglass figure means they don't look like women?
1 Tetragrade 2018-10-17
🤢🤢🤢
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
mayos can sometimes be cute, but sure the percentage of mayos who are cute is way lower than for East-Asian girls.
1 Tetragrade 2018-10-17
keep yourself safe
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-10-17
A 12/10? I wouldn't go that far,,,
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
Am I weird for thinking she looks like an alien?
1 POST_BUSSY 2018-10-17
She looks like an elf girl tbh.
1 C881 2018-10-17
❤❤❤❤❤❤
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
Imo she is.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2018-10-17
why watch the netflix show when there is tons of witcher 3 porn out there?
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-10-17
Fuckinf nonces, a lof of them😤
1 Ewindal 2018-10-17
If you support free speech, you must support people pinging other users. It's completely legal speech. If you won't defend pinging as free speech because you or someone else finds it disgusting, then no speech that you or anyone else views as disgusting is safe.
It's not, Gab is straight up lying to the ignorant (like yourself) to justify his prejudice. Pinging being protected speech has long since been estabilished, as it has undeniable artistic merit. The only time it's been included under any obscenity laws is when someone is being charged with possession of child porn, so the state can slap them with more charges. The courts have been very careful to not charge anyone for pinging, because they'd get their asses fucking annihilated by a higher court due to the firm precedence of pinging being completely legal speech. Gab had nothing to worry about, this guy was just making shit up to fool people into thinking his censoring wasn't entirely personally motivated.
1 HailSanta2512 2018-10-17
Why do we need to ping people? If you wanna call someone a faggot then just do it in the linked thread. Worst that'll happened is a ban from some shitty subreddit that can't bants.
1 SlendyIsBehindYou 2018-10-17
Pinging?
1 nmx179 2018-10-17
Jesus wept
1 SlendyIsBehindYou 2018-10-17
My tight asshole just consented to it, so I guess we'll find out
1 nmx179 2018-10-17
Pretty good pasta but you need to edit this bit maybe.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-10-17
Charged with pinging?
1 degorius 2018-10-17
charged with harassment and brigading
1 capsicumshot 2018-10-17
soy boy
1 MG87 2018-10-17
Imagine lacking this much nuance
1 recriminology 2018-10-17
Imagine knowing this much about gray areas in child pornography laws
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
I mean, that guy is definitely a pedo. Anyone who watches loli porn is *cough* /u/YameteOtosanItai cough. But that dude's right, lol.
If the left shouldn't be allowed to censor Nazis, unless the law says so, neither should the right be allowed to censor pedos, unless the law says so.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-17
It's a total non-issue to begin with, though. Freedom of speech also extends to private platforms being able to restrict speech that they don't want on their platform. If somebody at a coffee shop got up at an open mic nite and started ranting about a race war, they'd probably get kicked out and the management would be well within their rights to kick them out. Internet moderation was a thing since before the WWW even existed so you can't even make the case that the internet was intended to be for completely unrestricted speech unless you're an idiot who doesn't know what you're talking about.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
Except there are legitimate arguments to be made for social media as a public utility. The coffee shop analogy falls apart almost immediately simply because a coffee shop's customer base doesn't rival the population of most countries on earth.
Also, you can make the argument that in the past speech was a lot less restricted simply because it was also a lot less centralized. In the past we didn't have mega forums like reddit, so a single forum admin had a lot less power. Today, if the top five sites were to collude, you could virtually silence almost everybody. A lot of people just straight up don't use the internet beyond social media.
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
Sounds like a job for antitrust laws.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
I don't know if antitrust laws actually apply in this case.
If you had a paper mail company that only delivered delivered mail to other customers of your company, that for example wouldn't be against antitrust laws even if you handled the vast majority of mail, right?
1 rockidol 2018-10-17
Not really, people can still make their own website and go to other websites.
And? Nobody owes you their audience and free speech doesn't guarantee you a platform with an audience to be provided to you by a corporation.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
Do you know what virtually means?
