Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

But you only need cryptocurrency if credit card companies are refusing payments (which is why I asked about that - they aren't, right?)
And you only need to encrypt traffic if ISPs are trying to block it, which obviously isn't happening (except for actually illegal stuff unrelated to politics).

I guess cloudsourcing the hosting is necessary...  If you put all your money into cryptocurrency

[MorleyDev]

The NSFW stuff with Patreon was down to PayPal.

We don’t permit PayPal account holders to buy or sell:

Sexually oriented digital goods or content delivered through a digital medium. [Downloadable pictures or videos and website subscriptions are examples of digital goods.

Pornographic material was deemed 'high-risk' by banks because back in the 2000s there were loads of 'charge backs' from people who changed their mind after le petit morte and denied making the payment. The high risk category never got changed back despite that not being so common anymore.

Kickstarter and GoFundMe don't allow adult material, for the same reason: the banks. Patreon apparently have managed to arrange a special deal with PayPal to allow NSFW users to use them. They require people to mark their content as NSFW, ask you before showing it, and hide NSFW content on the home screen but that's nothing unusual and more about making viewing NSFW opt-in for people.

Also, to be blunt: freedom of speech is freedom from government censorship. A private business is not, by the very definition of the term, capable of infringing freedom of speech. Public institutions? Sure, though it can get complicated. Private business? Nope. Even then, freedom of speech doesn't override other peoples freedoms. So you can be fired from a public institution or arrested for inciting others to violence (for example), and that still isn't a freedom of speech violation.

[Trekkin]

Every day there seems to be fewer safe havens for user-generated content, for free speech.

That is not what free speech means, though. We have a First Amendment right to express ourselves without government interference, within certain frankly commonsense limits.

No conceivable interpretation of "free speech" requires anyone to listen to you, let alone let you force your content on their service or set up a system to pay you for making it.

What "censorship" we have now, as redwallzyl said above, is primarily the result of the companies that run these platforms excluding content they think will drive away users, which looks like an infringement of rights to hugely entitled people who think everyone owes them their attention, but it's not.

[da_nang]

So NSFW artists should be expected to set up their own banks and payment processors, and get through the whole bureaucracy of getting into SWIFT, let alone the servers to host their content and manage their community, just so they can draw some NSFW pictures and get paid for it? All because they're not mainstream kosher enough?

Or should they just send it all, content and money, through snail-mail because apparently a digital civilization is a privilege reserved only to the pureblooded?

FFS, we can be more civilized than this.

[MorleyDev]

Well not individually, but there are banks willing to support it for business accounts (usually with higher transaction charges). And patreon apparently have managed to arrange a special deal with PayPal to allow NSFW users to use them, since they re-enabled PayPal awhile ago for NSFW.

They require people to mark their content as NSFW, ask you before showing it, and hide NSFW content on the home screen but that's nothing unusual and more about making viewing NSFW opt-in for people.

In theory banks should be becoming more tolerant of NSFW sellers since the risks have gone down in practice as charge backs don't happen as much anymore, and given that PayPal allowed Patreon to keep the NSFW material paid for through PayPal, and I just checked and Amazon actually have a whole "Sexual Wellness" category, they very well may be xD

But...well, I wouldn't be surprised that it's almost a prudeness thing, and the people who could make that decision are afraid of either local ridicule from peers if they propose it, or a potential outside-business PR hit if they announce t hat they'll work more with the porn industry again. Both in the USA (since the USA is quite prude, tbh. Guns are cool but tits are apparently satans dumplings) and I imagine banks that are global and work with more openly conservative/totalitarian countries could also complicate things.

[da_nang]

Thus once again, leaving us at crypto and an IPFS-esque internet.

[Rolan7]

So NSFW artists should be expected to set up their own banks and payment processors, and get through the whole bureaucracy of getting into SWIFT, let alone the servers to host their content and manage their community, just so they can draw some NSFW pictures and get paid for it? All because they're not mainstream kosher enough?

Or should they just send it all, content and money, through snail-mail because apparently a digital civilization is a privilege reserved only to the pureblooded?

The alternative is to force private companies to facilitate sale of pornographic materials.  Or the actual material being discussed: alt-right arguments for things like ethno-state.  Which is a lot less tolerated than pornography, for good reason...

