They shared sexually explicit images in whatsapp groups. You consider that similar to having personal thoughts nobody will know of or written stories?

“were completely terrified and had tremendous anxiety attacks because they were suffering this in silence.”

Have you dismissed this quote? I don’t know where to start explaining how it’s different from what you described because of how far off it is. I have no idea where the baseline is to argue from.

Humans are a social creature. We form groups, and want to be part of groups. Teens are especially vulnerable with a developing personality, social norms, and social belonging. Breaking norms and violating common personal barriers and control of self-expression and self-presentation is deeply violating in a vulnerable phase of life.

They didn’t create a personal collection. They shared in their social groups.

Removed by mod

We’re not talking about pedo stuff here.

Do you want an explanation of why creating and sharing sexually explicit material of other people without consent is problematic and damaging, and especially for children?

If I were holding the most bitcoin I wouldn’t feel the need nor want to mine more. One could do better with that kind of money. In this case, even doing nothing would have been better.

“That pain was worse than childbirth.”

First time I have heard that as pain classification in an article.

The original text had ‘he’ where ‘it’ was correct. Which supports part of your premise.

They also merged a change request that changed those instances alongside ‘they’ instances. I don’t know if the original author and denier was involved, but it’s certainly important context missing from OP blog post.

the whole point behind it was them making an assumption about something

What makes you think the change suggesters assumed ill intent?

The submitted PRs seem to reason improvement, not accuse the original author. I see them suggesting a change, neutrally. With (minimal) objective reasoning.

/edit: I see the later ones did. But the first one didn’t. And the second one arguably didn’t.

I don’t see why it would be theater even if they were not actively practicing currently or recently.

I’m not surprised unlisted content would show up. A single public or leaked link means unlisted is discoverable elsewhere than the primary listings. YouTube can’t solve that. The private alternative setting already exists.

The problem with law solutions is that they only work as far as the law and prosecution reaches. Maybe the western nations will agree on common policies. Like they do on copyright for example. But will China follow? Russia? Smaller countries? Will the prosecution be active or realistically possible?

Laws are important as agreed upon baselines. But they’re no technical guarantees. They’re quite limited on a public, accessible Internet.

If your content doesn’t fit on the platforms limit, why not post on a platform intended for or accepting such content?

This form is quite irritating to read.

Microsoft word?

Fonseca died during the trial and was cleared of charges in May.

They cleared them early because they died? Could they still have ruled after death or not? If they could, there must have been enough reason to clear?

IIRC in Germany there’s still an active prosecution section working on the cases (and only those). It takes a long time to go through. And we may not hear of what comes of the cases.

Mastodon user posts about rejected change suggestion to neutral pronouns. Many critical comments get posted on the old rejected PR. Someone else creates a PR to fix grammar mistakes, including pronouns, it gets merged.

Judges don’t tell a team their facts are wrong, the other team does. Judges decide which of the teams had better argumentation.

I find the judge symbolism interesting and compelling, but moderators are not judges. They’re not making a judgement in place of the citizens by the end.

Rather than only letting two people debate, they could ask for clarifications. If you see them as press, and as representing the citizens, you may even think they have to to fulfill the press code and their responsibility.

I think it’s a question of how you see the debate. What it is, or should be. Is it between the two candidates, and moderators merely give it structure? Or is it a debate with an expectation of truth and trustworthiness, fulfilling the press code, where the moderators would have to at least point out lies or ask for clarifications?

A debate between two candidates has its value, but we can’t deny it strengthens Trumps position as an apparently to many people charismatic liar. Between only two people it’s about who is more charismatic and convincing, not about truthfulness, verifiability. All of those only go as far as the other candidate can establish them.

If many citizens watch only the debate, is that enough to inform them / base their voting [or omission thereof] on?

In the end, it may be understandable to wish for moderators to point out lies. It can be irritating and frustrating to see lies on a podium finding success, without successful, conclusive rebuttal. But that’s not the moderators’ place in the show format as it is.

Disclaimer: I haven’t watched it.

Did they denounce target children before?

“Temu is designed to make this expansive access undetected, even by sophisticated users,” Griffin’s complaint said. “Once installed, Temu can recompile itself and change properties, including overriding the data privacy settings users believe they have in place.”

So just like the majority USAian app out there?

Which apps do that? Because I am certain it’s NOT the majority, and very skeptical about any other apps doing that.

deleted by creator

I think we’re off a lot better. We have a lot more choice, and much less bad choices.