Arkouda
@Arkouda@lemmy.ca
I am a muse. They also call it “being an ideas guy”. While I can utilize some, I am far from knowledgeable enough on every subject to use them all, so I share. Like you, a Human… Or so they tell me.
- Comment on Explicit deepfake scandal shuts down Pennsylvania school 1 month ago:
They are now at the point of calling me a disgusting person who doesn’t belong in civilized society because I am against the production, and use, of child pornography.
Give me a million attempts and I would never have guessed that is the person I would encounter today. haha
- Comment on Explicit deepfake scandal shuts down Pennsylvania school 1 month ago:
The only people who defend child pornography this hard are pedophiles, and I am not going to continue to argue with a pedophile.
I hope you get the help you desperately need before it is too late.
- Comment on Explicit deepfake scandal shuts down Pennsylvania school 1 month ago:
Victimless crimes are not crimes. Thus producing any pornography is a crime only when it involves violating someone’s rights.
You mean like when someone takes a photo of a minor, removes their clothing to make a sexually explicit image, and uses that image to harass, bully, and extort?
Ah, so you are dumb enough to think it’s bad to defend pedophiles who have not committed a crime against a real person?
Taking a picture of a minor, making that image sexually explicit, and using it to harass, bully, and extort that minor is not a “crime against a real person”?
Damn right, I am defending pedophiles who are being persecuted for being born with that deviation alone. I am also defending pedophiles who satisfy that via any means not harming real people. I will do both till my last breath.
You should stop “defending” their “right” to child pornography and start advocating for them to get real help with the very serious mental disorder that causes them to want sexual activity with a minor instead.
If you argument is that they are disgusting and you don’t want them in society, then so are you.
My argument is that they should not be given child pornography. Your argument is that they should.
The disgusting people I don’t want in society are people who use child pornography, and those who defend their use of child pornography.
Kindly see yourself out and take the rest with you.
- Comment on Explicit deepfake scandal shuts down Pennsylvania school 1 month ago:
What this conversation is about has as much to do with child pornography as hentai with loli characters.
Creating sexually explicit images of minors is child pornography.
You just can’t argue without unsubstantiated accusations, can you?
You literally confirmed my claim in your first sentence, and your last.
When real living people are being murdered and abused in droves, you are still worried more about glorified automated Photoshop and accusing its users of being the same as actual rapists.
Production of child pornography is production of child pornography. It does not need to involve rape. Producing child pornography is a separate crime.
Its users are pedophiles because they are producing child pornography. You are defending them.
These are the facts.
- Comment on Explicit deepfake scandal shuts down Pennsylvania school 1 month ago:
It may not be an identical scenario but I still think it would be fair to say that an AI generated image is not as damaging as a real one.
“The deepfakes are often used to extort, harass or bully minors, she says, and are easy to make because of the many sites and apps that will “nudify” an image.”
- Comment on Bluesky hits 20 million users 1 month ago:
I wasn’t even supposed to be here today.
- Comment on Explicit deepfake scandal shuts down Pennsylvania school 1 month ago:
It is weird how hard you have been defending the production of child pornography in this thread.
- Comment on Weekends were a mistake, says Infosys co-founder Narayama Murthy 1 month ago:
The sexiest.
- Comment on Weekends were a mistake, says Infosys co-founder Narayama Murthy 1 month ago:
I agree weekends were a mistake.
It should have always been 2 on 1 off, 2 on 2 off.
- Comment on Bluesky's success is a rejection of big tech's operating system 1 month ago:
Jesus Christ my guy we get it.
Now can you stop spamming this bullshit everywhere you can?
- Comment on DOJ to ask judge to force Google to sell off Chrome, Bloomberg reports 1 month ago:
Chrome is now owned by a company, owned by a company, owned by another company, that is owned by Google.
- Comment on Character.ai Faces Lawsuit After Teen’s Suicide 2 months ago:
How is character.ai responsible for the suicide of someone clearly in need of mental health help?
- Comment on Streaming site Twitch accused of unchecked antisemitism, anti-Israel bias. 2 months ago:
Is there major platform that is not a hot bed of bigotry?
- Comment on Telegram is exposing their users privacy. 2 months ago:
Can you elaborate?
I just did.
None of this is my opinion, it’s just how the world works LOL
This may be of some use to you.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elaborate
Which Government?
I already answered this one as well.
The gov typically need some sort of warrant, and they need approval from the country they’re requesting it from.