Acting like facebook, twatter or instagram have an 'audience' is ridiculous. Netflix has an audience, but with social media the user base provides all the actual content and the company does nothing but facilitate connectivity between them. In regards to the 'muh platform': Do you believe that ISPs should be allowed to decide who gets to use their platform i.e. internet service and for what purposes?
1 rockidol 2018-10-17
Facebook has 30,000 employees. They aren't just sitting on their laurels and letting facebook stay the same. They also build the website and add features. They do filter content and maybe for some people that's part of the appeal of the platform.
ISPs actually ARE facilitating connections and don't have a platform. Facebook's website is something built by facebook. When you put something on facebook it goes on their servers. That's the facebook platform. ISPs do nothing like that. They have no platform. By the way funny that the right are arguing about this NOW when they all wanted to gut net neutrality to own the libs or suck up to their ISP donors.
If you don't want to use facebook there's a bunch of other options. If you don't want to use your ISP it probably has a local monopoly.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
I mean, technically, I guess? I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people wouldn't care in the slightest if facebook/twitter had just gone into complete maintenance mode. The only real difference I've noticed besides some technical improvements is more ads. I still think that it's not remotely comparable to something like Netflix which has an actual audience it has built up by providing certain content.
I just don't get the justification for that. Even ignoring that ISPs actually do store content temporarily on their servers, what's so fundamentally different about them? Why does them having a website fundamentally change the type of service facebook offers? The best I could potentially come up with is that it fulfill multiple services, but to me that would just be a reason to split them up.
Also, yeah, the right are hypocrites beyond belief, nothing new here.
It's about what's feasible. If I don't want to use facebook or twatter, I'm shit out of luck because everyone who matters is on these platforms. Now, if they had some form of interoperability, sure, you could just use another one, but that's just not how it actually works. Theoretically you could also ask/pay another ISP to build the infrastructure, but that's just not feasible in the vast majority of times.
1 rockidol 2018-10-17
I know people who don’t use either and that’s not the only way to connect with people or discuss them.
It’s different with ISPs because you NEED an ISP to do ANYTHING on the internet. You don’t need Facebook or Twitter unless you’re one of the few people whose job title has the words “social media” in it. Social media isn’t a necessity the way the internet is.
Plus starting your own website is WAY easier than starting a new ISP.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
Do you know what virtually means?
Acting like facebook, twatter or instagram have an 'audience' is ridiculous. Netflix has an audience, but with social media the user base provides all the actual content and the company does nothing but facilitate connectivity between them. In regards to the 'muh platform': Do you believe that ISPs should be allowed to decide who gets to use their platform i.e. internet service and for what purposes?
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-17
No there aren't.
1 siempreloco31 2018-10-17
There's no legitimate argument though.
1 Matues49 2018-10-17
No, there aren't. You're just a fucktard.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
riveting line of thought
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-17
lmao, you tried.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
If you can't come up with something different, couldn't you just have instead written "le this" under one of the other comments?
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-17
But then I wouldnt have gotten a direct response from the lolcow himself!
1 snallygaster 2018-10-17
The internet? Yes. Social media? No, there is no good argument for a private platform to be treated as a public utility. And even if they were treated as public spaces, you can still get kicked out of a national park or a library for viewing loli porn and ranting about gassing the jews.
Speech wasn't any less restricted. Forum moderation was generally MUCH stricter than admin moderation on content-sharing websites. Exponentially stricter and usually far more arbitrary to boot.
They have more power over a greater amount of people, but they don't have much more power over somebody's freedom of expression unless you're talking in terms of somebody's level of exposure (which still has the potential to be much larger than it ever could have been previously even if somebody is kicked off of all the mainstream social media websites- also, freedom of speech isn't freedom to subject as many people as possible to your speech).
No you couldn't. That person could make their own website, join IRC, go to an alternative platform, etc. They can bring their friends too. The only thing that's lost here is the probability that their speech reaches a wide audience.
These arguments seem to amount to 'my attention-whoring won't be as effective if social media websites have content rules'.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
Yeah, sure, but that's mainly because you're actively disturbing others.
