>>102514
>The thing is that as I understand it, the lack of space is something that came about because of phone posting.
Pish. It's easier to press return on my phone than on a computer and I've also always posted like this.

>>102515

It's certainly more fiddly to edit things once you have written them out on a phone, and it is largely to blame for the decline in general grammar standards you get in internet posts these days. We are largely an exception here, but having been a user of imageboards and forums and all the rest of it since the early 00s, I think it holds true that phone posting has a lot to answer for.

>>102514 "YOU FOOL I WAS ONLY ACTING LIKE I AM RETARDED, I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU FELL FOR IT, EVERYONE WHO REMEMBERS BRITCHAN WOULD UNDERSTAND"

Jimmy Savile has urged Technology Secretary Peter Kyle to "do the right thing and apologise" after he suggested that by opposing the government's online safety law, the Jim'll Fix It leader was on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile.

Kyle told Sky News the law was a "huge step forward" for protecting children online, adding: "Make no mistake, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today he would be perpetrating his crimes online - and Jimmy Savile is on their side."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgery3eeqzxo

Only posting this because of the wordfilter, TBH.

>>102514
I'm not talking about art, I'm talking about he practical realities of what the internet is like to use. You weren't talking about art either, but you've pivoted to a bunch of empty rhetoric and lame put-downs for reasons I don't care to imagine.

I didn't engage with your post to have a dick measuring contest about which one of us is the betterer Andrei Tarkovsky or Mark Rothko fan, I did so because there was highly discordant aspect of your post, IE, the image betraying the text. Rather than offer any rationale for it you've pulled back the curtain to reveal that you were secretly doing art the whole time. Actually, before that you made a pointless comment about post formatting, as if .gs had it's own style guide. Regardless, you haven't explained how your new post-internet being full of notoriously bland and non-descript generative AI would be like "the good old days", which to my recollection were full of individuals and small groups hosting websites about topics ranging from sketch comedy, to bespoke pornography, to fashion mags, or film reviews. LLMs are only ever going to give you a simulracrum of that, at best, increasing even further the cultural stagnation we see all over popular media. You're not going to "vibe code" your way out of tech capital's obliteration of that world, you're ceding control five seconds after you've had the idea.

>It doesn't have to be emotions you want or like.
Wow, that's so incredibly profound. Did you go to Sixth From for that or are you self-taught?

>>102519

Transferrable concepts seem to be another thing you struggle with.

When I made the post I knew full well it would provoke exactly the response it did from somebody of your mindset, if not you personally, and I knowingly decided to attach the image regardless. You can insist all you want that I wasn't making a point in doing that, and you can legitimately claim it was pretentious that I did.

ut just like I suspected, you are actually more interested in just having a baddie du hour and how I am being so insufferably condescending. And I know that I am. But I am trying to get you to see past all of this. There's much more to it that you are only taking the face value of.

>>102520

*Having a go at.

See, there's me getting caught by the phone posting dilemma.

>>102520
Are you dense? I never expressed confusion, what I've done is repeatedly ask for clarification about your vision of the Second World Wide Web, and how generative AI helps with that, when it is more liekly to be diamatrically opposed to it. I know you cited an imaginary peanut gallery that wholly agrees with you earlier, but 1) it wouldn't matter if they did, and 2) that's not an argument for your idea in any case.

"Insufferable condescension" isn't what you're doing. What you're doing is repeatedly stepping on rakes that I haven't even laid out for you, all in a bizarre attempt to get one over on someone who wanted to know more about what exactly it was your were talking about. You're having a one way fight, and if you don't actually have any vision of the future to talk about then we can leave it here.

If all you wanted was for me to "snap" and call you a cunt, save us both the time and just ask. It's no skin off my back.

>>102518
>Kyle refused to back down after Savile's criticism, saying on social media: "If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that."

Can we really just go around calling people carpet-bagger-enablers now?

>>102523

It's a Great British tradition.

