@CrypticCoffee
As for me, I will never, ever use any site that demands a drivers license or a face scan to get on. I'd sooner totally disconnect from the open Internet and move all my work to the darknet only.
I don’t think so. Porn is very much a mental thing too, not just a visual one. Knowing none of the subjects of the pictures and videos exist will ruin it for a lot of people.
Um, so, pretend you didn’t hear this from me, but there are LoRas you can use and even train yourself from a handful of sample images, for anyone in the world that you want to see.
@CrypticCoffee Counter to that is obvious: DO NOT USE legal access modes, use Tor instead and access only sites that "block" the UK instead of complying.
Hopefully most porn sites will do exactly that, like Pornhub already did to US states that demand driver's license uploads (including Utah and Arkansa). When they attempted to comply with such a demand from Louisiana, open traffic from there dropped 80% and presumably VPN and Tor access jumped.
This told all porn sites that it's not worth the programmer time to even attempt to service legal traffic from such jurisdictions. Block non-Tor/non-VPN connections and enjoy immunity.
Best of all, it only takes ONE jurisdiction on the whole planet that won't censor porn to make these measures globally ineffective. Crack anywhere, play everywhere. This gives new meaning to saying "fuck you" to the government.
Any attempt by the UK to block Tor will fail: China can't reliably block it, and the Great Firewall of China has far more resources than "Hadrian's Firewall." Trying to jail people for using Tor would be nearly as difficult and would also face the legal obstacle of jury nullification. This will go the way of the failed 21 drinking age and 55 mph speed limits in the US.
As governments try to crack down on porn, on dissent, and on criticism of their Great Leaders, the clearnet will be of declining importance (possibly used only for shopping) and the darknet will become more important. Embrace the power of the darknet...
Tor can be compromised though, you just need someone watching a good portion of the end nodes and hosting the fastest intermediate nodes, then run a viterbi trace back to a source. Tor is also very slow.
I’m looking at IPFS and FreeNet as viable alternatives
@tetris11 Slow yes, but if you download videos rather than stream them, slow is much less of an issue.
Even the US is not capable of watching all Tor exit and guard nodes. The UK sure as hell is not. The Torproject by the way is always looking for and decommissioning malicious Tor nodes, so the risk to any one user is low.
The usual way to attack a Tor user is to get them to connect to Tor to destination site you have compromised with javascript ON, then send a malware installer to the real target's computer. The installer then downloads a rather standard payload that tells the computer to phone home on a non-Tor connection. The widely reported 2013 incident used a Windows-only payload, today they probably add iOS and Android. Stock android that is. If it was reasonably practical for cops to see through Tor they would not put so much effort in seeing around it instead.
Things like the Silk Road takedown were very time consuming and labor-intensive, and required a lot of old fashioned exploits and unskilled admins at the targets. In other words, Tor, Signal, anything else running on an untrusted device also become untrusted. Silk Road was still brutally difficult for the cops, and that was a major, motivated investigation that unlike UK or Utah porn cops wasn't going to run into a stone wall of non-extraditability or lack of jurisidiction on someone with zero local "business presence."
BTW, do not use Google Fiber to connect to Tor to use Google privately, because if you do, Google can see your device directly(being your ISP), and see the one exit node they are talking to, allowing a confirmation attack.
Fantastic video, but it winds me up when they add padding to a phone video to make it landscape, as if no one in existence might possibly be viewing their phone-generated content on a phone.
Yeah adding padding is always harmful. If the aspect ratio doesn’t match it’s not like the video breaks so just let the player deal with it. Anyone who has a problem with vertical videos isn’t going to be any happier that you added bars to it. Who is this solution for?
It’s because the content was likely preprocessed for broadcast news. Which means normal 16:9 landscape format.
Vertical video has done nothing but introduce constant issues. I used to be a guide for Jeep runs, and I was also the video editor for the run videos (just clips from the run with music). And naturally you can’t be everywhere, so 95% of the clips have to be recorded by everyone else. Even though they were told “don’t record vertical video because we can’t use it” they did so anyways, and were upset when we couldn’t use their videos.
