You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Uncensored Commenting System - Dissenter - Under Heavy DDOS Attack.
Its not uncensored and the owners of gab spoke against any efforts to established uncensorable communication such as the communication we have here with a blockchain.
As I understand it, they are uncensored in the sense that they won't change or remove comments without legal pressure to do so - is that not correct? That is also how steem and steemit are too. I haven't seen the creators of gab speaking negatively about Steem, do you have a link to that?
They did speak negatively about decentralised social media in general. And, for the record, nothing will be removed from steem no matter how illegal it may be. It cant be. At most, a frontent like steemit can refuse to deliver the content, it will however allways be part of the blockchain and accessible that way.
Thats the benefit of a blockchain.
As for what they do and dont remove, they do remove lolicon using obscenity laws as an excuse to do so. Their statements, calling it degenerate and so on, made it perfectly clear that they are typical right wing SJWs. If they cared about obscenity laws, theyd remove a lot more - and theyd also not remove lolis depicted in nonsexual situations, either.
As I understand, the Steem blockchain has already been edited by consensus of the top 20 witnesses due to child pornography being inserted into it and thus being removed. This can and will happen again - it just takes the consensus of the top 20 witnesses.
And, yes, they are inconsistent. They oppose decentralisation in communication becouse "someone could use it for childporn" (big whoop, honestly, we have reason to believe that even actual childporn may reduce rather than increase child sexual abuse https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/loli-anime-images-dont-lead-to-sexual-assault-against-real-children-says-danish-report/79409/ as far as im concerned, mere posession of NOTHING should be illegal, yes the article is mainly about loli but the source quoted in it does adress actual CP as well), but then they are for decentralised currency which can actualy be used to fund terrorism or buy child sex slaves.
They are typical traditionalist SJWs.
Child pornography is essentially child abuse and intent to support it or distribute it infers participation in that.
Child abuse is depicted in it. You dont have more of that abuse just becouse the recording exists. And thats assuming we arent talking about the selfie of a 16 year old wholl then be convicted or some shit like that.
Anything that attempts to normalise child abuse is something that needs to be challenged. I have listened to many victims of child abuse and it tends to ruin their entire life - it is not a 'fun pass time'.
I agree. Now the problem is that the right does exactly that, normalises child abuse by for example demonising pedophiles and lolicon. No, suffering pedophilia does not mean you will abuse children, in fact, most sexual child abusers are not pedophile (the numbers i have seen are 2 to 20% of sexual child abusers are pedophile, with the most credible sitting at 12%), most pedophiles will just go to a psychiatrist and request chemical castration. I dont know if traditionalists would just rape anyone they are attracted to (yeah they dont) or why they think suffering pedophilia has anything to do with sexual child abuse, but for the same reason that misoginist and rapist doesnt mean anything anymore, those terms are also losing their meaning thanks to the normalisation of child abuse by conservatives.
I have no idea what you are attempting to convey here. In most people's minds, a pedophile is someone who is sexually excited by children, specifically. Abuse against children can be non sexual, but sexual abuse against children is committed by pedophiles and no-one else.
You don't know why someone would think that pedophilia is connected to child abuse? Really?
"sexual abuse against children is committed by pedophiles and no-one else." Thats wrong. Pedophilia is a very specific diagnosis denoting exclusive or primary sexual attraction to children (a child being prepubescent) and is not required to sexualy abuse a child nor are pedophiles the primary perpetrators. There are many other reasons to do so(and no, nothing justifies that), such as unavailability of an adult partner, low selfcontrol, sadism, powergames,...,...,...
Neither do all pedophiles touch children nor are all people who do pedophiles.
And the idea that pedophiles are dangerous doesnt jive well with me unless you also say all heterosexual and homosexual people are dangerous becouse in either case with some people (or in the case of a pedophile, all people you would be attracted to) it would be rape. Now i dont know about you but i dont rape people im attracted to wether or not they want to have sex with me or not (and those wouldnt be children so the age of consent wouldnt be a concern there) and i never would have (which i should say becouse novadays, i dont think sex is worth my time or effort in the first place).