That doesn't contradict speech being less restricted overall though. I'm talking about how while individually forums had harsher moderation, there were just a lot more viable alternatives.
yeah. I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible for people to communicate their ideas with others without social media, but rather that you can just suppress it into irrelevance. Sure, you're still more effective than in the past simply because the internet is way more relevant to society today, but information always has to compete with other information which may still be able to use more effective channels. It's not restricting freedom of speech in the sense that people literally aren't allowed to talk about it, but if you just make it so ineffective that nobody bothers, well, you still achieved the same goal.
I'm pretty sure it's nigh impossible to convince anyone to use IRC in 2018. Well, maybe pedos still use irc.
Social media is more than just attention whoring though (well, occasionally). It has a huge effect on how information spreads today and how people communicate. Giving corporations the benefit of the doubt that they won't abuse their ability to control the flow of information? Eeeh, I really don't think that is a good idea.
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-17
That degree finally paying off
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 snallygaster 2018-10-17
You think that it magically becomes non-disturbing when it's posted to social media? Not to mention that there are new elements when social media is involved, e.g. the ability for extremist groups to recruit with more ease than they ever had before.
There definitely weren't...now, if you get banned from a forum, social media website, or content-sharing platform, there are a billion other options, and depending on what you were banned for there may even be a platform created just for people who were banned for the same reasons as you. Before the internet was so centralized, most special interests had a handful of active forums (most of which with the same hard line about what you could get banned for with weird and inconsistent idiosyncrasies on top). If you got banned from all of them, you'd essentially be shut out completely from group discussion of that topic. Because they were smaller and more community-oriented, it was much more difficult to ban evade in those forums because there'd be a good chance that at least one person could figure out who you are. If you did get banned then you were severed from an actual community that knows each other as opposed to a mere source of attention.
What's so wrong with that? There's never been equality of exposure and never will be. And if somebody really wants to be heard, then they'll find a way. There are a number of white nationalists who have essentially been completely deplatformed but are still incredibly influential. They just use platforms that accept them and create their own, because the internet is supposed to be a medium where any given private entities can do what they want within the confines of the law. This extends to the platforms that they own.
What's the problem with this? Why should a website be required to give everybody the same chance at getting attention? This whole argument is akin to saying that Amazon or Walmart should be a public entity because a lot of people use them and are inconvenienced by being unable to use them.
Because the internet allows private entities to do what they want within the confines of the law, alternative platforms are allowed to exist and give a chance at gaining attention to people who are banned from other platforms. Voat is also fairly popular, and there's not much restricting people from creating other 'alternatives'. For all of the complaining about reddit, twitter, etc's content policies, people who get banned for violating the policies can still get a considerable amount of attention elsewhere.
Then that's their own damn fault. This amounts to complaining that you have to go to a dive bar after you got kicked out of the more popular one for breaking the rules. People who don't want to follow the rules of a social media platform should become familiar with alternatives that accept them, not whine and try to change the ones that don't.
And when social media websites don't have content policies, it has a huge impact on how information spreads. Do you want to know why youths (and some boomers lol) are radicalizing like wildfire? It's because websites with lax content policies allowed outside entities (I'm not talking about foreign governments here, just actual radicals for the most part) to wage propaganda and recruitment campaigns, e.g. Stormfront's BUGs. Your argument is going to age very poorly within the next few decades as we begin to see the effects of this.
So your alternative is for the government to run websites like a utility? The government and technology don't really get along so well...
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-10-17
Sure, if you're a filthy commie
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
It's not like I'm saying we absolutely have to nationalize twitter. I'd be fine with even just some regulations for some kind of open social media standard that allows services to interface which each other.
We could also just shoot twitter and all that shit into the sun, I guess.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-10-17
These are both terrible business and design decisions that the US govt should not be making for businesses.
Why do you hate innovative job-creating profitable American businesses?
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
well, yes, that's why it'd require regulation
why? I can't think of a single social media site that has some super unique posts that couldn't be easily standardized and it's not like I'm saying that all services should be the exact same. I also don't see how interfacing wouldn't just be a straight up benefit to users.
I'm pretty sure Twitter will never ever be profitable. Facebook is profitable, but I'd also bet that they'd do literally anything as long as it increases profit, which isn't exactly comforting especially with how much power they have.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if social media was the great filter.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-10-17
That regulation would essentially ruin every social media company. I can't think of a worse regulation tbh.