And to be clear, this isn’t just a random video. We’re talking about a large organized and legally registered club, so we kept everything to a certain standard of quality. Vertical videos are not suitable for anything except a phone.
Why can’t you use it? Because your web designer isn’t designing for the possibility that people use a phone to access the Web, but it’s not 2004 any more and they’re living in the past.
You showed your colours when you assumed that portrait video is of lower quality. It’s only of lower quality if you’ve padded it out and are watching it on a landscape screen!
Technology to detect whether your webpage is being viewed landscape has existed for a long time, and takes very simple calculations indeed or just a splash or two of css to maximise the video size for whatever screen it’s being viewed on. It’s design laziness and wasted bandwidth to put the silly blurry bars or even black bars down the side of the video. But don’t force landscape on everyone. Smart phones aren’t new and they aren’t going away.
I suspect that the majority of people who spend even a tiny bit more than half of their recreational screen time looking at a fixed landscape screen are well over thirty.
Because TVs are landscape. These videos are shown at club events.
You showed your colours when you assumed that portrait video is of lower quality.
I never said it’s lower quality. Not once.
Technology to detect whether your webpage is being viewed landscape has existed for a long time, and takes very simple calculations indeed or just a splash or two of css to maximise the video size for whatever screen it’s being viewed on. It’s design laziness and wasted bandwidth to put the silly blurry bars or even black bars down the side of the video. But don’t force landscape on everyone. Smart phones aren’t new and they aren’t going away.
we kept everything to a certain standard of quality. Vertical videos are not suitable for anything except a phone.
Totally not lower quality. Definitely not. There’s a full stop and everything. No link whatsoever. My bad.
No one said anything about websites.
Well I think the rest of us are discussing a video on bbc.co.uk, which is a website, and we’re doing it on lemmy.world, which is also a website, and when I complained about people making portrait videos landscape, I suspect most people correctly figured out that I meant on websites, so I really think it’s just you that assumes we’re talking about jeep club.
Watching portrait footage that’s been padded out to landscape on a portrait device is even worse!
I’m proposing that the web designer writes a responsive webpage when they are sent a portrait video to include, so that if it’s viewed on a portrait device it fills the width, and when it’s viewed on a landscape device it fills the height. If it’s actually for telly, there’s usually no harm in cropping a bit at the top and bottom and at that point, feel free to put whatever you like down the sides, but there’s no need to throw away the portrait original for the portrait view of the website.
Like I already said, the technology for writing a webpage that looks different depending on the orientation of the device being used to view it is neither complicated nor new. There’s no need to treat every medium the same in 2023.
Yes, and that’s great, it really is, but when the footage you have is portrait, don’t pad it out to force landscape orientation on it irrespective of the orientation of the viewer’s screen, just let portrait content be full size portrait when viewed on a portrait screen. That is the beginning, the middle and the end of my point. It’s all I’m asking for.
And when anyone films in portrait, make sure to punish anyone trying to watch the footage with a similarly criminal portrait orientation, by putting borders round the side of the portrait content to force it to be landscape, thus shrinking the content to roughly a ninth of their screen, unless they switch to the blessed landscape orientation when it will fill a glorious third of the screen. Let no one watch it full size for the creator thereof has sinned against the gods of landscape.
This is the right and proper punishment for content creators who break the landscape law: let no one see this video fullscreen, for they have sinned against landscape. ibb.co/x2MQQG2 let the borders of landscape wrath descend and pad, and let fullscreen be disabled for all, for if landscape viewers are denied fullscreen EVERYONE MUST SUFFER.
Oh, or you could just skip the fuzzy bars in portrait mode if you’re feeling more accommodating to phone users.
Alright, you win, I’ll never use my phone in portrait ever again, especially not to film my dog in a storm. I’ll make sure I turn that baby right to your preferred orientation and I’ll stop complaining about pointless bars at the side of other people’s portrait content.
