Wait until AI identifies wrong think and automatically forwards it to local law enforcement. The first you'll know about it is when you get a letter compelling you to pay a fine or in the worst cases, a knock on the door from the police.
Now you know why politicians want anonymity banned.
You'll be amazed at how easy it is to be classed as obese in medical terms. Being merely overweight is now also being lumped in too. Chances are, many people on here will be under that expanded definition. Things never used to be this way if you look at pictures of the sixties and seventies so we need to figure out - what changed?
One of the ways you could deal with it is making restaurants, takeaways and some food types in supermarkets collection only and making the doors to enter them narrow so they can't physically get into them. That happened before in history of which a picture has been going around on social media.
What women find attractive is predominately (but not exclusively) genetic and inherited. Looks (predominately inherited) and masculinity (personality is half inherited) That's what is not socially acceptable because they're things you're born with and can't change. And society tends to make judging others on inalienable characteristics a stigma.
You can go to the gym, wear good clothes and have a well paid career, but if she don't feel the tingles (what hoe_math on YouTube calls being the "bad boy") then all that ain't going to account for anything and you can't override attraction and genetics with external factors, "rizz" and faking it (eventually she will find out and she'll realised she's been deceived and will then envision an exit plan) despite what the PUA's, coaches and gurus claim for profit. Trying to tell men that they can override evolution and innate female attraction with gym, touching grass and therapy is like telling someone that if they don't eat or drink, they don't need to go to the toilet any more. It won't end well.
There are philosophers, religious individuals and those, religious or not, who believe that sex is unitive (via marriage) and for conception and therefore contraception is an immoral and unnatural action that goes against that principle of denying a human life the right to exist and therefore should be banned (a return to the Comstock laws once the relevant Supreme Court historic decisions are overturned like Roe v Wade was for abortion). As far as these groups are concerned, contraception is pre-abortion and just as immoral and righteous to ban as abortion. It would form part of the anti-vice pushback and counteraction to what liberals have been implementing in the last few decades in terms of sexual liberation, not just against abortion, contraception, promiscuity and pornography but other forms of vice including alcohol, smoking and gambling.
Ironically, the people saying pro-life supporters are also pro-birth control and contraception are left leaning outlets! Maybe hoping that the right wing don't go for contraception as well as abortion as was the case in the past.
It will fail. Where it has been put to the public, the public has outright refused to support it. Where it has been trialled, they've ended early in failure.
The problem will come when people realise that employment is a privilege and not a right when jobs en-masse are replaced by automation, AI and robots or at the very least, outsourced to low wage countries. Unless you can work for pennies an hour, if that, you will be replaced once the technology is mature and stable enough. If anyone thinks outlawing all those is the solution, watch as hundreds of billions in investment leaves the country for other countries that will not ban them. We all may end up becoming freelancers and business owners because at least the only person who won't be fired from their job is the boss!
It also happens in the private sector as well. It's not been too long since Pfizer sponsored a lot of news and current affairs programming on American commercial television. And I won't start with the amount of propaganda on private streaming services.
GB News and to a lesser extent TalkTV started the same way as well. They will openly state they are anti-woke though they are still bound by broadcasting regulation. Where as the BBC and ITN will tell you they're impartial but actively push an left wing agenda. You are right in your observation, the right will be upfront about their bias, the left will deny it under the guise of "impartiality" and "fact checking".
Archive: https://archive.is/yhR8p
TL;DR - The Donald Tusk coalition Government passed a law which removed all the heads of TVP, the Polish public television broadcaster, Polskie Radio, the public radio broadcaster and the Polish Press Agency under the allegation that they are "propaganda" outlets for the right wing Law and Justice Party. Several TV channels including the news channel and the news bulletins were replaced or taken off air, the latter being replaced with new "depoliticised" and "impartial" news bulletins. A documentary on Polish-Russian relations between 2007 and 2015 was memory holed.
Worse in the UK. There was a court case not too long ago where a man was unwillingly made to have sex with a woman against his will and without consent. The judge ruled that he had no right to consent and that she had no legal case to answer. Chances are, if a woman did this to a man, you're on the hook for everything legally.
The rest of the world isolating the UK and hitting its economy is going to be the only way that the Government will listen. Sadly, the people being given airtime are the people who say the Government are not going far enough with safety. This is a country where the Covid inquiry is likely to rule that we need to lockdown faster, harder and keep restrictions permanently.
From what I have read, Ofcom has received complaints about Twitch and their requirements under the Online Safety Act to keep underage individuals safe from adult and harmful content - including one from a prominent campaigner against child predators. This could escalate if Ofcom act, at least from a UK perspective.
That's a big problem for the parent company because their website is reliant on payment processors providing them service. And now they also know about all the other controversy prior to this week's changes.
And in the UK, that's now probably the least of their concerns.
They got pressure from advertisers and payment processors who got wind of the changes and gave them an ultimatum - reverse it or else.
Then they found out about what Twitch has been allowing prior to the original changes this week, in particular because under 18's can access the site. So they'll have to go further than just a reversal.
You're dealing with people who don't just want porn banned but want everything else along with it banned too. To the point where sexuality and nudity is exclusively only done in a private setting in a bedroom between an established (married) couple and where all avenues of sexuality for singles are closed. AI porn included.
When the Russian media regulator banned access to porn, their press response was just something along the lines of "get a girlfriend lol".
Worth noting that the online category does not just mean online dating apps. It also encompasses social media and closed online groups. If I recall, online dating only accounts for a quarter of young adults who met someone online to less than a tenth of older adults.
I have heard it said that the best online dating app is not Tinder, it's Instagram.
It's the double standards that gets me. She being overweight expects nothing but compliments and an insistence that men change their preferences. We all know there is no body positive movement for men and that a man with a beer gut would be told in no uncertain terms to hit the gym and get fit with zero tolerance for any divergence from that advice.
There also appears to be a push to paint criticism of a woman as misogyny but not the other way round.
There is a theory that women might be complimenting her as a form of intrasexual competition because men generally don't want overweight women and keeping her overweight is one less woman to compete against. If anything, the body acceptance movement could be one large intrasexual competition play.
From my personal experience, even the minimum wage women go on multiple holidays a year to both mainstream and exotic places. It has become as expected and normalised as owning a car, having somewhere to live and socialising.
And how does the Government know who's viewing it at that time? How easy would it be for an account to be compromised or handed over to a child?
That was the question asked by UK lawmakers so the UK is likely in 2025 to implement both age verification and live identity verification - their favourite methods will be both Government photo ID and webcam/phone face ID to verify it is you viewing the content. Safeguards to prevent people putting a photo up to the camera or passing the device to someone underage will be put in place.
And it won't just be for pornography, strictly it applies to any content deemed not "safe for kids". And if it succeeds in the UK, the US and other western countries will follow suit.