Bluesky Deletes AI Protest Video of Trump Sucking Musk's Toes, Calls It 'Non-Consensual Explicit Material'
-
It is unanimously considered a protest. Why do you think you decide, not the people?
Cause people are fucking stupid. You're a great example
-
I don’t know, man. Seems to me conservatives let shit like that fester, while ignoring it (or further festering it) while they do the real dirty work in buried headlines.
They let us have the fun while they quietly pull everything out from under us.
But, at the same time, it’s just going to happen. People are frustrated with very little perceived outlet.
Let me use another example: calling them "weird".
It doesn't matter to a rational person if another person calls them weird.
It matters to Reich wingers, who base their whole self identity on "matching the ideal".
-
You clearly never were the victim back in those days. Neither do you realize this approach doesn't work on the modern web even in the slightest, unless you want the basics of both enlightenment and therefore science and democracy crumbling down even faster.
Anarchism is never an answer, it's usually willful ignorance about there being any problems.
Pretty much everyone used anonymous handles, so it was hard to be a victim, and very easy to disregard junk we didn't like.
I'm sensing strong overtones of a victim complex and excessive catastrophizing.
You know they're images & words on a screen, right?Enlightenment gives us freedom of expression.
It seems uninformed & backward to assume faceless moderators of some private organization are the defenders of enlightenment, freedom, & democracy (especially while arguing against too much freedom).
Centralized moderation & curation algorithms got us filter bubbles & echo chambers personalizing the information people consume & distorting their perceptions.
It feeds people the information they want to see (often polarizing them with extremist ideas), keeping users engaged on the platform so it continues earning a steady stream of ad revenue.
Rather than defend enlightened principles of society, moderators serve their own interests, which aren't necessarily in alignment with anything noble.Internet anarchy is a pretty good answer.
-
A perfect breeding ground for growing localized power structures that aren’t bound to anything holding them back
Ok, read up a little about anarchism, and come back to the discussion. I can provide a starter primer, if you like.
To gain control over it as a society (i.e. democracy) is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.
The only control is the ruling class over the working class. I don't think that's a great achievement.
The only control is the ruling class over the working class. I don’t think that’s a great achievement.
That's a result of systems like capitalism, not democracy in itself.
Read up a little about the concept of democracy (and what isn't part of it) and come back to the discussion. -
The only control is the ruling class over the working class. I don’t think that’s a great achievement.
That's a result of systems like capitalism, not democracy in itself.
Read up a little about the concept of democracy (and what isn't part of it) and come back to the discussion.True democracy, or majoritarianism?
-
Pretty much everyone used anonymous handles, so it was hard to be a victim, and very easy to disregard junk we didn't like.
I'm sensing strong overtones of a victim complex and excessive catastrophizing.
You know they're images & words on a screen, right?Enlightenment gives us freedom of expression.
It seems uninformed & backward to assume faceless moderators of some private organization are the defenders of enlightenment, freedom, & democracy (especially while arguing against too much freedom).
Centralized moderation & curation algorithms got us filter bubbles & echo chambers personalizing the information people consume & distorting their perceptions.
It feeds people the information they want to see (often polarizing them with extremist ideas), keeping users engaged on the platform so it continues earning a steady stream of ad revenue.
Rather than defend enlightened principles of society, moderators serve their own interests, which aren't necessarily in alignment with anything noble.Internet anarchy is a pretty good answer.
Dude, you do realize I didn't endorse centralized moderation with a single word, let alone social algorithms or any of the other trash? I'm just not ignorant enough to believe the internet wouldn't become an utter pile of trash without any kind of moderation of oversight, especially with such an abundance of ways to spread nonsense fully automatically. Want to get a glimpse of how that would look like? Look at Nostr.
Given you're literally starting off with ad hominem any discussion with you is pointless anyway though. -
I don’t think using “haha they might be kissing each other! Musk sucks Trumps dick!” is somehow effective criticism of actual fascists in office.
It is, for them.
Especially having Trump be "the bottom".
Ever watch Shameless, the US version? Its along the same lines as Terry, Mickey's dad. He only hated Mickey because he was catching, because "It aint gay if you're doing the fucking, just if you get fucked".
So, in this case, yes, making implications of gay sex happening, with Trump catching, is VERY effective at it.
It is, for them.
Fucking delusional you think this is making them sweat at all
-
You needlessly choose to take offence. It shows who is sub and who dom. It doesn't matter, except to you it seems, what sex they have
You needlessly choose to take offence
KKK
-
Well, yes: gotta comply with the law.
Legal violations are often quite clear, and removing illegal content is justifiable.
Can't fault anyone for following the law.It's the extra moderation that's problematic.
People yearning for their corporate authorities to command the right words & images to appear on a screen & calling that progress feels quite backward like our ancestors fought so hard to gain these freedoms that our spoiled generation will so easily cede away to some nobodies at the slightest often imaginary inconvenience.I feel like it’s a balancing act and you can’t make everyone happy. I, personally, don’t hang around unmoderated communities because they are often worse: hostile, full of spam and questionable content… so basically /b/. But even 4chan is moderated to an extent shrug
-
Dude, you do realize I didn't endorse centralized moderation with a single word, let alone social algorithms or any of the other trash? I'm just not ignorant enough to believe the internet wouldn't become an utter pile of trash without any kind of moderation of oversight, especially with such an abundance of ways to spread nonsense fully automatically. Want to get a glimpse of how that would look like? Look at Nostr.