If you want, I can go back through my canara roll and delete everything that’s in portrait just in case I’m ever tempted to sell it to a news organisation. I’ll make sure to only ever post landscape content to whatsapp, signal and especially tiktok and instagram, because otherwise some relative, friend or random Internet user might share it in portrait.
You’re right. That’s definitely a better solution than not putting annoying fuzzy bars on portrait content.
Y’see, back in the day parents were not technically literate because the world was mid-societal shift. “Protect the children” (because parents are unable to) had some justification.
Today, basic computer literacy is a survival skill in the UK. The level of literacy needed to track your own kid is not that high (or expensive to rent).
If you are letting kids use tech you don’t understand, and are not willing to invest the time/money to track yourself, that’s a you problem. It shouldn’t become a me problem.
As for “yeah but what about smart kids”, I’ve got some bad news for you. They will always find a way around ANYTHING you set up.
I really feel very uncomfortable with the notion of tracking the kids anyway. Arming them with knowledge as best as possible, and as usual showing interest in their behaviour to try and look as best as possible for signs of problems but ultimately kids are still people with their own lives even if people in development. Yes you need to protect them, to a certain extent, but ultimately some of this is no business but their own. You can try to educate and forewarn and hope some of it sticks but the tendency from my memory of being a kid is that that tends to be met with an eye-roll, this is probably where the temptation comes from to track children or drastically restrict the choices they’re able to make so they can’t ignore you but this is hardly a great way for that person in development to ultimately… develop.
This is dicey though, not least because as yet another random person on the internet offering their unsolicited opinion, I don’t even have kids, and if you follow my logic to extremis, you basically have, “let the kids just figure it out on their own they’ll be fine” which definitely won’t apply to everything and can have disastrous consequences in some contexts. But nevertheless I think this concept of tracking, either covertly, or overtly with the intention of making a kind of panopticon effect for the kids, is likely ineffective but even if effective, is indicative of something going wrong with the intent of the surveillance.
It’s a tricky one because of the nature of the net. Let’s say we have three kids: Timmy, Jimmy and Harry.
Timmy starts looking up “tits”, because Timmy loves titties. He’s curious, and you probably want to have a talk about acting and how porn isn’t reality.
Jimmy, well, Jimmy saw a videogame character tied up and it made him feel good, so he starts looking for that online. He’s about to explore the BDSM scene. He’s going to need the “safe sane consensual” talk, otherwise his explorations might get him, or someone else, hurt. He’ll need more of a talk than Timmy!
Harry loves hentai; he found some when looking for pictures of his favourite cartoon character. Harry is going to need a long talk about fantasy Vs reality, otherwise he’s going to disappoint a lot of women! Wait a moment, most of the things he’s looking at involve animals and women… Might be time to get some therapy!
In all three of these cases a different style and level of parental intervention was required. You watch your kids because they’re kids, and kids are experts at getting themselves (and others) hurt. Parents need to watch their kids because it’s their job to intervene, and to decide the method of intervention.
However, we’ve not gone over the case of Lizzy, a girl cursed with religious fundamentalist parents. When they find out she’s more interested in girls than boys, she’ll be subjected to inhumane treatment to “fix” her. So there is a grey area here - not all parents should be parents.
Exactly. I was 17 teaching my parents about internet shit. I wasn’t smart, I still aren’t, but I also wasn’t. Anyway, the amount ov viruses I had to fix because of them downloading kenny_chesney.exe is… baffling.
She has been ostracised by neighbours in the community she has lived in for 40 years.
“As of today, I have no friends. It’s just me I guess,” she says with a sad chuckle.
Some of her family still don’t speak to her. And she constantly wonders whether the men she works with are picturing her naked.
A picture of your head photoshopped on some chick’s body? Why is that embarrassing for anyone over the age of 13? I would just assume they were hacked. It’s embarrassing for whoever sent it.
