They try to be funny.
12 karma · joined December 14, 2024
(Which was considered AI not too long ago.)
Great book!
I think there is a common scenario where the victims don't upload themselves. The most prominent in the article, where the guy had 14 guns or so, probably was such a case, even though not explicitly stated.
> I guess not many people would accept a technical solution like having to re-verify your account at a communal office every 6 months with a government ID issued to your real name in order to upload porn...
Can you confirm your logic, please? Let me paraphrase: if a tech T has an undesired side effect X, and removing X reduces T's market, we should accept X?
If that's the case, I can see a few cases where this applies. For example, we allow tobacco despite of its known disastrous effects.
But, honestly, I am being appalled by the immediate jump to "meh, that's how capitalism works". Your argument is "the only solution I could come up with in 30 seconds would devalue the platform, so them poor bitches will have to live through this!".
Here is a simple thing OF could do: Aggressively inform users and creators of "signal for help" [1].
Here is a more complex thing OF could do: monitor the content for suspicous content, just as they are doing for child porn–they can use the exact same mechanisms, but screen for typical features of abused women, in the payments, etc. That's all basic stuff OF apparently does not do today. If 5 women work towards the same billing information of a single male, that's a red flag for sure.
> But: I can't help but feel that the focus on OF is misguided. There is only so much you can do when there's an abuser nearby who scares you so much you won't even talk to police — who can show up with guns and jail the abuser for 20 years!
Actually, I think if you really want to it is much easier to get hold of sex traffickers now OF exists. Why? Because it is documented, you might have channels to the victims, you have business information of the perpetrators, etc.