Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday April 15, @11:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the as-long-as-it-is-not-encrypted dept.

[A] Melbourne-based company Assembly Four created Switter after its founders learned that social media platforms were either removing sex workers' content or banning their accounts. Without the time or resources to build a whole new network from scratch, the group turned to Mastodon.

The Verge reports:

Sex workers are running out of safe online spaces. Craigslist is no longer displaying personal ads. The controversial classifieds site Backpage, which many escorts used to screen clients, has been seized by the FBI. Adult content is disappearing off Google Drive, and many sex workers say they're being forced off social media. With the news that President Trump has signed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), their options will continue to dwindle — and with it, the ability for many sex workers to pay their bills, let alone do so safely.

Over the past few weeks, sex workers have been turning to an unexpected platform to remain online: the social network Mastodon, under a new instance called "Switter." Melbourne-based company Assembly Four created Switter after its founders learned that social media platforms were either removing sex workers' content or banning their accounts. Without the time or resources to build a whole new network from scratch, the group turned to Mastodon.

Although ostensibly aimed at sex trafficking prevention, FOSTA's reduction of legal protections for websites is having disastrous consequences for sex workers. Faced with the new potential for litigation, many websites are removing any content or avenues that could possibly violate FOSTA. It's disconnecting many of the most vulnerable sex workers from crucial resources.

[...] Switter may offer a temporary salve for the community, yet sex workers say it cannot stand as a last bastion, an end-all be-all answer for their profession. Assembly Four says it's prepared to continue working to make it a safe destination for sex workers, but that they need real change.

"The best-case scenario would be the opposite," says Hunt. "The best-case scenario would be if we didn't need to have safe spaces, if public spaces were somewhere we were accepted."

Fast-Company, Buzzfeed, Vice and Techdirt have related stories.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @11:14AM (42 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @11:14AM (#667234)

    The best-case scenario would be if we didn't need to have safe spaces, if public spaces were somewhere we were accepted.

    There are many social reasons "sex workers" have been banished to seedy backstreets. Why do they think the internet is any different?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @11:23AM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @11:23AM (#667236)

      The problem is that the Back(streets)page has itself been banished. Now that problem needs to be solved so everyone can get laid and paid.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @10:15PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @10:15PM (#667400)

        Can anyone name another product or service that is perfectly legal to give away for free, but totally illegal to require payment besides sex work?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @11:17PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @11:17PM (#667408)

          It's totally illegal unless it's shot in front of a camera. Then it's just porn.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @04:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @04:54PM (#667699)

            it's also legal as long as you only advertise with traditional methods (makeup, high heels, short skirts, suggestive glances, etc) and don't switch between johns too fast.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:32AM (#667468)

          Co-authorship of scientific papers. Ok, maybe not illegal, but it would be unethical.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 16, @05:17AM

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday April 16, @05:17AM (#667519)

          NCAA

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @05:43AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @05:43AM (#667521)
          Perfectly legal in the USA for cops to shoot blacks for free, but I think requiring payment to do so breaks the rules...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @07:20AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @07:20AM (#667540)

            Cops in the USA don't get paid?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, @03:51AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, @03:51AM (#667941)
              Officially they're not paid to kill blacks. It's just free service. Just like helping old white ladies cross the road. If they started charging people for that they'd get in trouble.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by KiloByte on Sunday April 15, @12:15PM (18 children)

      by KiloByte (375) on Sunday April 15, @12:15PM (#667242)

      There are many social reasons "sex workers" have been banished to seedy backstreets.

      Well, yes, and those reasons really deserve to be burned. Those "holy" books would have a fitting place on a library shelf next to Mein Kampf, which they so closely resemble.

      I don't get why sex workers would be any different from, say, bakers.

      --
      Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:21PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:21PM (#667244)

        I don't get why sex workers would be any different from, say, bakers.

        Subtle differences in frosting distribution.

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:42PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:42PM (#667249)

          whore? Hahahahaha. You are a twisted fuck.

          Either everyone is a whore or none of us.

          The fact that only certain type meet your whore definition shows you to have major issues.

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:41PM (#667265)

            Reply to the right comment, dumbass.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:39PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:39PM (#667247)

        I don't know what kind of bakers you visit where the shop reeks of stale semen and you risk contracting a sexually communicable infection.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by KiloByte on Sunday April 15, @12:42PM (1 child)

          by KiloByte (375) on Sunday April 15, @12:42PM (#667250)

          I don't know what kind of bakers you visit where the shop reeks of stale semen and you risk contracting a sexually communicable infection.