Maybe companies should be able to seek religious exemption from such a requirement

Thus once again, leaving us at crypto and an IPFS-esque internet.

Crypto still solves nothing about this.  Even IPFS doesn't *really*, except by distributing hosting costs through a network of people.  It's not magic bandwidth from nowhere.
I'm honestly curious as to how you think crypto is supposed to help.

[Trekkin]

So NSFW artists should be expected to set up their own banks and payment processors, and get through the whole bureaucracy of getting into SWIFT, let alone the servers to host their content and manage their community, just so they can draw some NSFW pictures and get paid for it? All because they're not mainstream kosher enough?

Or should they just send it all, content and money, through snail-mail because apparently a digital civilization is a privilege reserved only to the pureblooded?

FFS, we can be more civilized than this.

They needn't all do so individually, but yes, if nobody's willing to provide you services because they don't think your content's worth it, you don't get access to them. It's different in cases of discrimination against you personally rather than your content, but that's not what this is.

Imagine for a moment that I insisted I be allowed to paint a gigantic swastika made of racial slurs and pornographic graffiti all over the front of your house on the grounds that nobody else in the neighborhood would let me paint one on theirs so you've got to let me do it or else you're violating my fundamental rights -- and what's more, you're going to have to stand outside with a collection plate in case anyone wants to pay me for having done it. Every objection you make to my doing this is met by histrionics about how house paint is a privilege only for the sufficiently pure of heart. Then, after I'd done this, I go to everyone else's house and demand that, in the interest of fairness, I be allowed to do the same to theirs, because some people might not see the first one. It'd be reasonable to feel this is ludicrous.

Now, admittedly on the Internet there are fewer metaphorical houses and they're really big, but there's also not a finite amount of land in any really relevant sense, so it's not possible to effectively shut someone out that way.

[Dunamisdeos]

Nobody is required to help you spread your ideas, or your content, or help you create it in any way. It's not civilized to literally force randos to help proliferate your views just because it's easier than doing it yourself. That is the opposite of civilized. NSFW content is not somehow more special than any other form of art, and it is subject to private patronage the same as anyone else's art. That is to say, at-will. It's not unfair if people don't want to support it.

That came off as hostile. I mean the above in a general sense, not a targeted-at-anyone sense.

[da_nang]

The alternative is to force private companies to facilitate sale of pornographic materials.

You already do this, they're called ISPs. But for some stupid reason, it only stops there, even though all these other companies do practically the same thing of sending content from one user to another.

Crypto still solves nothing about this.  Even IPFS doesn't *really*, except by distributing hosting costs through a network of people.  It's not magic bandwidth from nowhere.
I'm honestly curious as to how you think crypto is supposed to help.

Crypto removes the untrustworthy middlemen and gatekeepers. IPFS lowers the barriers of hosting to where it's feasible for even smaller artists. With only IPFS, you'd still run into issues when it comes to getting paid.

-snip-

It's more like a postal service that will only deliver mail from people with content they like.

Nobody is required to help you spread your ideas, or your content, or help you create it in any way. It's not civilized to literally force randos to help proliferate your views just because it's easier than doing it yourself. That is the opposite of civilized. NSFW content is not somehow more special than any other form of art, and it is subject to private patronage the same as anyone else's art. That is to say, at-will. It's not unfair if people don't want to support it.

That came off as hostile. I mean the above in a general sense, not a targeted-at-anyone sense.

So let's say every store in the world is given a list of NSFW artists with you on it, and they then categorically refuse to sell you any papers or pens or anything else that can be used to make NSFW art. Would you consider that reasonable? After all, "Nobody is required to help you spread your ideas, or your content, or help you create it in any way."

I'm not asking people to be forced to host your specific content. I'm asking for people to be blind to the content they willingly choose to host. If you choose to setup a hosting service, you should be blind to what content is being hosted, just like a paper company should be blind to what people do with their paper.

[Dunamisdeos]

There is a difference between curating your platform and forming worldwide blacklists. That's a deliberately alarmist comparison. You're trying to draw a line between not receiving direct support and being outright suppressed. People are not oppressing you by not agreeing with you, or by not sharing your views, or helping you spread them with their own resources.