Given you're literally starting off with ad hominem any discussion with you is pointless anyway though.Dude, you do realize I didn’t endorse centralized moderation with a single word, let alone social algorithms or any of the other trash?
They're widespread varieties of moderation taken to natural limits.
And they highlight the weaknesses of thinking that approach will save us when they're often blamed for doing the opposite.Clearly, you disagree with that kind of moderation, so maybe you should "no true Scotsman" this & define precise boundaries of moderation you accept.
The only type of moderation I might accept is the minimal necessary for legal compliance & labeling that allows the user to filter content themselves.become an utter pile of trash
abundance of ways to spread nonsense fully automatically
Matter of perspective: that "trash" we had before was beautiful.
Sifting & picking through it wasn't much of a problem.
Despite the low moderation, the nonsense didn't really spread & the fringe groups mostly kept to their odd sites when they weren't being ridiculed.Look at Nostr.
Also beautiful: beats bluesky & mastodon.
Given you’re literally starting off with ad hominem
Let's add hypercritical to the list.
I disagree with the alarmism over images & text on a screen, and I disagree with the infantilization of adults.
Adults still think and are responsible for exercising judgment in the information they consume.
Expressions alone do nothing until people choose to do something. -
You needlessly choose to take offence
KKK
No, they literally make a choice to make it about being gay and I honestly don't think that many people even thought about that aspect. I don't even know that they aren't gay for all I know, I don't care.
-
Cause people are fucking stupid. You're a great example
Communism 101
-
It is, for them.
Fucking delusional you think this is making them sweat at all
Queer and trans friends of mine were also laughing their asses off at this video....
And yes, calling out Trump as being the "beta cuck" to Elon DOES cause discomfort for a narcissist like Melania's husband.
And it's the sort of thing to push, to cause fractures in the white house.
-
Yeah. The means must absolutely align with the ends, and this video reeks of privileged white guy mad that he got his cushy desk job in DC ripped out from under him.
Whoever made this shit is no comrade and I'm sick of liberals sharing this everywhere
The fact that a .world is aruging to use this weird homophobic video as a protest is just proving your point.
It's like how people think sharing that one image of Putin with drag make up is somehow a Gotcha to Putin, who probably doesn't even care. Wow, ya sure showed that dictator by posting a meme that uses gay stereotypes!
-
The fact that a .world is aruging to use this weird homophobic video as a protest is just proving your point.
It's like how people think sharing that one image of Putin with drag make up is somehow a Gotcha to Putin, who probably doesn't even care. Wow, ya sure showed that dictator by posting a meme that uses gay stereotypes!
Yeah, .world gonna .world
-
porn
Oh, saving the children are you.
Its a picture of trump sucking elons toes. Conflating that with the idea of "porn" is a bit of an overreach in light of how rare toe fetish people are. I imagine you can find a tiny popyulation of people who consider anything erotic. Wearing cotton. Having a roastbeef sandwhich in your hand. Styling hair a certain way. Being an asian female.
Want to ban all of that too?
Thank you for your thoughtful and considered comment, which definitely did not strawman my rather mild position or blow it out of proportion at all.
Also this wasn’t meant to be a “save the children” argument. Screw that. Can’t I just be uncomfortable with something and express it without people acting like I’m a puritan wanting to ban porn?
-
Thank you for your thoughtful and considered comment, which definitely did not strawman my rather mild position or blow it out of proportion at all.
Also this wasn’t meant to be a “save the children” argument. Screw that. Can’t I just be uncomfortable with something and express it without people acting like I’m a puritan wanting to ban porn?
You're the one who used the loaded, connotative "porn" word first bud. To recap, I disagreed with your flippant, facile use of the word in this particular instance. We all know what porn is when we see it, and that wasnt it.
Sometimes when you try to jump the shark you fall short. Now you know.
-
You're the one who used the loaded, connotative "porn" word first bud. To recap, I disagreed with your flippant, facile use of the word in this particular instance. We all know what porn is when we see it, and that wasnt it.
Sometimes when you try to jump the shark you fall short. Now you know.
Are you arguing that toe sucking is not porn / not meant to be sexual in nature? Because I disagree. Honestly I think you’re being pedantic. I also disagree that “we all know what porn is when we see it” because I think the definition of what counts as porn is more nuanced than you think. And clearly since we disagree, it must be. Of course you can just argue that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But I don’t really care. I think it counts as a non-consensual sexual depiction of two people: porn. You don’t.
So. Whatever, honestly?
-
Are you arguing that toe sucking is not porn / not meant to be sexual in nature? Because I disagree. Honestly I think you’re being pedantic. I also disagree that “we all know what porn is when we see it” because I think the definition of what counts as porn is more nuanced than you think. And clearly since we disagree, it must be. Of course you can just argue that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But I don’t really care. I think it counts as a non-consensual sexual depiction of two people: porn. You don’t.
So. Whatever, honestly?
So. Whatever, honestly?
exactly my point too. You should never have written that first post. See? people can agree.
-
System shared this topic on