          If bakers had to hide within seedy backstreets, their shops would look just like that. See abortion clinics for example.

          --
          Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 15, @02:48PM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @02:48PM (#667280) Homepage

            That would explain the Inland Empire. [bakersdrivethru.com] Never contracted an STD from them but god damn they are swarming with whores and bums, and they give you wicked stomach bugs as well.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @10:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @10:20PM (#667401)

          I don't know what kind of bakers you visit where the shop reeks of stale semen and you risk contracting a sexually communicable infection.

          If you don't like the smell, you don't have to visit. And the risk of a sexually communicable infection is irrespective of sex work. It is just as easily contracted from one night stands at the local club or at your mother's house.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, @12:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, @12:34PM (#668012)

          Here's a tip: You get what you pay for... That 200/hr hooker looks good, smells good, and has a clean, cared for space for incall. The 50$ crack whore? Well, she will probably suck you bareback.

      • (Score: 2, Troll) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 15, @01:19PM (4 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday April 15, @01:19PM (#667259)

        It's slightly harder to get a disease from a baker - diseases are, in the book [openbible.info], the will of God. After that, it's all just pressure tactics: don't even go near that or you're going to catch it...

        Alexander Flemming [wikipedia.org] and those who followed him have mostly obsoleted the old taboos, but... even with the science based belief system of what causes diseases, there are still more reasons to be careful with a sex worker than a baker, and both are still potentially dangerous.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday April 15, @04:41PM (3 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @04:41PM (#667305) Homepage Journal

          even with the science based belief system of due to the fact-based process of science we know a great deal about what causes transmissible diseases, there are still more reasons to be careful with a sex worker than a baker, and both are still potentially dangerous.

          So it's worthwhile to examine why this is the case. Let's do that:

          Bakers are regulated. They operate in a stable, public-facing venue under the licensing, inspection, supervision and authority of something of the order of a health department wielding shutdown powers. So when they get iffy, they can be closed down, their venue then carrying a sign that will seriously impact future business while keeping them shut down until/unless they remedy the problem(s.) People will then go to other bakers even if the baker with the problem re-opens, feeling (correctly) that the shut-down baker is... well, iffy. So bakers tend to work hard to not get iffy. Generally, bakeries adhere to a reasonably high standard of product, cleanliness and quality of service. Regulation and its potential public consequences create a significant pressure on them to do so.

          Now compare: Because there is no authority making sure that standards, if they existed, were being adhered to, sex workers present no visible change in their circumstance when there are problems. This creates an opaque surface between the sex worker and the client, and it is that opaque surface that serves to hide the problems where they exist. In addition, because their service is illegal, both they and their clients are less able to call upon the authorities when there are various kinds of problems. If a sex worker has a problem in an illegal service context, how would you know? There's no testing, no regulation, no licensing, permit, public venue, etc.

          The best answer here, by far, is regulate the sex workers. Not force them underground. That's without even getting into the personal liberty issues, which are also profoundly in favor of legalizing sex work.

          --
          The eyes are the windows to the soul.
          Sunglasses are the window shades.
          • (Score: 2, Disagree) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 15, @06:22PM (2 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday April 15, @06:22PM (#667348)

            due to the fact-based process of science

            Are these facts that you have observed for yourself, or just words from people you trust?

            I believe in the word of science, they put on more convincing arguments than the word of God, seem to have better corroboration and consistency. But, as for what is fact I think it is best to reserve that for things directly observed rather than hear-say - no matter how reliable the source of the hear-say would seem to be.

            As soon as you give a group the power of fact you also give them the power to manipulate you with lies, half truths and distortions.

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday April 16, @12:46AM (1 child)

              by fyngyrz (6567) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @12:46AM (#667431) Homepage Journal

              Are these facts that you have observed for yourself, or just words from people you trust?

              In the case of fungi and bacteria, there are numerous facts I have observed for myself. For viruses, I am taking the word of a very large number of scientists who have built an interlocking structure that is constantly being tested and re-tested.

              Generally, in cases where the science is long established and the experimental methods of attempts to falsify are well known to have been withstood, yes, the resulting data is something I take as near factual as makes no difference until/unless someone manages to find an actual disproof. If that happens, that's wonderful. But it's vanishingly rare for foundational elements of basic biology these days.

              But, as for what is fact I think it is best to reserve that for things directly observed rather than hear-say - no matter how reliable the source of the hear-say would seem to be.