Sadly common worldview among societies with “culture and history”. Ironically this culture of monogamy and being so sexually prude is a result of Western colonisation. These are Christian ideals, not necessarily the ideals of Buddhism or Hinduism (Remember Temples of Kama Sutra, anyone?). While the colonies have stuck with 1800s, the colonisers have moved on.
I can ruin your reputation or be used in conjuction with other social engineering techniques to eicit fear. It is also very intimate and personal, and shows a private side of your person that may not be intended for others. Examples of threats could be sending them to in-laws, emoyeers, your whole office, the school were your kids attend. Even without any really intention of distributing it, the threat is enough.
While i agree in the idea of destigmatizing sex, consent (or lack there of) is a key part in why this is so traumatic, without even considering the negative and wrongfully directed anger often targeted at the victim by their community.
I agree. I call myself a closet naturist because I'm all for the human body just being a human body and not ridiculously hyper-sexualised. But I'm also a sexual abuse survivor and that same hyper-sexualisation makes me very wary and anxious around people who are not also naturists.
I've been assaulted way too many times WITH clothes on to trust the general population who can't comprehend that a naked body =/= sex and an open invitation.
If they’re fake, then I won’t care. But of course, like it was said elsewhere, I live in a place where nude pictures are, at most, an embarrassment and not a threat to my life or physical wellbeing.
You won't care, but your employer might, to the point where they fire you. Your partner might, to the point where they leave you. Your overbearing family members might, to the point where they put out an 'honour killing' hit on you, or do the deed themselves.
Like I just pointed out, 'something embarrassing' can have much dire consequences when put in the wrong hands.
It only has to go to someone with no chill and they will make the problems. The place they live in might be chill, but that doesn't mean there will be zero consequences.
I live in a place where nude pictures are, at most, an embarrassment
What part of above sentence don’t you understand? If their society (neighbours, employers, friends and family etc.) doesn’t care about nudity, what kind of dire consequences can you have in the wrong hands? If they were photoshopped into doing something illegal, it’s not something that can be avoided at all. So you “caring” doesn’t work either.
It only has to go to someone with no chill and they will make the problems.
What part of the above sentence don't you understand?
If their society (neighbours, employers, friends and family etc.) doesn’t care about nudity, what kind of dire consequences can you have in the wrong hands?
The problem there is that you are assuming that literally everyone in their lives is chill with this kind of thing. Maybe that is true if you spend your entire life in one particular bubble that happens to accept nudity, but that is true of basically no one. There is always at least one prude that would try to raise hell in the name of Christianity or some other such religion or other shit.
It’s India not Denmark you dingus. It doesn’t matter if you don’t care, other people care they will ostracize you or worse see it as an excuse to rape you. Like many women get raped in India for simply breaking social norms like traveling without a male chaperone.
Your house is burning. You should be replacing the building materials with something much less flammable, but in the meantime, maybe you might be wise to pour some water on the fire.
It’s an excellent outcome for these twins for sure, but holy fuck:
Tamuna discovered a black market in adoption that stretched across Georgia and went on from the early 1950s to 2005.
She believes it was run by organised criminals and involved people from all sections of society, from taxi drivers to people high up in the government. Corrupt officials would fake the documents needed for the illegal adoptions.
“The scale is unimaginable, up to 100,000 babies were stolen. It was systemic,” she says.
They would just exempt themselves from it as they did with both reporting on people accessing porn using the HoP network and with the investigatory powers bill.
Cats and dogs get prioritized over local species that they endanger all over the world yet shelters are full of the poor critters. A local cat used to even come in my house and try to get in my bird room, but thankfully couldn’t figure out the screen. It probably died of old age or coyotes, or getting stuck in someone’s hoarder garage though. I haven’t seen it in a few years and I know a number of people on my street wouldn’t notice if the cat went in the junk pile. And no I didn’t do anything to the cat for anyone looking for something to rage at me over. I picked it up and sent it on its way even though it’s just another menace to the local environment and pet cats really shouldn’t be let out uncontrolled.
bbc.co.uk
Top