/int/ - certified time wasters

I clicked the spoilered picture and I would like to un-click it, please. Remove it from my brain.

Censor this thread, thank you.

>>8131
i had nhentai in the back of my head, searched it real quick, first link, first image.
goal was to find a "mini-bar"-censor image.
2nd option would have been to look into some old today-threada and find the im-this-cat pic with mini-bar over eyes.

> "how useful is it, achtthuaraly?"

...

> 1.jpg is censored because of local law
> image is behind a spoiler tag
>>8131


... welp, what did you ackchyually expect to see in a thread about censorship?

ima do some research about the broader context of the image. starting with the work of art in which it was published.
it's all for science, Ernst. i am assuming some cyborg-sex-bot stuff analyzing the image. would you like me to report?

>>8131
What exactly is so bad about OP picture?

>>8135
It is all that is wrong in this world.

>>8136
How so?

to come back to the topic of the thread a bit:

when the vid discussed the censorship on video games it mentioned that in germany only the commercialization got outlawed.
which, funnily, parallels the mentioned ad-blocker.

i would have no problem with state (or other over-arching-systems) censoring stuff as long as it only affects the commercial use of said stuff.

for smaller inter-action areas you usually need a form of moderation anyway (be it image-board, livestream-chat or whatev) and rules are community driven.
there still might be some edge-cases... e.g. copyright stuff... should we open that can as well?

>>8138
Censorship is bad, always, no exceptions, if you disagree you're a convert fascist.

Now back to the hentai.

>>8139
> Censorship is bad, always, no exceptions, if you disagree you're a convert fascist.
*cough* since you argue in absolute, you allow me to flip your statement. i can therefor look at the other side of that coin and conclude that you think it should be possible to freely share and even make commercial profit with cheese pizza?

> Now back to the hentai.
What about drawn cheese pizza or A.I. generated stuff?
why do pro-censorship shills always bring up cheese pizza?

>>8140
Why would I object to selling cheese pizza?
Oh, wait, you're self-censoring like the fool you are and actually talking about child pornography!
And to you apparently censorship is the same as opposing morally wrong practices!
Which in turn would mean that censorship is always justified because it always targets morally wrong practices. So basically you're saying that the nazi book burnings were right and that freedom of speech only helps criminals.
This is getting better and better.

>>8142
> And to you apparently censorship is the same as opposing morally wrong practices!
hey, i wasn't the one starting with those absolutes.

i merely tried to point out, that it is a useful tool to use as such. any tool can be misused, as well; of course.

Censorship is bad, but could you imagine how much better everyone's psyche would be if all German posts had to be pre-approved by a human?

>>8144
>hey, i wasn't the one starting with those absolutes.
You aren't making any sense, your example was dumb.

>i merely tried to point out, that it is a useful tool to use as such.
No, it isn't. Not every interruption of communication is "censorship". When I put my fingers into my ears when a baby next to me is screaming, it's not censorship, in the same way using an adblocker is not censorship.

This is just some demagogery trying to re-define a term and make it more palatable.
This whole discussion is retarded, this thread is silly, you are silly.

>>8130
(1)
We shouldn't mix adblock (when you control what you see) with government censorship (when other people control what you see). These are two qualitatively different situations. Corporate censorship would be somewhere in between, leaning to first case with family busyness and to second with huge monopolies.

(2)
For self-imposed censorship: we live in epoch of hyperinformation. Value of information is plummeting and often becomes negative. I'd like to see media those selling point is not "we're reporting everything" but "we're reporting only important news". Many of them start to publish "digests" (but still too much unnecessary info).

(3)
If government forbids you to label margarine as butter, that's certainly not censorship. But certain campaigns that claim to fight "misinformation" certainly are censorship. Where is the border?

>>8145
you have it the wrong way around.
you have to have scripts running, approving human content. preferably state-driven, thou i would prefer an anarchistic approach: everyone has his own ai running for his personal cyber space...auto filtering shills, that is human content paid with bling bling, bot-content spam, ads and maybe even personal interaction based blocks because of some toxic-bullshit spamming you because you wiped his base in a game clean or something.

human approval isn't feasible anymore. we are long past that point.

>>8139
Can censorship be defended from utilitarian position? Imagine a barrel of gunpowder tier country, like Yugoslavia. Is it reasonable for such country to have hate speech laws? Freedom to say "Serbians/Croatians are morons" is cool but it's not worth meat grinder of civil war.

>>8153
>only important
Who defines what's important? One person's "cool to know" is another's "my life depends on it".

>>8156
If those people are willing to kill each other over mere words, maybe we should consider a much deeper lying problem existing.

>>8157
Same as these days, newspaper editorial staff. It's just that their bar for relevance of news will become and should become higher with time.

>>8153
>Where is the border?

I have no interested in reading this thread, it appears to be of low quality but from what I#ve gathered so far it is badly in need of makinf a difference between practices of filtering and censorship as these seem to be regarded as the same thing, which they aren't.