              As long as it's not new information, and is well integrated with other, long-standing science, I am pretty comfortable. Certainly a good deal more so than with anything purported to be a truth out of a book of obvious fiction. There's no "seem" about it.

              --
              The eyes are the windows to the soul.
              Sunglasses are the window shades.
              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 16, @03:15AM

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday April 16, @03:15AM (#667479)

                I am taking the word of a very large number of scientists who have built an interlocking structure that is constantly being tested and re-tested.

                You are mostly taking the word of others who claim to relay the word of a very large number of scientists... I have worked within the system, written papers and seen them published, and a large part of the system appears to be what it claims to be, while other parts of it are not so much. My first distaste was working with "scientists" who purchased our equipment, knew good methodology, but were in the employ of the tobacco industry. To their credit, they mostly just kept silent about their findings - but that silence was a significant distortion of known facts influencing hundreds of millions of lives for decades.

                The next was a collection of articles from the most respected journals, published in all appearances like all the other articles those journals carried. Having worked with the journals for over 10 years at this point, I thought I could spot the "good ones" and these all appeared to be the "good ones." They had all the hallmarks of an interlocking structure, tested and retested, with consistent results collected over 15 years pointing to 33% significant benefit, 33% minor benefit, and 33% no change results for patients using the technology under study. I think there were 8 articles in the collection, all well written and backed by what appeared to be good data, easily searchable to find citing work which mostly backed up those results. A few years later, I went to work for a competing company who pointed to their own collection of articles, not as slick and impressively packaged, but with an apparently larger sample size backing the results of less than 5% significant benefit, 10% minor benefits, and >85% no change for the same technology. If you "go digging for yourself" starting from one point, it can take a very long time to get to the other. When evaluating one technology vs the other, patients generally rely on their doctors for guidance, and their doctors conveniently can pick and choose what literature they want to point to to back up their opinion as to whether they would like to get paid for this particular surgery, or refer it off to another surgeon who specializes in the competing technology...

                When the men in white coats, working in laboratories, are paid (through any of a myriad of channels) by organizations with their own agendas, "science" becomes just as much a political battleground as any election campaign. As I said, I more or less believe the "word of science," but remain open to ideas like: lead in gasoline really is a bad thing, "normal" exposure to asbestos is not harmless, "safe" radiation exposure levels may not be, and maybe, just maybe, you can catch chlamydia from a toilet seat or sharing a hot tub, I would swear, based on observations in my college dorm, that stuff could have been airborne...

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday April 15, @05:55PM (3 children)

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @05:55PM (#667328)

        Because the guys who wrote the bible were competing against those who worshiped a goddess. Read up on Jezebel, and try to figure out what she did that was so wrong. This will give you some clues.

        --
        Put not your faith in princes.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @06:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @06:03PM (#667337)

          Just link it. I'm on mobile over here, on a bus.

        • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday April 15, @09:21PM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Sunday April 15, @09:21PM (#667391)

          Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Jezebel. [wikipedia.org]

          She was the great-aunt of Dido, Queen of Carthage so I am going to assume she was completely untrustworthy.

          Yes, I know, she will offer you some sweet spices for only 2 horses, and come on all friendly and nice, but just you wait, pretty soon there will be African forest Elephants on your borders and if you think your archers are going to hold them off, you're mad.

          I hate Dido.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @12:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @12:15AM (#667419)

          I asked the new Google AI --
              what did Jezebel do that was so wrong?
          https://books.google.com/talktobooks/query?q=what%20did%20Jezebel%20do%20that%20was%20so%20wrong%3F [google.com]

          One of the answers was from the recent book, Hillary's Choice by Gail Sheehy ...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @03:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @03:42PM (#667663)

        https://www.apha.org/ccdm [apha.org]

        As they say, "Control of Communicable Diseases Manual, 20th Edition, is the must-have sourcebook on identifying and controlling infectious diseases. Now in two formats: book and digital subscription."

        I don't think we should burn it.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday April 15, @12:44PM (11 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Sunday April 15, @12:44PM (#667251)

      There are many social reasons "sex workers" have been banished to seedy backstreets.

      I don't know any rational one.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Sunday April 15, @12:49PM (4 children)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Sunday April 15, @12:49PM (#667252)

        Alas, humans aren't rational, and that goes double for elected officials.

        --
        (Score: tau, Irrational)
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday April 15, @01:01PM

          by c0lo (156) on Sunday April 15, @01:01PM (#667254)

          Alas, humans aren't rational, ...

