Because the AI isn’t needed, and would be computationally expensive.

Extensions like ublock origin and sponsorblock work just fine.

Yeah - that was a hard watch…

Air bud.

I had a golden retriever growing up, and he was the best friend I could have asked for. Seeing the dog in peril (I don’t really remember the movie now) was too much, and I lost it.

FWIW, I had a similarish experience with my local Craigslist equivalent (Gumtree)… They had a security breach, which led to my barely-used account being hacked by someone that was posting (I assume) fake car listings.

I reported it to them, and their response was to blacklist me. No great loss - why would I want to use a platform that badly managed. I later worked with one of their mid-level managers from that period, and yeah-it was an absolute shitshow there.

Surely it’d have to be a little goatee…

Macarthayism was a hell of a drug.

You mean to tell me that a company that engaged in red scare marketing is now engaged in hyper-capitailist behaviour to fuck their consumers to make a buck? The shock.

It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.

If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?

Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.

Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven’t bitten that bullet.

So you were wrong when you said that not all censorship is bad.

If paedophilia were legalised, you’d defend it? If not, why would you raise legality in a conversation about morality?

I don’t know what you’re trying to control for, but I’m trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You’ve got nothing to contribute other than hoping there’s someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they’ve committed that genocide.

Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.

You’re stopping that expression - it’s censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can’t pretend it’s not censorship.

distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.

Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don’t know why you’d raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don’t think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.

Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.

Please don’t make me put a dictionary in front of you.

This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples’ freedoms, it harms peoples’ freedom to tolerate that behaviour.

Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that’s currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it’s moronic.

Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn’t censorship - got it.

Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their “thought” while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?

Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.

I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they’ve stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They’ll be raping children at this event - it’s our patriotic duty to stop them!

I think you’re confused about thought - it’s got nothing to do with anything I said.

Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences.

What’s the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what’s more serious than genocide?

They’re not leftists - they’re just red-coded fascists.

The clearest evidence of this is the total disregard for worker enfranchisement and meaningful decommodification.

All censorship is bad?

Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?

Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom.

It’s the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don’t fuck with the freedoms of others.

Being locked up is a pretty charitable assumption about what will happen given the Nazis’ history and current rhetoric.

It’s not as though the article is any better - bots just wrapping up a comment thread from twitter, cramming it with ads, and presenting it as an article.

Late stage capitalist media is a dumpster fire.

I haven’t played it, so I may be wrong, but isn’t banner lords a bit like this - not Greek, and I assume you start with more status than a foot soldier, but it may be worth a look.