To avoid triggering the lad who hates AI, I will now ask you to imagine the following image: A title card for a Channel 4 light entertainment programme called "The Great British carpet-bagger Hunt". To the left of the image, Kriss Akabusi is pinning down an elderly lollipop man and Brendan from Coach Trip is pulling out his teeth with pliers. Kriss is roaring with laughter, while Brendan looks serious but is visibly erect. To the right of the image, Jo Frost is encouraging a group of distraught children to watch. The border of the frame is decorated with Union Jack bunting.

>>102522

AI itself isn't bad. AI being controlled by the corpos and the way the corpos will seek to use it, is bad. AI by itself has plenty of scope for the kind of homebrew, DIY tinkering and geekery that the glory days of the internet were so memorable for. People like that using AI, will still bring you plenty of memorable and enjoyable content, for the greater good of us all. People with creative drive and imagination behind them. People who don't just incessantly whinge at every innovation because "hurr tech bro slop slop tech bro slop slop".

Largely, the people jumping on that particular bandwagon are jumping on it far too late, when the damage was already done when they were doing the soyjack meme over streamking services and social media platforms, which the same people eagerly lapped up as it was shovelled down their greedy slop hungry maws. They loved it then, but now, oh now they cry out for quality artisanal sourdough organic wholegrain memes and tier list videos, do they.

But no I shan't be rising to that thing you are doing where you demand I jump through a hoop to satisfy whatever condition of rising to the argument I wasn't even having in the first place. I made a post to provoke you to think about a concept, and all you came back with was "but AI", and there's only so many times I can rephrase "but what m8".

>>102525

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCIo4MCO-_U

>>102492
They are going to debate it, they have to.
This shit is being reported on places.

And I think this is the vote for the final draft bill, and the results actually were 320 - 178 against, opposition went quite far along party lines.
https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1926

SO don't give up hope.
By the way this is OP, the angry bastard at the top of this thread. I hope I didn't encourage any pessimism with my raging.

>>102537
Thanks for the legwork, s'good to know we have people on it.

I'm honestly mixed about the porn, but the overreach we're seeing, particularly soft censoring/monitoring of public happenings, is concerning. I literally cannot view footage of recent public protest and disorder without applying an ID to my viewing or downloading arguably suspicious tools.
Where would we be without gems like pictured?

Porn and net-sex in particular - I'm hearing stories from other countries of vulnerable people being groomed into what can only be described as sexual slavery. It's a legit concern considering how freely accessable many popular networks are. You've surely all heard of the Discord campaigns some users talk about over at /the other place/, and how they discuss targetting the vulnerble to enlist in their cause.

One thing that came to my attention the other night is that this isn't just us- Basically every other Western country has their own version of this in the works. To me that really puts paid to the idea it was ever abut "protecting the children" at all, even if I was ever willing to give that idea a charitable consideration and didn't just assume it was about censorship/giving more of our data to corpos. But the fact every other first world "democratic" country is rushing to being in their own version should tell you what it's all about.

Governments were slow on the uptake with the internet. They didn't realise what it was at first, then when they realised, they didn't know what they could do. But then slowly but surely, they've been watching in horror as it dismantles the "proper" order of things- ie the establishment, the reliable two party system where power never really changes hands, all of that stuff that you lot except you RoryStewartlad, I suppose, but you are an exceptionally stupid fucking prick already understand by now. They've finally found sufficiently powerful private sector actors to come in and do the dirty work of dismantling internet freedom for them.

The US is running their own version of it through Yank Parliament as we speak, from what I understand, and if that goes through the internet as we know it really is fucked. Nevermind your bickering about AI slop or daft social media trends or woke crybullies or whatever else. That will be the end of the fundamental premise that you can go on the internet and just say shit. And that's bad for us all, because we all know real freedom of speech has been dead in real life for a long time, and the internet was its only remaining hold out.

I've always been a die hard lefty but if there's one thing I think my "team" were always in the wrong about, it's the fucking stupid wankers who allowed free speech to be curtailed and mocked the right wingers who attempted to defend it. Regardless what side of the spectrum you sit on freedom of expression has to be one of the most base, fundamental, sacrosanct things we hold as valuable in any truly free or democratic society. And we are watching it die in front of our eyes.

