After an incident where anti-loli false flaggots got an account wrongfully banned for cp, ottman decided to ban loli by making false arguments similar to what 8chan owner jim watkins and gab owner andrew torba made.
Minds userbase is having none of it, and are actively calling ottman out for lying while demanding this decision be reversed.
new edit: ottman is having a meltdown, calling people bots and deleting posts.
edit: the mods need to consider banning the anti-loli spergs on this site for pointless infighting.
Yeah and I responded to that the last time you pointed it out. I even agreed that banning it from the start is in fact a good idea. I'd say most people would agree. Its when you attempt to soapbox about it that people start pointing out the flaws in your stance, because you've moved into a moral decision.
Even 4chan figured out that blue boards should be a thing and nobody but a handful of idiots (which there always will be) cares, so we are at a point where our "tech leaders" are behind fucking moot on how to make this work. He even went through the "we gotta remove our loli specific board because its getting us in trouble" phase.
So this is just anti-porn moral crusading wrapped up in a "but also think of the children" blanket. I'll go to far lengths to remove coomers from existing (by prevention, not genocide) but every attempt to ban them only backfires throughout all of human history. Alcoholics are just as dangerous and detrimental, if not more so, but Prohibition didn't work either.
So unless you are planning to go out and be that genocidal guy, you should probably try to find an approach that works instead of just one that makes you feel superior and powerful.
Taking OP at his word, because I'm not on Minds, this started by anti-lolis false flagging to try and get them removed. So that completely fails at order of events.
Unless you think they should just accept being falsely accused of having CP, and that by standing up for themselves they are just whining. Which is a bold claim I doubt you hold on any other topic.
Morality isn't objective. It can be pretty close but it will always have holes in it and those holes are why we attempt to avoid moralizing when defining rights and laws.
See, that works completely under utilitarian and moral works, but is really fucked up and easily turned against you later. That's why principles should be based on logical foundation, not moral emotions.
So are all the laws surrounding this. Have you seen the SCOTUS ruling on it from 2002? Or how horribly vague the PROTECT Act of 2003 is, a law designed entirely to say "the Supreme Court decision doesn't count if we just make up a new slightly different law."
Amazing how you managed to make the point better for me. You see how we made great strides to help curb the problem, rather than just ban it and line them up against the wall? That's where I'm sitting.
Its a good thing these are just drawings then and not real children ain't it? You can "consume" this responsibly and never hurt a single living soul. You are operating under the assumption that if they consume this they must also being fucking children, which is a bold unsubstantiated claim.
If you can prove that everyone who has ever consumed this type of content is a guaranteed likely to offend pedophile, I'll happily join your side. But that would require proving all of Japan is raping kids daily.
Its a discussion of censorship, on a place that discusses censorship as its primary topic. Don't just goalpost move when you're wrong man.
I could say the same with people (not you) writing paragraph upon paragraph of "I'M GONNA KILL THEM ALL" but can't answer how this will work logistically and the ramifications of such.
Even you've only said "ban all porn" which works fine for non-porn areas but when you have to define "what is allowable porn." Which is how you get Australia saying small boobs is pedophilia, no matter her actual age among other absurd stipulations and censorship.
For the record, I don't even like it. I defend this out of principle and exhaustion.