Not included in this article- Kavanaugh’s decision includes a footnote which states this only applies to trans women, not trans men.

I mean this is a list of people actively being intolerant of the world… paradox of tolerance applies here.

Really jumping to conclusions there, lmao. Dogs have been human hunting partners for thousands of years. Do you know what they are trained to do? Find the thing and bring it to a human. Of course they’re going to find the thing and bring it to a human. To extrapolate that cats won’t help you because they are uninterested in finding the thing unless there’s something in it for them? huge leap of logic.

they’re framed as new problems

I think the framing is more that it’s increasing

29% of Barnardo’s frontline practitioners said they were seeing more children affected by misogynistic content online, compared to the year before. 29% also said they were seeing an increase in child-on-child sexual abuse and / or children displaying problematic or harmful sexual behaviour, compared to the year before.

Which I think is both a fair assessment and entirely predictable given the concerted attacks on women’s rights going on across many countries by conservative parties right now. In addition to letting men’s hate speech run rampant (red pill, incel, tradwife type stuff), they’re also attacking trans women (notably not trans people, as 100% of the narrative is focused on trans women) which opens the door to transvestigation which is just blatant misogyny targeted at those who don’t conform to what is essentially tradwife goalposts.

They have cameras my dude

An interesting read. It never struck me as something that needed researching - the obvious bias baked into any and all tests which utilize language and probe at abstract ideas like feelings. It seems obvious to me that the idea of “sadness” is both inherently as well as culturally determined. For anyone who’s dealt with individuals with varying amounts of alexithymia its glaringly obvious that some of the standard questions such as “feeling down, depressed, or hopeless” (PHQ9) would be interpreted differently, let alone questions in which context is crucially important such as “poor appetite or overeating” (PHQ9) or “being so restless that it is hard to sit still” (GAD7 - a test about anxiety) that are common on these kinds of questionnaires. Perhaps its because my interaction and discussions with clinicians tends to be folks who are focused more on the total mental wellness of someone than they are about the specific answers to a question and are using the context of the patient’s other conditions and affect to assess, but this hardly seems groundbreaking… except that perhaps the literature on this itself is minimal. Perhaps this kind of clinical awareness has been handed down, rather than studied, and the corpus of literature needs to be enhanced so that more can learn and absorb it.

having entire generation never start smoking

Yes because making drugs illegal stops them from ever being used😂

these bans are actively targeting only children

Quite literally true of many of the examples I brought up? I’m confused about where you are going with this. I was merely pointing out that something being done “for the children” is disingenuous framing. There is no merit in discrimination. If it was truly to protect them when they are children because children can’t make the decisions with the same brain that adults make decisions with, then the ban would expire when they reach adult age. But it’s not actually about that; it’s about the fact that they can’t ban it for adults and by claiming it’s there to protect children they can gain political capital and will to ban it. It’s effective legislative incrementalism against a difficult foe (big tobacco). I think limiting big tobacco is good, and I think cigarettes are bad, but I don’t agree with this particular application because of the flawed framing - it opens up the ability for others to legislate in areas they shouldn’t be legislating, or to use the same framework and claim its for the same reasons without it meeting the same criteria.

conflating it with other issues is a classic conservative trope

Are you saying that pointing out the framing is flawed is a conservative trope?

A full ban would cause serious political problems

Yes they’re selling it under the guise that one group is being “protected” because they ought to be protected and another group does not need this protection, which is a form of discrimination. They do this because they know they don’t have the political capital to ban it for everyone, because many adults value the ability to make choices about their own health, well-being, and what vices they wish to partake in.

New Zealand has already enacted such a law, without seemingly much blowback.

It’s pretty easy to enact laws on a small group when they have limited participation or voice in governmental affairs.

For what it’s worth I’m not against this legislation, but I am critical of it. Big tobacco is bad. Cigarettes are bad. But this kind of “save the children” mentality often leads to a lot of corrupt and incorrect decisions and legislation. Alcohol is objectively even worse, and yet we’re not banning that. Why? Will similar legislation try to capitalize on this and ban things like nicotine in general (almost certainly, despite nicotine being a relatively harmless substance in comparison). Worse yet, will they try to ban things like gender affirming care, or other objectively good things because there is a moral purity angle? I suspect so.

My favorite part about this is that it’s targeted at a specific age demographic, rather than a full-on ban. Love the cowardice. Ban it for all ages or don’t ban it at all you absolute morons.

It’s really annoying how they discount how boys can be a vector as well. Yes, HPV generally doesn’t cause cancer in men, but being able to transfer it to girls means its a good idea to vaccinate them as well! Not to mention the other ways in which HPV can effect men. Public health is so frustrating sometimes.

You either didn’t understand my comment or whatever the case is here.

Please, feel free to explain what you meant.

I am saying that your or others gender should not be a factor deciding how games are developed.

Yes and you’ll see my removal comment states “‘games where it doesn’t belong’ you don’t get to decide what an artist does with their art”. This was true. This is true. Your statement above is clearly dictating that gender should not be a factor (or sexual identity, or frankly any other identity such as race or ability). If an artist decides it should be a factor, then that is up to them. You don’t get to dictate what the art should be.

Hey there,

No one said you had to enter this thread. Ignore it if you don’t want to participate in the discussion. Don’t force your opinion on others. Queer folks aren’t going to feel safe in this space if you kick down their door and tell them to shut up.