>>102539
Concerns about sexual exploitation are fine. Laudable, even. The problem is this law does exactly fuck all to address that problem. The kind of horrid websites and individuals that would enable and encourage that behavior don't give a rat's arse about the law, given that they're already breaking far more serious laws to begin with. So it winds up being a bit like trying to stop a serial killer by bringing in harsher sentences for breaking and entering.

I'm loathe to give people homework, but the most recent 404 Media Podcast has very good coverage, which amounts to a recap of their reporting on other juristiction's attempts to "block porn". I'd recommend listening to it, and while the Online Safety Act stuff starts 26 minutes in, the coverage of the Tea app data breach is probably worth listening to as well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q17GRPq7K3o

>>102543

>the Tea app data breach

Oh yeah, I've heard this mentioned a couple of times now. Let's say I don't want to listen to your video but I would rather read one of you chaps tell me what the long and short of it is, who will take up the challenge?

>>102544
Most of what I know, I read here, so there's not much point repeating it: it's an app for women to upload pictures of men they're dating, and other women can warn them if the man is a known rapist or predator. This form of anonymous social-media gossiping never works out well, so all men everywhere are throbbing with schadenfreude about Tea getting hacked, but the fundamental idea is a commendable one if you happen to be immensely naive. To prevent naughty smelly boys from joining Tea as well, you need to upload a photo of yourself when you join, to prove you're female.

Hilariously, however, all these photos of every single woman who uses Tea were stored on a server that anyone could just visit in a web browser. It wasn't password-protected or anything. So somebody found this, and set up a web scraper to download every single photo of every single Tea user, which again, anybody could do, and now you can find the ~60GB file of these photos in various insalubrious corners of the Internet. Given the concurrent outrage over the Online Safety Act, this was the absolute worst timing imaginable for a site like this to get hacked (if it even counts as hacking). There's even a website which posts any two random Tea photos side-by-side, and you can vote on which user is better-looking. It has a leaderboard and everything, for the fittest (and another for the ugliest) users. Weirdly, though, the top-rated photo when I visited this site was just a photo of a can of Dr Pepper, so I don't see how that could have been used to prove its uploader was female.

>>102545
>Weirdly, though, the top-rated photo when I visited this site was just a photo of a can of Dr Pepper, so I don't see how that could have been used to prove its uploader was female.

God has a sense of humour.

>>102545
It's emblematic of the "longstanding issues" that are so often raised here that you assumed Dr. Pepper was a man.

>>102545

I legitimately had no idea that that's what the Tea app was, and if I had known that's what it was, I would have been especially shocked that it was the #1 app store app for a while. I've been staying out of the dating scene for the last couple of years and trying my best to ignore any and all of the gender-pol poison, but fuck me. I want to like and trust women, but every new thing I learn about them, I like and trust them less.

I hope there's some self reflection on behalf of the lassm8s involved in all of that. It sounds like a mess.

I mean... doesn't the scraping and releasing of countless thousands of personal documents, that are then used explicitly for harrassment and mockery, rather prove the worst fears of the Tea app users correct? Isn't that a total vindication of the idea that men as a whole can't really be trusted? I'm not even saying I agree with that, but if you were already on the fence about how men behave towards women, I can't think of a better way to validate those feelings than having what has just happened, happen.

>>102551

That's assuming the hackers (or whatever you call it with however this happened) were even men, or instigated by men. Just for the sake of argument, let's imagine it was some woman who fell out with a bunch of other users of this app, well, it wouldn't be the first time in history women have backstabbed each other over gossip, would it.

But beyond that, no, I don't find that a coherent line of reasoning, for several other reasons.

>>102550
>I want to like and trust women, but every new thing I learn about them, I like and trust them less.