Imagine forcing every Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. post to follow the same standards. This kills innovation and businesses.
They've posted profits every single quarter except one since they went public in 2014: https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/eps-ticker.php?q=twtr
Sounding pretty red again there, comrade.
What is this nonsense?
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-17
I'm not saying that all social media sites should be forced to offer the exact same service. I'm just talking about
If you can't think of a worse regulation, you're not putting in much effort.
I'll admit that I don't know much about finance, but does it really make sense to trust non-GAAP profits? I always just took GAAP earnings as gospel and in that regard it doesn't look all that rosy for twitter.
Does it Better red than dead.
Paranoia, hopefully.
1 seenten 2018-10-17
In the far future, as societal values change and are recognized as such, maybe (and that's a big maybe). Until then, lobbying to create Govbook will just get you laughed at.
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
Yes, which is why KiA is doing it.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-17
true
1 nmx179 2018-10-17
No, its just an issue of social norms instead of law, and the ideal of free speech vs its legal implementation. But i understand why you dont get that, because youre an idiot.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-17
If you want to live in a culture with a social norm that pressures companies to let you shit up someone's social media feed with toddlercon then power to you, I suppose
1 nmx179 2018-10-17
I want to live in a culture made up of people who recognize what it means when a canary dies in a mine, lol.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-17
How entitled do you even have to be to expect a private entity to let you do whatever you want on their property? Get owned by capitalism bitch
1 Kiru-Kokujin13 2018-10-17
Gab can restrict what they want, but they can't pretend to be a free speech site while restricting things they don't like
Reddit doesn't call itself a free speech site
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-10-17
They use to, when their user count was shit and digg still existed.
1 Kiru-Kokujin13 2018-10-17
Key word is use to and they arguably use to with stuff like /r/jailbait
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
no one watches lolicon. you read the manga / doujinshi like a normal person
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
Choose one
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
Its a common fetish but since people often assume you're a pedo if you admit to it most don't
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
People don't assume anything. The Venn diagram of pedos and lolicon consumers looks like a donut.
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-17
what about hebephiles though?
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
1 deceIIerator 2018-10-17
What's in the middle of the donut then?
1 dramasexual 2018-10-17
people assume you're a pedo if you look at pedophilic pornography
yeah m8.
in other news, people assume you're black if you have dark skin and african ancestry
1 IllegitimateLiteracy 2018-10-17
Why do people keep assuming I'm into BDSM when I keep jerking it to BDSM porn??????
1 otherwiseyep 2018-10-17
Not all pedos are an*me fans, but...
1 CATS_in_a_car 2018-10-17
What about all the hentai where the 10-year old looking little girl is actually a 37 year old or some shit? Or does stating their age kill the fantasy?
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
This isn't a right wing thing though. There are plenty of right-wing lolitards who support lolishit, and don't forget about the hamplanets who lynched Shadman for some pedo jokes.
1 dramasexual 2018-10-17
He's actually not. People have been successfully prosecuted and imprisoned for lolicon based on the 2003 PROTECT act. It's only a "grey area" because nobody's challenged that particular law up to the Supreme Court yet and they want to believe that the supreme court would think their child porn was protected speech.
1 TheRobidog 2018-10-17
Aight, in that case he's wrong. You do you, gab.
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
Can you link any such case. I have never seen it, all convictions I know of where for actual CP and the people just happened to also have some lolis.
1 shallowm 2018-10-17
a
1 Kiru-Kokujin13 2018-10-17
the protect act has been ruled unconstitutional several times
1 shallowm 2018-10-17
When?
1 dramasexual 2018-10-17
Shh, he REALLY wants to believe his child pornography is legal.
1 shallowm 2018-10-17
a
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-17
Good job bobby, here's a star
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-17
He's also wrong, as pointed out by the guy who replied to him. Apparently the 2003 PROTECT law may criminalize Loli.
1 Tetragrade 2018-10-17
https://local.theonion.com/man-knows-unsettling-amount-about-nationwide-age-of-con-1819565878
1 hesh582 2018-10-17
He's not even right, because the protect act is the relevant law these days and it hasn't been tested at the supreme court yet.