          Well, I can agree with this one, but then... it's irrational to speak of "reasons"** while letting rationality aside, is it not?
          I mean, look... you speak of "method to his madness" not "reasons from the depth of his madness".

          ----
          ** as in in "reason to banish sex-workers"

          ...and that goes double for elected officials.

          I'm sorry, I an't agree with this. Those officials may have started their career as humans, but by the time they get elected, they metamorphose in sorta lizard people.

          (grin)

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by KiloByte on Sunday April 15, @01:10PM (2 children)

          by KiloByte (375) on Sunday April 15, @01:10PM (#667255)

          Actually, elected officials are usually rational. They are hard at work seeking campaign donations, do research wrt which action will get them re-elected no matter how harmful for the society it really is, and so on.

          Their goals just don't align with yours, nor with their job description.

          --
          Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Sunday April 15, @01:16PM (1 child)

            by MostCynical (2589) on Sunday April 15, @01:16PM (#667258)

            An ability to rationalize or justify is not, in itself, a sign of a rational being, though. Self-preservation is as effective in slugs as in those in power..

            --
            (Score: tau, Irrational)
            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday April 15, @01:57PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @01:57PM (#667267) Journal

              An ability to rationalize or justify is not, in itself, a sign of a rational being, though.

              Having different interests is not an ability to rationalize. Even rational beings will have conflicts of interest.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:29PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:29PM (#667301)

        Take young children to tour red light districts often?

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 16, @12:21AM

          by c0lo (156) on Monday April 16, @12:21AM (#667421)

          I would, if there'd be a safe public redlight district where I live, like in Amsterdam.
          But no, the righteous puritans drove it underground, together with drug users, firearms and the like - barely safe for adults.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:55PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:55PM (#667309)

        Here's a rational one: because women want it to be that way. Commercialize sex, and you take away a shit ton of power from women.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday April 15, @06:01PM (1 child)

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @06:01PM (#667332)

          "The ballad of Gresham's law".
          I can't find it on Google, but it starts (as I remember):

          When the upright ladies come to town
          They start a club and then decide
          Who's within and who's outside
          ...

          I actually can't remember even quite that much of the words, but that's the general idea. It's an interesting take on Gresham's law.

          --
          Put not your faith in princes.
          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday April 17, @06:04PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 17, @06:04PM (#668210)

            I've remembered a bit more. It was sung by "Whitey the Wino", and the book I endountered it in may have been called "The Warlock Wandering" (Warlock, #5) by Christopher Stasheff. I encountered it in one of his books, anyway. And it was being sung in a bar on one of the Colony worlds (Falstaff?) around the time that the revolution that installed P.E.S.T. was happening.

            But I don't *think* it was written for that book.

            --
            Put not your faith in princes.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:43AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:43AM (#667471)

          Maybe true, but do you have any polling data to back that up? Could be a bunch of uptight dads, too. Not that I want my daughter to grow up to be a lady of the evening.

    • (Score: 2) by corey on Sunday April 15, @09:30PM

      by corey (2202) on Sunday April 15, @09:30PM (#667392)

      I'll bite. Been to Amsterdam?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @04:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @04:08AM (#667499)

      Why do they think the internet is any different?

      Because the Internet is different.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:22PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:22PM (#667245)

    Let's build a social media platform that has a charter to:
    * To put peoples interest first
    * Never sell out to corporate interests with a profit motive
    * Distributed so no one jurisdiction can control it.
    * Based on open standards so never again we will have to be reliant on one entity.
    * Put systems in place to stop one group from having undue influence on others.

    ..BTW the way I wanted to title this post as "Bitches stop complaining and let's build something!", but I didn't want to be dismissed as frivolous.

    -A. Non

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:34PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:34PM (#667246)

      Diaspora, Tor, Freenet and others should qualify, covering the needs of mainstream users and degenerates alike.

      What needs to be done next?

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Sunday April 15, @12:41PM

        by c0lo (156) on Sunday April 15, @12:41PM (#667248)

        What needs to be done next?

        Well, it needs to get enough income to advertise it, of course.

        (grin)

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Sunday April 15, @02:21PM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday April 15, @02:21PM (#667270)

        Simple: People need to actually use them, instead of whining about the corporate-owned centralized platforms they refuse to abandon. Good luck with that.

        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday April 16, @01:16AM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @01:16AM (#667444) Homepage Journal

          Folks will use the ones that get them laid. That's what made Facebook great. And if this Swiffer works for that, it'll become great too. But my money's on Facebook!!!