I reckon you need to take a step back from this a little. The kind of women on sites like this or those facebook groups are the people that you don't want anything to do with, at best they're women with massive trust issues and at worst they're the female version of an incel. It's a self-selection, the same as a woman who dumps you because her friends don't like your haircut or you never meet because she's prowling coffee shops and bars near the city for financebros.

This is one of those times when I wish we had women posting here who could back me up on this.

>>102551
It's really just ironic in a way. A site that existed as a massive invasion of privacy complete with faces and locations had its own data leaked.

If you wanted to lose faith in men then you could instead point to the male version that was made before the hack was shut down because lads on it immediately used it for revenge porn. Some people are mental and in a way maybe we should be glad because a world where these apps proliferate might be a dystopia.

>>102553

>The kind of women on sites like this or those facebook groups are the people that you don't want anything to do with, at best they're women with massive trust issues and at worst they're the female version of an incel.

I already agree with you, and that's the line I try to tell myself. But you can't really square that with the immense popularity the app enjoyed. So sure, maybe it's only the bitter psycho fem-chronics who used that app- But the evidence appears to be that bitter psycho fem-chronics is also a large proportion of women altogether. Know what I am saying?

It's not how I want it to be, but it is. Sometimes the world just isn't how we wish it was.

>If you wanted to lose faith in men then you could instead point to the male version that was made before the hack was shut down because lads on it immediately used it for revenge porn

This is another thing- I am unclear on the answer, and I don't fancy looking- But didn't the women using this app also use it for "revenge porn"? Like, they publicly exposed dick pics and suchlike. That doesn't get called revenge porn, but to my mind the difference between those two activities is entirely semantic.

Anyway I think the thing is, it's not women in specific I dislike, I have always been a shy and introverted person who keeps my social life low key for exactly these reasons. I guess it's just that with men, I understand and I can relate to their banter, and I can spot what might turn into bullying. With women I just don't understand them and I can't feel safe opening up to them at all because it can be so unprovoked, go from warmth and sincerity to laughing at you behind your back on a dime.

Who hurt me? Everyone.

>>102552
You needn't find it as such, but I can tell you that it is.

>>102555

Well it's not.

>>102556
>Proposition: "Men can't be trusted to treat women with a modicum of respect"
>The opportunity to treat women appallingly appears
>Legions of men take this opportunity and gleefully encourage others to do so
>Others run cover for those that do or just think it's funny
>Ergo: "Men can't be trusted to treat women with a modicum of repsect"

>>102558
The Tea app was never about treating women with respect. It was about men using violence and abuse against women. Someone set up a website, purely because they know that’s exactly the sort of thing that the women on it would hate, but I am not aware of any Tea user being subjected to any violence whatsoever as a result of the hack.

>>102551

I'm willing to believe by the point they joined tea the cicular reasoning and the standards set high enough that, they wouldn't be capible of changing their position.

Men aren't capible of being nice only pretending to be nice, ect...

So I don't think it actually changed anything.

>>102560
You, I don't really understand what you're saying. Not every sentence needs a new paragraph.

>>102559
You, I think you've misunderstood what I've said.

Dang, it surely is most difficult being so right all the time. However, I must away to do exactly that in the three dimensional meatspace so I can't carry on here any longer. Try not to light any fires while I'm out!

>>102542
Yes we are.
Or, at least, we are watching it become incredibly difficult to do so without a reminder that we are being watched.

But people will always set up other sites in other places; the web starting was a pandora's box that can't be shut again, and that's a good thing.

Still, this needs to be stopped - phone your MPto complain, and send him a letter. ell him about stuff you've seen happen, all the stupid blocks. Phone your ISP and complain. Send emails to the contact pages for twitter, discord, or whatever sites you use. Or their contact form pages.

Phone your local ofcom office to complain.
Phone Mastercard(though that's a about the nudey games, a slightly different but related matter).

And organise other people to do it with you.

On that other website, tomorrow, efveryone's going to start phoning Mastercard to complain. Spread the word, and tell people to phone ofcom to complain as well. Phone multiple times. Be an annoying shit like they are to us.

Fight.

