masterphilo

I must have misunderstood you. What's the point you are making here?

> Since it is practically impossible to confirm if a given sex worker is participating under duress or not, especially when it occurs "remotely" as in this OnlyFans situation, I would say it is always unethical to purchase such services

I agree that ethics and law do not coincide in all circumstances, and sometimes what is lawful may not necessarily be ethical. However, in the situation you described, prudence is what you should aim at, and understanding where and how trafficking can arise in your area or community should be your priority. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater by demonizing sex work entirely because of its susceptibility to trafficking is not only extreme, but risks sacrificing people's freedom to choose their work based on events that they cannot possibly control.

This topic is much more complex than that, but that's one side of it at least.

I would be more surprised if morality wasn't rooted in the brain!

The biggest issue I have with this article is the vague notion of morality discussed. There's a deeper problem revolving around what morality is in human life, ie, what it means to be moral, something philosophers have been debating for centuries and indeed still debating to this day. This article actually implicitly assumes that morality is traceable to evolutionary forces in our past that supported the species' survival, but it's important to understand that due to the faculty of reason in our species, biological forces no longer have ultimate control of us, and morality in this sense could re-defined in ways that accord with our perception of the world we live in, freeing us from of the shackles of our instincts.

On your last point, the best alternative I've seen is take-home projects where it would take less than a week to complete. The interviewer is free to frame a problem in a way that allows the engineer to apply their real-world experience and show their fit for the job. It removes all the variables around interview stress/anxiety and as a result is a better (but not perfect) indication of their performance.

How is this case different from how our society currently operates with respect to underage kids? They have limited consent, and "informed consent" is seen as irrelevant.

I’m probably the 50th person to say this, but I hope my saying it again would add to its importance: there’s nothing that I’ve found more powerful and long-lasting to my psychological health than regular exercise coupled with a healthy diet. At the end of the day we’re animals, our thinking and behaviour highly dependent on our surrounding environment and our metabolic functions, and if those are disturbed, then we are disturbed. Consider taking a vacation to get away from it all for a while.

While I don't agree at all with the views expressed in most of the banned videos, I think this move threatens not just free speech but any form of free and open inquiry. But I trust they did the math on this found what they did to be in the company's best interests at the end of the day.

YouTube needs better competitors.

Excellent!

On my to-read list. If more people were to adopt this attitude with respect to their usage of language, I think the world would be a far better place! (albeit not a practical one...)

There are many reasons why employers may insist on working on-site and most of them have nothing to do with employee domination and "authoritarianism". Focusing on those aspects of the relationship in the article with respect to working on-site/remotely seems to me somewhat one-sided.