          --
          Text TRUMP to 88022 to join the 🚂 #TrumpTrain [facebook.com]
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:12PM (#667256)

      Mastodon is a distributed and federated social network, with microblogging features similar to Twitter but administered as a decentralized federation of independently operated servers running free software.

      (Wikipedia [wikipedia.org])

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 15, @01:25PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday April 15, @01:25PM (#667262)

      * To put peoples interest first
      * Never sell out to corporate interests with a profit motive

      Right there, you've cut your potential funding by a factor >99.9% - people do donate to good causes, but that rate of return is a tiny fraction compared to the sellouts with profit motives.

      let's build something!

      It's got to be dead stupid easy to use, like Craigslist. As such, it will be as easy for law enforcement to find it as it is for the users. And, with shoestring financing, good luck defending it against the first villager with a sharp pitchfork looking to burn a witch or whore or whatever they can get their frustration out on.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @03:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @03:48PM (#667285)

      Have you heard of Mastodon/ActivityPub? Because you just described it. It's already built.

    • (Score: 2) by terrab0t on Monday April 16, @11:52AM

      by terrab0t (4674) on Monday April 16, @11:52AM (#667586)

      The problem is that we’ve become focused on single entities and platforms instead of protocols.

      From the linked article on Mastodon [theverge.com]:

      Rochko envisioned something more like email, or RSS: a distributed system that lets you send public messages to anyone who follows you on the service.

      If a major email service provider started censoring emails or doing stupid things with its interface, email wouldn’t die. People would ditch that email provider for one that’s not run by idiots. The same goes for RSS. I still use both actively.

      Mastodon has a main hub run by the creator, but anyone can setup their own Mastodon server and send and receive messages through it. Ideally, lots of independent Mastodon instances will spring up just like email and IRC servers. Then there won’t be one major organization that can fail.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:15PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:15PM (#667257)

    Didn't the porn industry help drive the victory of VHS over betamax, and the spread of high speed internet? It drove the adoption of file sharing and BitTorrent too.

      So now it might drive the adoption of distributed social networks. Maybe in a century historians will declare that the human sex drive saved us from 1984 :)

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 15, @01:28PM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday April 15, @01:28PM (#667263)

      The sex drive is the creator of all, God - if you will.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 15, @05:56PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @05:56PM (#667329) Journal

        The sex drive is the creator of all, God - if you will.

        So that's what those mean who say "God is pure love"! :-)

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @03:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @03:54PM (#667288)

    is, unlike Twitter, you can block the entire sex robot spam hq (Switter), or not. Otherwise, most instances are small enough to be policed more diligently than Twitter and there's very little spam, just people trying to communicate and share common interests.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:51PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:51PM (#667307)

    It's so much better to use technology to defeat censorship than it is to argue about it. This way we can leave the tyrants behind to wallow in their sorrow. Whenever we hear about the authorities blocking a service anywhere on the globe, let's see some good news about how people get around the blockage. We need to rub the gov/corp's nose in their own shit. Let's use our great powers to take away the advantage, not further it.

    • (Score: 2) by leftover on Sunday April 15, @06:03PM

      by leftover (2448) on Sunday April 15, @06:03PM (#667334)

      A truly insightful constructive comment and ./me freshly out of mod points.

      --
      Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @08:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @08:21PM (#667374)

      Soon, that will be restricted knowledge (it already is in some parts of the world.. talking about how, is just as bad as doing it.. )

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:26AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:26AM (#667467)

      Let's use our great powers to take away the advantage, not further it.

      "With great power comes great . . ." Oh, my, it's a libertarian rent-a-boy! They are so cute when they are cyber-angry!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @01:17PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @01:17PM (#667609)

      Using tech instead of arguing means you'll always lose. Tech becomes illegal or restricted, goes underground, and that community slowly dies as fewer and fewer new members join and society becomes in denial about the issue. Arguing means whatever it was becomes legal, then you can use tech to advance it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @09:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @09:21PM (#667803)

        False dichotomy. You need to argue while also flagrantly ignoring unjust laws. If people can easily violate the law, then that gives you even more ammo since you can argue that it is useless as well as unjust.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, @08:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, @08:24PM (#668286)

        No, the only discussion needed is over the best technology to make censorship impractical/impossible. Something that can't be restricted in any way. Statutory regulation is merely something to be circumvented, don't care how it's done, just that it gets done in some fashion that can't be controlled by fascist authoritarians.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @02:23AM (#667465)

    So they let sheep on the internets down under, now? I hope they're dipped, or you might catch something.

(1)