It's actually a pretty interesting area of first amendment law for reasons beyond being a sick fuck, though. The limits of obscenity have always been ambiguous, and any major court ruling on the subject would have ramifications beyond dudes who jack it to Caillou.
1 Tetragrade 2018-10-17
Theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. You imbecile. You fucking moron.
1 OmniscientOctopode 2018-10-17
And of course these are the same people who constantly whine about how cultural Marxists created moral relativity to destroy America.
1 ToTheNintieth 2018-10-17
Can you imagine if they actually made loli porn illegal? The sperging from basement dwellers would be legendary.
1 shallowm 2018-10-17
a
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-17
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him,
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 HillLaHill 2018-10-17
Can this be a snappy quote?
1 error404brain 2018-10-17
Burger got so deep into literal worship of the constitution they forgot why free speech is desirable, lmao.
1 Yiin 2018-10-17
The right to free speech doesn't include actually hurting people. Real Americans send these people to be executed by use of prison beating.
Try again barbarian.
1 HumongousGentleman 2018-10-17
No true burger
1 GandalftheChromatic 2018-10-17
It's about ethics in my Japanese cartoon child porn
1 ATissu 2018-10-17
The rational thinkers ™ strike again. Thank your Sargon, Very cool!
1 King_Drumpf 2018-10-17
Wow who would have thought gamers were perverts...
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
Literally one step away from "Distributing CP doesn't hurt anyone so it should be free speech lol".
G*mers are disgusting.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-10-17
Literally one step away from "Words make people violent so violent movies and music should be banned lol".
Christfag moralists are disgusting.
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
>Not want drawings of children getting fucked posted on one's platform is good
>Lmao christfag
Don't project your abrahamic cultural normativism & far-east cartoon obsession on me bud.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-10-17
Where do you think your disapproval comes from, if not Puritanical social norms? I don't need to like weeb shit to remember Jack Thompson.
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
Counter-point; I'm fine with banning loli-shit (I don't advocate it because I don't care about cartoons) and I don't partake in abrahamic blood-moon rituals.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-10-17
You may not go to church but your morals are certainly informed by a Puritanical desire to resist sin.
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
the "you're probably a believer even if you don't think you are" argument
calm down Peterson, we're not all driven by religious bullshit.
also fuck you, my ex-religion advocates for child sex you absolute retard.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-10-17
So where does your prudish nature stem from, since you're a blank slate?
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
I'm not a blank slate, don't back off of your shitty argument. According to you I must be inclined to allow loli-freedom, so I'm going against my religious morals (as an atheist. But that doesn't matter because we all setour morals upon religion, according to your semitically cucked mind).
But how is that possible? How can someone be okay with images of children getting fucked banned?
I'm afraid I don't know the answer. By definition, every highly logical actor must disapprove of private entities banning fictional paintings of children getting fucked; it's likely a litmus test of how logical someone is, really.
I guess I'm highly irrational for letting Torba take the bag with this one!
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-10-17
You don't understand the difference between culture and religion but that's probably because you're so mad.
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
You're a christ-cuck
Oh, you're not? Well, you were raised like a christ-cuck so the moral values still apply
What's that? You weren't raised as a christ-cuck, and your religious morals would actually make you accept lolishit? Yeah okay but I know you were raised as a westerner so fuck you I win
You aren't a westerner and was raised in eastern culture? [Insert bullshit assumption #24 here]
Literally everything you say is incorrect. You're in complete denial that someone would be okay with private entities banning lolishit without that person also being some moralfag. You've officially lost my interest, fuck off 10 IQ brainlet.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-10-17
super mad about drawings. got it.
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
Again, wrong assumptions. I'm -bothered- by your attempt at guesswork on my background. Frankly if I was like 90% of the users here (Hans; Generic Mayo), you'd be right about me, and you'd even feel smug about it for no good reason.
I approved of this one guy banning lolis from his site, and made fun of KiAtards for getting so riled about fictional CP getting banned. And your response is "you're mad".
