Dweller1622

I'm curious if you're familiar with the particulars of how Huggingface was hacked. They were negligent in their own ways and rights. Mounting a host path volume in a Kubernetes pod is really not "super hacker" territory!

> I think there needs to be a certain level of intention to make the fantasy reality for it to be a kink.

Hopefully this isn't to imply that people with fantasies actually want to have non-consensual sex in some capacity. If so then this completely misunderstands sexual fantasy!

Unfortunately, for this to be an answer to my question, it would actually have to elaborate. Bare assertions aren't an explanation, and as it stands this message communicates nothing to me.

> I want every platform to be safe

> We don't allow arsenic in bread

I'm curious what work the verbiage of "safety" is doing throughout these posts. It's particularly interesting to me because I'd also like to consign things like infinite scrolling and adversarial algorithmic recommendations to the dustbin of history. I'm simply not sure how we describe this as being a question of "safety" in any appreciable sense, much less compare looking at things to eating things. That's really not a useful analogy here.

The world at large seems to have descended into moral panic on all sorts of subjects and it's difficult for me to understand precisely how or why. Perhaps it's no coincidence that over the last decade and change there seems to have been broad political shifts to the right. Certainly the various moral panics would have interplay with that, but I'm not sure which came first if either.

I can find a "US v Fletcher" from 2008 that deals with obscenity law, though the only "US v McCoy" I can find was itself about charges for CSAM. The latter does seem to reference a previous case where the same person was charged for "transporting obscene material" though I can't find it.

That being said, I'm not sure I've seen a single obscenity case since Handly which wasn't against someone with a prior record, piled on charges, or otherwise simply the most expedient way for the government to prosecute someone.

As you've indicated in your own comment here, there's been many, many things over the last few decades that fall afoul the letter of the law yet which the government doesn't concern itself with. That itself seems to tell us something.

What in the world is this referring to?

uBlock Origin Lite is available for Safari on mobile, though that's not exactly the same extension. Orion supports standard uBlock Origin on mobile, but then that's not a browser "of note."

You win this round!

I'm not the biggest fan of how I phrased some of this. Perhaps "and so I'm opting not to speak to those point."

Unfortunate how short the edit window for comments is on here. In either case, I suppose what I'm saying is clear enough.

There's a number of things being said here, but much of it seems orthogonal to the original discussion and so I'm not going to address it.

Rather, if these characters aren't agents, I wonder where this leaves us re: sex positivity and "media [that] sexualizes women to a problematic degree." I don't think anything here tells me.

No, that's fine, since I think it's not only the case that these are sufficient, but that I simply wasn't explicit enough in my rejection.

What I'm disputing is any application of objectification theory to media analysis wherein there are no actual agents involved. Neither The Handmaiden nor Night Sister Mirrin ever possessed any agency, nor were they deprived of it. There is simply no moral valence in how one treats or regards them.

The demand here is that they be treated as if they possessed agency. I see no reason or obligation to do so.

I've definitely seen people say it's about agency, though exactly what they mean by that and why they think that matters tends to vary. That said, I suspect your response is in line with the person I was originally responding to.

In a different context I might be more sympathetic to this specific formulation of the concept since it's not always clear how much agency the background dancers in a music video or advert have. However, on the original topic of video games, the notion of "character agency" is rather pernicious.

Can you give me an example of this? As far as I understand it sex positivity doesn't seem to be concerned with "media sexualizing women" in and of itself. Consequently I'm not sure what "media [that] sexualizes women to a problematic degree" is or would even look like.

What does it mean to "handle online media?" How is it you would say "most adults" fall short of this?

Product development disagreements are largely immaterial to me, though the discussion around their integrations with Yandex remind me of prior discussions around their integrations with Brave.

Either way, thanks for sharing.