This solves nothing, the exact same people will just move to another company.

The only way to effectively stop this kind of behavior is with regulation. The following types of regulation can help curb this behavior:

1. Steep financial penalties for violations that are actually enforced. These need to be anchored directly to total value or profitability over a certain time frame. A specific number value will easily be outpaced by consolidation and gigantic companies can basically ignore them. Even a 100 million dollar fine can be ignored by companies the size of Amazon, Nvidia, and so forth. The EU has been good at architecting this kind of legislation.
2. Strong rewards for whistle blowing on criminal behavior. Note that this is not prosecution of individuals responsible for said behavior because it will be very difficult to prove this in court and utilizing simple information warfare tactics, folks can be glass cliffed, made into patsies, or otherwise obscured from any record of their involvement or require extreme in-depth investigations to figure out.
3. Strong criminal prosecution for repeat offenders and funding for real investigations of any company who has been found liable of any penalties or suspected of bad behavior. Some people hop from company to company doing the same thing over and over again. When we are focused on the companies rather than the people behind such bad behavior, they get a slap on the wrist at most and continue to do damage to society. We need to more aggressively profile and prosecute individuals with a track record of malicious behavior. As already mentioned, this is unfortunately the most difficult of the above to both legislate and enforce as what is considered “malicious” behavior is up for debate and difficult to quantify.

A bit strongly negative on phone use in general, but I’d say it’s a good overview of why most major social media websites (with algorithmic recommendations being a heavy handed component of one’s feed) are bad and why the traditional method (time-based sorting with subscriptions or feed curation) are better although not perfect.

It could be the person was already in a problematic situation with family and friends, and they just need to blame someone or something and don’t want to admit the real problems. Kind of what often happened back in the day with videogames getting blamed for killing humans.

This is not a fair analogy for what is going on here. Video games being blamed harkens back to times when music or other counter cultural media was blamed for behavior. We have a lot of literature which shows that the passive consumption of media doesn’t really affect someone in the ways which they were being blamed. From the beginning, this argument lacked a logical or hypothetical framework as well - it was entirely based on moral judgement values by certain individuals in society who simply “believed” that these were the cause.

AI on the other hand, interacts back with you, and amplifies psychosis. Now this is early days and most of what we have is theoretical in nature, based off case-studies, or simply clinical hypothesis [1, 2, 3]. However, there is a clear difference in media itself - the chatbot is able to interact with the user in a dynamic way, and is programmed in a manner by which to reinforce certain thoughts and feelings. The chatbot is also human-seeming enough for a person to anthropomorphize the chatbot and treat it like an individual for the purposes of therapy or an attempt at emotional closeness. While video games do involve human interaction and a piece of media could be designed to be psychologically difficult to deal with, that would be hyper-specific to the media and not the medium as a whole. The issues with chatbots (the LLM subset of AI) is pervasive across all chatbots because of how they are designed and the populace they are serving.

we could end up in a society where everyone undermines real problems in physical world and blames Ai to sideload the question

This is a valid point to bring up, however, I think it is shortsighted when we think in a broader context such as that of public health. We could say the same about addictive behaviors and personalities, for example, and absolve casinos of any blame for designing a system which takes advantage of these individuals and sends them down a spiraling path of gambling addiction. Or, we can recognize that this is a contributing and amplifying factor, by paying close attention to what is happening to individuals in a broad sense, as well as smartly applying theory and hypothesis.

I think it’s completely fair to say that this kid likely had a lot of contributing factors to his depression and ultimate and final decision. There is a clear hypothetical framework with some circumstantial evidence with strong theoretical support to suggest that AI are exacerbating the problem and also should be considered a contributing factor. This suggests that regulation may be helpful, or at the very least increased public awareness of this particular technology having the potential to cause harm to certain individuals.

Great article. I laugh at the folks who think this dude is bought into the fantasy that some folks have turned into what best represents a spirituality. As in if they haven’t seen folks who go a little too hard in any one specific part of their life. Sure, gooning as a term has long since entered the cultural zeitgeist and has been used, both ironically and not, as a way to simply now refer to excessive masturbation. But to discount that there is a loneliness epidemic out there and folks who have turned to gooning as some form of extreme kink or outlet for some need for human connection and healing, going 24/7 like many dom/sub relationships or cnc, ferality, etc. shows either a lack of exposure to the vastness of this damaged world or an attempt to poke fun at the author for seriously studying a cultural phenomenon. Either way, this is a fascinating look into a weird niche subculture and a really well written article. Thank you for sharing.

All it means is that the government cannot arrest you for saying somethnig

Actually, it means a lot more than that.

It means you’re entitled to a platform - that you can say things into a microphone to a large crowd gathered for any reason on federal land that’s open to individuals… including to talk about how other humans are deserving of hate. We don’t owe them a space to spread hate speech. We can do better.

like explicitly excluding yelling fire in a theater sent us down a worse path, I’m sure

Absolutely nothing about this is surprising to me in the least. What is surprising, however, is how much people recognize this is a serious problem that seems to continue to get worse, and yet people will insist that free speech is more important. We’ve placed restrictions on yelling fire in a theater when there is none, because it causes harm to society to do it. Why, similarly, can we not place restrictions on obviously hateful and intolerant speech? Certainly those which have larger platforms and opportunity to sew this intolerance and erode democracy should have more scrutiny, no?