HSR🏴‍☠️

He/him

Hot high speed rail lines near you.

PM me ur sexy train pics.

  • 12 Posts
  • 46 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2023

help-circle






  • Whether a 7-year-old sees adult content accidentally, intentionally, because of peer pressure or any other reason, I still think age appropriate sex ed would be helpful. I acknowledge that minors do view inappropriate content and that it is generally unhealthy, but since it can happen, and does happen, a good approach would be to educate them preemptively.

    For example, these guildelines for sex ed in EU, which caused some outrage in conservative circles a few years back, suggest that “sex in media and dealing with it” is a topic for 6 to 9-year-olds.

    Of course you can’t cover every outlier, but can you really stop 5th graders from sending weird shit to their friends because they’re trying to be edgy?

    Edit:

    Another way to think about it:

    • Was the content accessed accidentally? If so, I would argue this law misses the point and better moderation would be more effective and also less, y’know, surveillance state adjacent
    • Was the content accessed intentionally? In this case, sex ed would probably help

  • “When we evaluate how minors interact with the internet, for 90% of them it is their first way of getting to know about sexuality. From there, 50% of them recognise that they generate imitation and even with approaches that have domination as a central element. There is an enormous distortion in the way they are going to develop their sexuality”, she stressed. [via DeepL, emphasis mine]

    Hmmmmm, if only there was a way to educate minors about sexuality before they ultimately turn to internet because adults just ignore the problem.

    Edit:

    Incibe is also collaborating, which is checking that browsers “control access based on URLs” to prevent access to minors. Cabanillas said that “a black list” of browsers that do not do so will be created.

    It’s a miracle politicians aren’t targeted by scammers more frequently, given they have no idea how internet works.











  • Until now I was under the impression that this was the goal of these notices:

    If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

    Because if an LLM ingests a comment with a copyright notice like that, there’s a chance it will start appending copyright notices to it’s own responses, which could technically, legally, maybe make the AI model CC BY-NC-SA 4.0? A way to “poison” the dataset, so that OpenAI is obliged to distribute it’s model under that license. Obviously there’s no chance of that working, but it draws attention to AI companies breaking copyright law.

    (also, I have no clue about copyrights)