Speedy's Cafe - General Chat about anything you like!

[Carol the Dabbler]

12 hours ago, Artemis said:

... people who talk about being fine on their own are only alone in one respect or two, rather than many or every, or simply mean that they enjoy some “alone time”.

A  friend of ours lost her mother, then later commented (rather smugly, I thought) that her father was having trouble coping because he had "never learned the ways of solitude," or something to that effect.   I pointed out that even though she lived alone, she waa surrounded by people five days a week at work, whereas he was retired and thus used to getting all his companionship at home.

[Arcadia]

I see the folks on Tumblr are having a meltdown because Tumblr's going to start cracking down on porn.   They're all wondering where they're going to store their stuff. I have to admit, my first thought was "Well, why don't you just stop publishing porn?"

[Carol the Dabbler]

What's the site's definition of porn?  Seems to me they might have a hard time figuring out just where to draw the line.

And if they do figure out a good,  clear definition with no gray areas -- the folks who've been publishing the stuff will just do an end run.

[besleybean]

I was a bit slow to click with the significnace of this story, mainly becuse I don't do Tumbr at all.

But then it suddenly dawned on me about Johnlock.

I mean  don't generally agree with censorship, but it can't really be expected that  a public site hosts your fantasies.

[Artemis]

22 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

What's the site's definition of porn?  Seems to me they might have a hard time figuring out just where to draw the line.

Well, "adult content" is what they actually said, but yeah, it is intended to filter out porn.

They have stated some parameters, but I haven't read them myself.  The only one I know about is "female-presenting nipples", because everyone is making a fuss over it, lol.

They were forced to do this after the Apple app store removed their app due to child pornography found on the site.

I don't like censorship, but I can't say I'm terribly sympathetic to the people who are upset by this, either.  The bigger problem, in my opinion, is that Tumblr's filtering algorithms are terrible, and posts are being flagged as "adult content" when they're not.  In some cases, accounts are being unfairly deleted.  I hope they get this mess sorted quickly.

 

[Arcadia]

Seems to me they should be issuing warnings before deleting accounts, but what do I know.

I don't really think of it as censorship, so much as stating what kind of content they will/will not accept on property they own. I wouldn't allow "adult content" on anything I ran, either. But I agree it doesn't sound like Tumblr's handling it very well. But mostly I'm just amused by how insulted and/or panicked the "adult content" creators appear to be.

[Carol the Dabbler]

5 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

I don't really think of it as censorship, so much as stating what kind of content they will/will not accept on property they own. I wouldn't allow "adult content" on anything I ran, either.

Right.  It's only censorship if an outside party (usually the government) tells you what you're allowed to print in your own newspaper or on your own website, etc.  I assume the bloggers are thinking of themselves as the owners of their individual blogs, but they're not, they're piggy-backing on the Tumblr website. It's more like a publisher restricting what sorts of things people can advertise in their newspaper, or what they're willing to print in the letters column.

[Artemis]

Yeah, I agree about the censorship thing; I was just being lazy about wording my exact meaning.

23 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

But mostly I'm just amused by how insulted and/or panicked the "adult content" creators appear to be.

The righteous indignation sure comes out when people’s access to sexual content is threatened.  If only people cared about other important things half this much.

What I find amusing are all the people assuming everyone else is on Tumblr for porn like they are.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

33 minutes ago, Artemis said:

What I find amusing are all the people assuming everyone else is on Tumblr for porn like they are.

You mean they're not? 

[Arcadia]

8 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Right.  It's only censorship if an outside party (usually the government) tells you what you're allowed to print in your own newspaper or on your own website, etc.  I assume the bloggers are thinking of themselves as the owners of their individual blogs, but they're not, they're piggy-backing on the Tumblr website. It's more like a publisher restricting what sorts of things people can advertise in their newspaper, or what they're willing to print in the letters column.

Actually, you can't even necessarily put anything you want on your own website; I've used a few different hosts for websites I've set up for my various art groups, and they all prohibited, for example, hate speech. And possibly "adult content" too, I can't remember because I never had any intention of publishing any....

I always use quotes around the phrase "adult content" because to me, most of what gets that label is so puerile it's laughable. I.e., porn. I suppose there must be some exceptions....

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

... you can't even necessarily put anything you want on your own website; I've used a few different hosts for websites I've set up for my various art groups, and they all prohibited, for example, hate speech 

But that wasn't entirely your website if you were relying on a hosting service.  It's like you were the editor of a magazine and they were the publisher.  "Freedom of the press" is pretty literally that.  If you don't own the press (or in this case the hosting service), then you can't require them to print whatever you want.

[Artemis]

11 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

You mean they're not? 