>>8161
>will become and should becom
Cute, really cute.

>>8153
> We shouldn't mix adblock (when you control what you see) with government censorship (when other people control what you see). These are two qualitatively different situations.

aye. that certainly is an important distinction to make.

to answer the
> what you control
part, i would pretty much put an absolute here. do whatev or don't. it's absolutely up to you and your personal taste.

to answer the
> what others control
part,... you already pointed to an important problem in analyzing this: misinformation.
and
> Where is the border?
can even be seen in advertisements. especially TV ads, online the lines are a little bit more blurred and it has been a long time since i encountered a lot of ads... in general. but i still have some ad-compilation-vids in the back of my head :3

every country/community draws their own lines.

>>8162
> it is badly in need of makinf a difference between practices of filtering and censorship as these seem to be regarded as the same thing, which they aren't.
i am assuming you didn't watch the vid.

iirc, and you might wanna doublecheck it, since i smoked some weed since,...

somewhere in the very beginning it it mentioned that the word originated from the old greek job of an censor. who's job it was to filter... and try to evaluate property

so... uhm... gif

but, ye... words change in their meaning over time.
also see >>8153 > >>8167

>>8159
Maybe.

Then imagine another situation. In a parallel universe covid is really dangerous while vaccines against it are safe and effective. In such hypothetical situation would it be justified to censor antivaxers in order to save many lives?

>>8175
i would answer that with an:

> if they are getting paid to said it, or trying to somehow make money with it. e.g.claiming another distributers warez are badbad

if they are just stupid? let 'em be.

> But Ernst, how do you know the person in question isn't "just stupid" and the bling bling just randomly correlated? that's no proof of causation.

>>8176
> let 'em be.
So saving millions of lives for you is less important than freedom to say that vaccines will make you controlled by 5G towers?

>>8177
i don't quite follow why you always insist on your premise.

This thread sucks. This is now a tiddy thread.

>>8189
no

>>8190
Oh yes? What are you gonna do?(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>8190
Okay, we made the joke, now I need to know what the "no" was referring to:
The tiddies or the "this is now a thread"?

>>8189
Fuck yeah!

Please do not derail thread with tiddyposting, thank you. Since this begs the question if tiddyposting/NSFW content in general should be allowed on /int/, I will open a thread for that.

>>8196
Not the same mod, but pretty sure it referred to the tiddies.

>>8228
since the confusion >>8229 seems to be resolved, we can go back to tiddie posting.

OP clearly intended this to be a tiddy thread. To proof my case i've attached a picture out of the same work OP's picture originated from. Here we can see an arrow pointing on tiddies with the text exposition "Big".

>>8189
> This thread sucks.
I think you mention an interesting point in >>8250
> a picture that didn't even contain any nudity
on the one hand: nudity is certainly the most common "censorship" topic we come across. no matter what exact definition of the word we are currently using...
and... if you wanna censor something, you have the problem of well-defining that something. e.g. why nudity? why not censor sexual poses/acts (even with clothes) but don't care about functional nudity?

y u think threda suck, thou? t. OP T_T

In case anyone is interested in reading the hentai from 1.jpg

tl;dr: do not recommend.

the author has a few works released all with pretty much the same theme of robot/android. boring stories, ok-ish images. Didn't dig too deep, since boring. One work seems to features small tiddies. i am assuming the author has released more stuff under different names and uses this alias to experiment with some scenes and fetishes. As an example scene I've attached two images from the same scene to analyze.

here we can see the droid requesting her "getting-destroyed"-fetish, which is rationalized with malfunctions signaling her arousal and sexual pleasure. the actual act is depicted relatively tame. the droid never has visual damage done to it; it is implied via text exposition.
idk what it is, but the story and the images seem to mismatch. e.g. because it is community demanded content or some writer got a ghost-drawer via bling bling or something. And i wouldn't even wanna read a better executed version of that story-trope. either make it more tame and have a little pain-fetish, or go further the other direction...

overall really not worth my time/10

On the topic of censorship, I just found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl_revision_controversy
They use "sensitivity readers", i.e. easily offended people, to find potentially offending parts, and change the texts accordingly.

>Some changes focused on race and ethnicity. Numerous changes were made to the use of colour descriptions, whether in reference to skin colour (a character having a face "white with horror", becoming "agog with horror") or otherwise (a person saying something "darkly", which is changed to "mysteriously").
>References to lack of privilege were sometimes altered, such as removing a description of Sophie as "a little orphan of no real importance in the world" from The BFG.
>Other changes focused on words that in British English usage have taken on more vulgar associations, such as horny and fanny.
>Following the announcement, e-book copies of Dahl's works were automatically updated.

At least they got backlash for it and continue publishing the original texts, but holy shit, this is some 1984/that South Park episode with the Spielberg/Lucas Special Editions tier changing of history.