We aren't talking about a paper company that provides basic, generic tools for thousands of disparate uses. We are talking about a distribution service. Your argument is like saying freight companies should just not care what gets put on their trucks, it's all freight, their objections to being kept in the dark as to the things they are directly involved in the handling of are irrelevant. You are not entitled to the use of their space simply because you want to use it.

So yes, if you have a specific type of content that isn't serviced by widespread hosting platforms, you have to make your own, and that is ok. Barnes and Noble carries the Holy Bible because people buy it, not because my religion is entitled to space on their shelf. If they stopped offering a variety of Christian literature, I'd be sad, but also not oppressed, and us religionites would probably start founding special book stores, oh wait that's exactly what we did for decades.

[Criptfeind]

So let's say every store in the world is given a list of NSFW artists with you on it, and they then categorically refuse to sell you any papers or pens or anything else that can be used to make NSFW art. Would you consider that reasonable? After all, "Nobody is required to help you spread your ideas, or your content, or help you create it in any way."

I'm not asking people to be forced to host your specific content. I'm asking for people to be blind to the content they willingly choose to host. If you choose to setup a hosting service, you should be blind to what content is being hosted, just like a paper company should be blind to what people do with their paper.

This is totally different though. Alex Jones isn't banned from watching youtube, he's not banned from access to the products and services available from subscribing to someones patron. He's banned from selling his own products an services in their store. The real equivalency here isn't a paper company refusing to sell someone paper, it's a pornographic artist not being allowed to sell their product in wallmart.

[Gentlefish]

There is a difference between curating your platform and forming worldwide blacklists. That's a deliberately alarmist comparison. You're trying to draw a line between not receiving direct support and being outright suppressed. People are not oppressing you by not agreeing with you, or by not sharing your views, or helping you spread them with their own resources.

We aren't talking about a paper company that provides basic, generic tools for thousands of disparate uses. We are talking about a distribution service. Your argument is like saying freight companies should just not care what gets put on their trucks, it's all freight, their objections to being kept in the dark as to the things they are directly involved in the handling of are irrelevant. You are not entitled to the use of their space simply because you want to use it.

So yes, if you have a specific type of content that isn't serviced by widespread hosting platforms, you have to make your own, and that is ok. Barnes and Noble carries the Holy Bible because people buy it, not because my religion is entitled to space on their shelf. If they stopped offering a variety of Christian literature, I'd be sad, but also not oppressed, and us religionites would probably start founding special book stores, oh wait that's exactly what we did for decades.

This is a much better comparison than "no more paper for the NSFW artists". No one is being disallowed the tools they need for their craft.

All that's happening is the private sources of distribution have decided not to distribute certain goods.

Do you believe YouTube is overstepping its bounds by not hosting pornographic videos?

[da_nang]

Your argument is like saying freight companies should just not care what gets put on their trucks, it's all freight, their objections to being kept in the dark as to the things they are directly involved in the handling of are irrelevant.

Pretty sure they don't care what you put in shipping containers. Customs might, but the shipping companies? Not really. I could send a bunch of hard drives through Maersk and they wouldn't give one fuck what's on them.

Do you believe YouTube is overstepping its bounds by not hosting pornographic videos?

Considering the rest of the stuff they host, why the hell not? It's not like users can't filter away videos they don't want to see. Would probably be even profitable if PornHub is any indication.

Nor would it even surprise me if there already is furry porn on YouTube.

People want to publish their shit. Why fight it when you can embrace it?

[bloop_bleep]

There is a difference between curating your platform and forming worldwide blacklists.

A blacklist is exactly what happened with Alex Jones, though. All the major tech companies dropped him. It isn't like he lost one major platform but still had several others he could take in new viewers through. Now he can only attract new viewers through obscure, little-known and little-visited websites that can't hope to keep a major platform running. As for his own website, remember the thing about Google dropping page ranks? You don't think they could do it again, to anyone they wanted to?

And freight vs. information is not all that valid of an analogy. Freedom of speech and freedom to spread information is protected by the Constitution. Freedom to send freight is not. This is because the ability for a handful of powerful people to censor nearly all information (since, as I said before, nearly all the information that is consumed is consumed on the Internet) is hundreds of times more harmful than banning certain material goods. It's very important that we stop this from happening.