United States of America? Canada? North Korea? China? Australia? Saudi Arabia? South Africa? Brazil?
The point is the app was designed for secure communication, specifically from corrupt governments, which is why it is problematic to allow access to user data as long as the individual is breaking a law in that country.
Or to use the example from the top:
So who gets to pick what’s a lawful request and criminal activity? It’s criminal in some states to seek an abortion or help with an abortion, so would they hand out the IPs of those “criminals”? Because depending on who you ask some will tell you they’re basically murderers. And that’s just one example.
- Comment on Telegram is exposing their users privacy. 2 months ago:
None of this is my opinion, it’s just how the world works LOL
Can you elaborate?
Not necessarily, but kinda. The gov typically need some sort of warrant and they need approval from the country they’re requesting it from.
Which Government?
Pardon my ignorance as this is my first time using the internet, but I am pretty sure that every Government on the planet does not use a universal set of laws or procedures for enforcement.
- Comment on Telegram is exposing their users privacy. 2 months ago:
The country in which the perpetrator lives or the crime was committed. First time using the internet?
In your opinion, all companies must disclose the personal information of customers whenever a Government says “This person broke the law”?
- Comment on Telegram is exposing their users privacy. 2 months ago:
The…law?
In which country?
- Comment on Amazon's Monopoly of the tech industry is ruining the US economy 3 months ago:
I enjoy this narrative of “being forced” to go against ones own morals and principals by big bad companies because one just absolutely has to have a product for as cheap as possible.
You went to two stores and then straight to Amazon. That doesn’t mean they have a monopoly, that means you really didn’t try that hard to find an alternative.
If you think you have no other choice you are right because you stopped looking for one.
- Comment on In 1926, TV Was Mechanical 3 months ago:
It still is.
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
The point is that your argument falls apart considering it kept being propped up by your assertion that kids can just use the library computers if they’re too poor to have a computer at home.
But that doesn’t matter; you’re not actually here to debate in good faith.
Debate Pervert: “When our position on an issue is no longer based on curiosity and the desire for the truth, but a desire to win a debate. When someone reaches this stage of discourse, there’s no need to try and persuade them.”
That wasn’t my argument, and is still a viable option. Libraries still exist.
My point and argument was: It is the schools decision on what happens with school hardware.
Have any thing to say to my point without being combative? Or do I add you to the pile of people not worth interacting with in the future?
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
Sounds like a bigger problem than schools monitoring the use of devices issued to children.
Might want to get that sorted.
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
You are insufferable. Good bye.
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
Cowardly slinking away into the shadows is par for the course.
Offer a real conversation to others instead of being combative and maybe you will have better results with people in the future.
The whole pro company schtick is getting old.
I never once stated I was “pro company”. Another tip, free of charge, don’t put words in peoples mouths. Makes your already faulty argument moot.
Is everyone free not to use them?
Yes.
Can people afford to make another choice while at the same time being forced to use laptops?
No one is forced to use a laptop. Libraries exist with free internet access and computer.
Is the type of monitoring reasonable and proportional?
Yes. If you do not think it is I can only assume you weren’t a child when the internet became a thing. I was “monitored” on school computers in the 90’s and this is no different.
Now are you actually going to participate in good faith or should I simply block you?
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
Yes it is an explanation why.
Your question: Why is/should this be acceptable.
My answer: These are school issued machines, and like all machines issued by a 3rd party for use under their supervision, they come with monitoring software.
It is acceptable because it is the schools property and they can do as they wish with it. Everyone else is free to not use those machines.
This is not a hard thing to grasp.
But since you are just being combative we are done here.
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
Good thing poor people have access to public libraries. I know from experience.
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
No you did not. You just stated that this was the case. I’m asking why that is/should be acceptable.
These are school issued machines, and like all machines issued by a 3rd party for use under their supervision, they come with monitoring software.
Clear as day. Glad we cleared this up.
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
Good thing for home computers, smart devices, and libraries eh?
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
No, they don’t. I am sure the majority have a computer or smart phone at home, and if not libraries exist for a reason.
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
I understand the difference between a laptop and PC thanks.
Now imagine if, and hear me out, one didn’t bring school hardware home so some “creepy IT administrator” doesn’t have access.
“Save the kids” arguments always fall flat on the face when the solution is as simple as leaving school devices at school.
- Comment on School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety. 3 months ago:
I agree that this is no different, and has the same solution: Don’t use the schools computers for things that aren’t for school and you won’t have no problems.