>>8376
i see some parallels to this typical re-interpretation of religious texts to fit current times and morals.
> no, no! you are reading it wrong! it actually refers to [...]
gosh, please! there are literal dragons mentioned in the bible; just accept you have been basing your morals and ethics on a fucking fictional book. without further judgement. fictional books might have interesting moral guidelines within them.

>Following the announcement, e-book copies of Dahl's works were automatically updated.
did i read that correctly: if you had an internet connection, your private book-copy was altered without your consent? or did this just refer to the store version? checked the wiki... it was the former. what. the. actual. fuck?

...

about the general topic of censorship:

we kinda have to analyze what we are referring to with the word of "censorship".
e.g. is it a neutral word like "luck" in english: you can have bad or good luck.
or is "censorship" automatically associated with a certain connotation?
e.g. like the german differentiation between "Glück" (good luck) and "Pech" (bad luck)

most of the time censorship is associated with power abuse.

my intention was to keep the topic more open. so i interpreted "censorship" without any connotation. but, because of the general use of the word, this might have been a misleading title of the thread and something like "the act of filtering information" would have been moar appropriate. then again, to stimulate interaction, it is usually useful to have a controversial and/or badly defined topic. at least for the neuro-typical; not sure how this relates to Ernst
on the other hand, such a title would prolly not include other things, i - personally !! - would broadly categorize under the label of "censorship". that is:
- intellectual property (IP)
- copyright

i do understand, that these concepts are designed to stimulate in the context of a commercialized society. but why expand the law to include non-commercial sharing of said information?
... and, gosh, why do we expand the time frame again and again? e.g. the IP of "Star Wars" got purchased by Disney... why can't we just agree that it has been "long enough" that anyone can publish a star-wars-fan-fiction for commercial purposes?

i really like to imagine my own thought experiments and follow throu with an "what if ...?".
[...]

>>8516
[...]

For example:
personally, i think NO information should be censored completely. if i want, i should be able to access any information there is.
rules and laws shouldn't affect the personal freedom of gaining and accessing information.
and, yes, this includes every possible information.

if we, for the purpose of a thought experiment, just accept - as a premise !! - that "the system" can't / doesn't censor any information, what problems accrue? what solutions for these problem you can up with?

e.g. the, more or less light-ish, topic of IP and copyright - can anyone just copy and share? what about financial gain/commercial use?
the premise just included the information itself. the law/rules could still limit commercial sharing. e.g. it is legal to share IP/copyright material, but only the IP/copyright holder is allowed to get financial gain. if you try to put other's IP behind a paywall, it would be a crime.
and another thing a lot of ppl mentioned, when i shared this idea, was something along the lines of
> welp, what if i just take someone else's work and present it as mine?
i don't even think we need any new rules/laws for this scenario: it already is fraud and still would be.

a more serious problem i see arising with such a rule:
> what if nobody pays for the work anymore because anyone is allowed to share IP for free?
yes, this might threaten some industries like hollywood. but are those worth saving, if they can't sustain themselves within "a free society"? i assume the quantity of works would decrease; not confident in judging the influence on the quality, thou...
i am also a big fan of "bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen" conditionless base-income?, which would prolly be a big boon for artistic creativity - but that is a whole nother topic.
i think a societal consensus, which kinda already exists(?), that you should support artist of works you enjoy via donations (or something, depending on your personal means...) is necessary in such a system.
or, welp, entertainment might die... thou, i think no matter what system you put the human in, he will still find a way to entertain his ppl.

and... a rly serious problem, where i am myself not rly confident in my "solution", would be information like child pornography.
if we can't censor any information, how do we handle such things?
my current idea is, instead of removing information, how about accessing such information can only be done via creating more information?
concrete: you have a public accessible resource, but you can only access it via this platform and personal sharing is outlawed. if you want to access this information you have to enter your real name and reason for accessing said information. such reasons could be:
> am police, need to analyze
or
> developing A.I. which can identify ppl via posture, body language and other tangible information and wanna cross reference with other publicly available imagery for identification purposes.
... or something like
> wanna fap
... if someone accesses the database a lot with the latter reason... might be useful to send a doctor to visit that person. and cut of benis and/or sterilize via drugs

welp, what problems, if any, does Ernst see if there would be no "other ppl decided" censorship?

>>9392
> #Worldwide
> ##Bicycles
> The episode "Bicycles" and all episodes featuring characters riding in cars were edited after their initial broadcasts to make the characters wear helmets in the former and seat belts in the latter.

And as always:
censorship is used to misrepresent reality.

Proofs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RQrKP9a0XE
How many helmets can you count? And what percentage or ratio of all cyclist is wearing a helmet?

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=KMLMQRS3Krk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMLMQRS3Krk)[~15min]
> even the FBI says: "use an Ad-Blocker."
so does our government.

>>10813
> 1.png
First time I've seen advertisement in a very, very long time while browsing/lurking. Chances are high the person responsible for propagating said advertisement didn't even get any financial gain for doing so.

>>9147
> EC has fallen
It do be like that.mp4