Imagine the levels you're projecting at right now.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-10-17
You said you 'officially lost interest'.
I said 'u mad'.
We're still here.
Who was right?
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
I have lost interest in the "guessing background of a random user in the 90% WASP website" game, I'm just rehashing this shitty convo we had so you can self-reflect and think about why you care so much about people not liking CP 😊
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-10-17
You're so thoughtful when you're mad.
1 wow___justwow 2018-10-17
What's the one major thing missing from all action movies these days, guys? Full penetration. We're going to show full penetration, and we're going to show a lot of it. I mean, we're talking, you know, graphic scenes of Dolph Lundgren really going to town on this hot, young lab tech. From behind, 69, anal, vaginal, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl - all the hits, all the big ones, all the good ones. And then he smells crime again. He's out busting heads. Then he's back to the lab for some more full penetration. Smells crime, back to the lab, full penetration. Crime, penetration, crime, full penetration, crime, penetration... And this goes on and on, and back and forth for 90 or so minutes until the movie just sort of ends.
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-17
Is this from always sunny?
It sounds like it's from always sunny but I'm not sure.
1 wow___justwow 2018-10-17
yup, season 5 i think
1 rockidol 2018-10-17
Real CP has a victim in it, and distributing it continues victimizing the real person in it.
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
You think like this because you're not a pedo. The counter-argument to this is that if the names are kept anonymous & faces are blurred, there is no victim (given the footage was already recorded by criminals)
1 rockidol 2018-10-17
No there’s still a victim, they have a right to privacy and the more people get a hold of the photos/videos the more that right has been violated.
Also there’s the argument that distribution creates a market which leads to more being made.
1 ElegantConvictionAdv 2018-10-17
Look you nigger I'm not advocating for child porn I'm just parroting what the retarded pedofucks over at 8ch are saying. Don't expect me to brew some counter-argument for your entertainment pleasure.
1 100_Percent_not_homo 2018-10-17
People should be allowed to spout these retarded opinions and then get sent to jail to get the chomo treatment after their internet gets monitored and they obviously get caught participating in pedo degeneracy
1 DeprestedDevelopment 2018-10-17
do it bitch
1 HailSanta2512 2018-10-17
Yeah but what the animators who toil away for hours/days only for their creations to get lewded in a heartbeat. They're the real victims here.
1 shallowm 2018-10-17
http://archive.is/d4NPt
1 DistortedLines 2018-10-17
KIA are libertarians, shocking.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-10-17
pls no steppy on snek
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-10-17
🐍🐍🐍
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-10-17
👠👠👠
1 ToTheNintieth 2018-10-17
Again with the Tayposting?
1 skilliard7 2018-10-17
nah, a lot of them are alt right.
Libertarians mind their own business and don't think the government should intervene unless necessary. It's the party of freedom. A lot of them are authoritarian MAGA alt righters.
1 DistortedLines 2018-10-17
libertarian means pedophile in drama
1 SpotNL 2018-10-17
Imagine, just for a second, that you are the type of person who types this sentence:
1 The-idiots114 2018-10-17
they targeted lolis
lolis
1 mphjackson7 2018-10-17
We're a group of people who will sit for hours, days, even weeks on end performing some of the least legal, most crime record demanding tasks. Over, and over, and over all for nothing more than a little digital folder on our desktop.
We'll punish our selfs doing things others would consider disturbing, because we think it's fun.
1 dratamard2 2018-10-17
imagine thinkin things should be banned/not banned not for any moral/logical/whatever arguments but strictly bcuz the gubmint says so
gaymers ever heard of jurisprudence?
what kind of weird
ephebophilialibertarianism is this? 🤔🤔🤔1 pausei144 2018-10-17
Libertarians are retarded in general. If the government censors even one person they lose their minds, but social media platforms could ban everyone they don't like and they would still defend them. Libertarians have no principles, they just pathetically cling to whatever is the law at the moment.
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
The fuck are you talking about. It's not libertarians that defend censorship.
1 mphjackson7 2018-10-17
Lelberts are surprisingly cool with government authority.