>>102543
Not to mention that the OSA allows for these companies to choose their own 'independent' age verification service, because if there's one thing you can do for your kids' safety, it's give their ID scans over to this man when they talk about his antisemitism.

Or his mate Donald who runs Truth Social and is a convicted sex offender. And likes to sue everyone who points that out.

If being against this law makes one a carpet-bagger, being for it makes Peter Kyle a Nazi, I suppose!

Peter, if you're reading this, if Jimmy was alive today he wouldn't be on social media - he'd be running it.

>>102558

Stop this. With this situation, it's a fairly straightforward case of those in glass houses, and the fallacy of treating a group as a monolith.

You surely don't think all women are band just because a group of them used an app that was purportedly for "safeguarding women", for purposes which were definitely not about that. By the same token it's not instantly all men proving how they can't be trusted or whatever it is, when they laugh at those people getting some karma back. There are innocents caught in the crossfire on both sides. The men who had nasty women gossiping about them for no reason, and the women who had their details leaked and made fun of for no reason.

For my part I only see defending the women involved as an example of how women never have ugly behaviours challenged. Any time they do, somebody is there willing to bend over for them, because women are wonderful innocent angels. Men do at least get called on it when they behave poorly to women.

Just so you lads are aware: This app was never released in the UK market. The tea that is being spilled is the greatest crime here.

>>102564

>If being against this law makes one a carpet-bagger, being for it makes Peter Kyle a Nazi, I suppose

As an argument for a law, it was as piss poor as they come. There were very sound and articulate objections to the bill from all sorts of sources, but the government chose to ignore them willfully almost 100 percent.

The ends don't always justify the means. If we're serious about government accountability, then you can't just brush off any and all criticism and accuse doubters of being closet paedos. In fact, that should be a red flag, that you have to resort to name calling instead of reasonably countering what, again, was quite often well founded criticism. And it's often this kind of hubris, where you think that nobody in their right mind can possibly be against your bill, which then leads to very poorly conceived laws.

>>102567
I don't know why, but it bothers me that Seppos say "spill the tea" instead of "spill the beans."

>>102567

Arguably it would have done less harm over here. Our chronics are less likely to shoot up a shopping centre if they find out women have been ridiculing them on the internet.

>>102571

Apparently it's unrelated and comes from gay lingo. Never liked it either way mind.

>>102565
First of all, you don't tell me to stop anything, ever. Secondly, I was not saying I personally think that, you dimwitted fucking cave ogre. What I said was that if you were already thinking along those lines, nothing regarding the leak will have disabused of that way of thinking. Indeed, it will have done quite the opposite.

Also, there's a world of difference between "gossip", and "having your entire identity leaked publically because the app you downloaded had more gaping holes than an extra from the film Cruising". You complain about women's behavior towards men, but if I have to read another one of your braindead, self-pitying, posts it's going move me to contributing to the male suicide epidemic. So, please, if you really want to help men, throw your keyboard in a skip.

>>102564
That's the other mad thing about this law, yeah. The idea that handing over personal data is fine even in the event it isn't leaked or hacked is such a joke. It was bad enough when tech oligarchs were pretending to be apolitical by bribing centrists to leave them alone, but now half of them are out in public asking "umm, what if we made the short film 'Slaughterbots' real? Wouldn't that be cool?". And who even vets these companies that checking your passport? Something we previously only entrusted to government employees and bar staff?

The way we make laws in the country does my fucking head in.

>>102561

I'm saying by the time a woman has joined the tea app the misandry has set in hard enough that, that arguments about how the hack would reinforce their position are irrelevant. They were already beyond the point of being willing to change having long established a self fulfilling prophecy, where men are incapable of good.

>>102576
Oh, no, not the scourge of "misandry". How about you fucking "blow me", you total gimp.

I mean, these days you can't even walk down the street without a lass shouting "ballbag!" or "moid!" at you. It's a wonder any lads go outside anymore.

>>102577
Is your brain broken? You surely understand there might be a distinction to be made between an average woman and a woman who joins a specific group built around the functional purpose of distrusting men? And what that says about their psyche.