Well I’m not, so that’s at least one of us.    Anyway I certainly hope not, or else they’re right and Tumblr will lose all its users and shut down after this.  I would be really bummed, because it’s pretty much the only website other than this that I even visit anymore (with any regularity).

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

... they all prohibited, for example, hate speech 

That's because "hate speech" is illegal in some countries, and that *is* censorship.  In some cases I think censorship is justifiable.  (All too often though it's been used to shut people up merely because they disagreed with the people in power.)

I put "hate speech" in quotes because a) clearly not all expression of hatred is covered by those laws, and b) I don't see why merely saying that you hate something or someone should be illegal.  I will freely admit that I'm not very familiar with those laws, however, so it's entirely possible that I'm misinterpreting the term.

[Arcadia]

I'm not sure either, but I think the kind that's illegal has something to do with stirring up or organizing hatred against other people, rather than a simple "I hate so and so" statement. So it's not exactly censorship, so much as prohibiting the encouragement of harm to others. I'm sure the lines get blurred sometimes, though.

Eugh. I'm supposed to be getting ready to go somewhere, but I'd much rather have a nap. I think my body's trying to come down with a cold, dern it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I'm not sure either, but I think the kind that's illegal has something to do with stirring up or organizing hatred against other people, rather than a simple "I hate so and so" statement. So it's not exactly censorship, so much as prohibiting the encouragement of harm to others. I'm sure the lines get blurred sometimes, though.

According to Wikipedia, the exact definition varies from country to country, and the US has no laws against "hate speech" as such, because that would curtail freedom of speech.  However I think you're right about the stirring-up thing being illegal here, or at least the stirrer-up can be held liable if any harm comes to the target.  All of which seems just about right to me.

[besleybean]

The U.S is very sensible in some ways.

I feel  a 'hate' speech law has to be very specific, as in not calling for the mass murder of a particular group, no issuing of fatwas and that kind of thing.

[Artemis]

It’s science!   

A new study proves parachutes are useless.

 

[Arcadia]

That's pretty good.

[Van Buren Supernova]

@hate speech, 

From what I've experienced, "hate speech" is mostly made illegal to prosecute anything that threaten the existing power. Some are even manipulated to resemble that, although in actuality it is NOT a hate speech. Imho, it's only a tool for the powerful.

2 hours ago, Artemis said:

It’s science!   

A new study proves parachutes are useless.

Good god!

And you made me excited for a moment thinking I could now going jumping without worrying about the cost of those useless parachute.

[Arcadia]

3 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

@hate speech, 

From what I've experienced, "hate speech" is mostly made illegal to prosecute anything that threaten the existing power. Some are even manipulated to resemble that, although in actuality it is NOT a hate speech. Imho, it's only a tool for the powerful.

Wow, I'm sorry to hear that. I don't remember ever encountering anything like that here; here, it's mostly the other way around; those with power or privilege attacking certain racial or ethnic groups. Although with our current political climate, almost everything is hate speech now. The waters have been poisoned.

3 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

And you made me excited for a moment thinking I could now going jumping without worrying about the cost of those useless parachute.

Well, you still can, you know. For, uh, science.  

[besleybean]

Well said Van Buren.  Yeah, it happens.

We must be so careful to distinguish between genuine hate speech and that charge just being used because somebody doesn't like what someody else says.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hopefully I'm not entirely repeating myself, but I am leery of the entire concept of "hate speech."  Surely it can't be illegal in a free country to simply *say* that you hate somebody or some group.  Otherwise it'd be illegal for me to say that I hate bigots!  I think that the former US laws were intended to make it illegal to say that one hates certain specific protected groups (though I don't recall if they were actually worded that way).  But surely if it's wrong to say you hate black hispanic lesbians (as such), it's just as wrong to say you hate straight white anglo males (as such).

The term "hate speech" is sometimes used to mean inciting violence.  But surely that's illegal already.  We don't need a new "PC" term for it.

 

[besleybean]

Quite so.

[Arcadia]

17 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I think that the former US laws were intended to make it illegal to say that one hates certain specific protected groups (though I don't recall if they were actually worded that way). 

No, pretty sure it's what I said before, and what you said above … the illegality is in inciting violence. Hence Charlottesville, which as you can imagine, we are still sensitive about around here. Virginia's worked hard to overcome its racist legacy, and then something like that happens … but legally, the white supremacists had a right to say what they wanted to say. But then, unsurprisingly, it turned violent, and now the courts are wrestling over who, if anyone, is responsible. Here's an interesting article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/us/charlottesville-lawsuit-far-right-heather-heyer.html

Essentially, "Unite the Right" is being sued for inciting violence (mostly online) at their rally. UTR maintains they're protected by free speech laws. We'll see.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm sure you're right about the current US laws.  But I was talking just then about the former laws, the ones that got struck down by the courts.