1 MightiestEwok 2018-10-17
Why am I not surprised that KiA would get outraged about child porn getting removed. Muh ethics they mumble whilst furiously jacking it to cartoon kids.
GAMERS RISE UP AND RAPE KIDS
1 myshl0ng 2018-10-17
Imagine being this passionate about little girl drawings.
1 Krombopulos-Snake 2018-10-17
Everyone's up in arms over dirty drawings, meanwhile, actual CP is still being distributed across Twitter and people are still using Facebook , Kik and Craigslist to traffic children.
It's a peak first world problem when people consider the well being of a drawing over the well being of actual people.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-17
Big communication platforms contact the FBI when they find evidence of CP and human trafficking, though, and the average person either doesn't know about the problem or can't do anything to combat it, because the average person doesn't randomly stumble across CP/a human trafficking ring and combating human trafficking is incredibly different even for the authorities and the main export hubs don't give a shit. In the meantime some of the more discreet pedos like to spam loli, and social media platforms are well within their rights to ban it as they ban CP. This is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Removing porn posted by some helpless weeb is way easier than tracing a crime syndicate trafficking girls out of Moldova.
1 Linlear 2018-10-17
They targeted pedos.
Pedos.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-10-17
Weeb degeneracy 🤢🤮
1 spacekatguy 2018-10-17
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9p0u5j/is_rkotakuinaction_prolewdloli_is_this_really_the/
I only just created it, but it's getting downvoted like crazy. KiA REALLY doesn't want to tackle the ethical implications of allowing fucking lolicon on their precious Twitter alternative.
I'm usually pretty strongly pro-KiA but this is totally alienating to me.
1 GeorgeLouisCostanza_ 2018-10-17
Get the fuck outta here
1 leva549 2018-10-17
Imagine being pro any subreddit. Partisancucks lmao.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-10-17
Please leave my old lulzfarm. It's rightard moralfags like you that ruined the sub.
1 justchillouteveryone 2018-10-17
Imagine dedicating yourself to studying law, but not all law, not enough law to become a lawyer or anything important. Imagine if the only law you know is law specifically relating to anime child pornography and it’s legality
1 skilliard7 2018-10-17
I mean its literally like 10 minutes of Googling. Not exactly an arduous task.
1 reMashedup 2018-10-17
eMashedup1 point·58 minutes ago
Buffett says that Bitconneckt is a Paradigm Shift
ReplyShareSaveEditRemoveSpam
1 TurkoScum 2018-10-17
Fact: Gab is a (((Turkish))) invention. Stupid westerners are being controlled by controlled opposition.
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-17
What the hell?
I thought it was the LGBTs of the left wing that were supposed to normalize pedophilia.
I dont know what to believe anymore.
1 FearOfBees 2018-10-17
So gab is dead? Even reddit doesnt ban lolicon
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
They do. Check out /r/lolicon or something like that if you dont believe.
1 FearOfBees 2018-10-17
Dude what, the anime subreddits spam that shit constantly
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
Only SFW stuff like what I post. There is almost no loli hentai on Reddit though. Sometimes subs pop up but they get banned quickly again, are super inactive and still rather safe (you might get some nudes but almost never any sex).
1 Doomblaze 2018-10-17
There’s a few that have it that have been up for awhile
1 Yiin 2018-10-17
like which ones
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
Link.
1 GeorgeLouisCostanza_ 2018-10-17
Kia is another t_d at this point. They are all pedos though
1 whatis0x6472616d61 2018-10-17
1 Kiru-Kokujin13 2018-10-17
hes talking about 3dcg, that are basically indistinguishable from real people
like deep fakes and shit
1 Destirigon 2018-10-17
Gab used to have some legitimacy as a site that values free speech.
This killed it, it's just a nazi shithole now. Clap Clap.
1 MR_CLARENCE_ASSLER 2018-10-17
What the fuck is it with these people and their loli shit? "Its cartoon characters" they say. Its still a depiction of a child.
1 otherwiseyep 2018-10-17
Not all pedos are anme fans, but...
1 puckshack 2018-10-17
There is a difference between being (Liberal), being a (Fanatic) and being a CUNT. I hate blurring the lines.