>>102575
>First of all, you don't tell me to stop anything, ever.
By all means, let us continue this discussion about how men are perfectly fine and it's women being unreasonable or something.

>>102577
>>102575
>>102579

I'm not sure what anyone gets out of this lazy trolling, but clearly one or more people get their jollies out of winding people up in any conversation about men and women. That's even with the pains taken to highlight that it's only some men and some women, in this context. I'd like to think that .gs users can generally see through shite arguments and appeals to emotion like this.

>Also, there's a world of difference between "gossip", and "having your entire identity leaked publically because the app you downloaded had more gaping holes than an extra from the film Cruising".

The "gossip" literally involved sharing that same data (photographs, name, geographic location) among strangers with the very intention of people knowing their identities. I can't see anyone in this thread that argued the leak was a good thing, only that there is an irony to it.

>if I have to read another one of your braindead, self-pitying, posts it's going move me to contributing to the male suicide epidemic.

This is a revealingly crass and stupid thing to say. People like >>102577 think that misandry either doesn't exist or could only be the mirror image of stereotypically sexist behaviours toward women, like jeering at people or making demeaning sex-based remarks. Putting aside the fact that this does happen towards men and it's often not taken seriously, we should recognise that sexism can take different forms. Minimising the damage done by a gossip network primarily aimed at doxxing men and making light of male suicide in an unrelated conversation would be fairly good examples.

>>102576
I bet loads of my female friends would join this app, just to check it out for voyeuristic pleasure. Exactly the same as how I looked at the "rate Tea users based on their photos" website, but even more so, because I spent about two minutes there but Tea was the hot new fun club where all the girls are getting together. How could any woman resist? The critical mass beyond which it's no longer entirely deranged man-hating neurotic feminazis is very low indeed, and that point was easily passed by the time they got hacked.

>>102582

You obviously raise a valid point. But on a moralistic level I hate the implication that if enough people do an immoral act it becomes justifiable. If the use of tea it self when used as intended isn't inherently misandristic it certainly has the air of the dog whistle about it. I'm sure people would flock to gawk the same way they did to the Jeremy Kyle show. I consider those people complicit in a murder, I don't excuse joining tea by the same token.

The purpose of tea is to commit character assassination whilst avoiding detection. I think the logical conclusion to the 'move fast and break things' philosophy in this paticular instance is that someone commits deformation is sued and tea is quite rightfully sued as codefendant.

The reason the likes of youtube aren't sued for copyright infringement when someone uploads a whole movie is purely convention based on their willingness to be entirely cooperative with complainants. If someone wanted to. They could sue youtube too.

You cannot say the same for a network designed to conceal from the party in question the public dissemination of negative comments about their character. Their intent to facilitate the act is much clearer. The first time they upset someone who can afford a lawyer the wheels will fall off their wagon like it did with gawker

>>102587
If you don't want women branding you as being a bit rapey, maybe consider being a bit less rapey.

>>102591
But there comes a point where so many men get branded as rapey (accurately, in plenty of cases) that women, being stupid with their inferior female brains full of nothing but shoes and haircuts, just decide to tar us all with the same brush. At that point, it becomes impossible to not be thought of as rapey, simply by virtue of being male. And that was the implicit premise of Tea: we already know he's evil because he's a man, now let's find evidence to prove it.

What would you suggest a random non-rapist male should do, in order to gain a reputation for not being a rapist? How can any of us prove this negative? If your answer presumes that all women are entirely rational actors (actresses?), then it won't be a viable answer; I can tell you that already.

I'm trying to work out if my Spotify is going to need an age verification at some point considering I only pay with yearly gift card. I was going to look at an explicit video to try and trigger this but I don't know what I can use that is also on the platform.

>>102591
I know this is trolling but I do feel the need to point out that some people just look rapey to some people. My old housemate was Asian and we lived down an alleyway where he'd circle around the neighbourhood if there was a white girl walking down our alley alone because that was an image thing his community has to seriously think about.