deliriousdreams

Violence Dopamine!

There’s at least two, which I know for certain because someone else saw this post and decided to post two Jago comics back to back.

Blocking those two accounts doesn’t do anything to fix the main problem which is that certain content is not tolerable here and the current way this community and Lemmy at large works doesn’t account for and cannot combat this.

You assume no further filtering is needed but when someone else starts posting the comics or the person who is blocked decides to change accounts and continue posting etc this becomes ineffective.

I suggested in another comment that making a rule about using the other filtering systems we do have (by using the comic name and author name in the title) we might be able to get around just banning said comics all together, but at the end of the day I really do feel like comics that are used to spread hatred are probably something that shouldn’t be allowed specifically because they cause damage in multiple ways to a community.

If you don’t know the Nazi bar analogy then you clearly are missing part of the story but if you do and you think we can avoid becoming the Nazi bar in this scenario by wearing headphones or blindfolds then I don’t think you’re being realistic.

By definition that same freedom of speech can be used as retaliation. Nobody should be able to attack someone else and expect them not to defend themselves.

It is because such an idea of speech free from retaliation exists that the parodox of tolerance also exists.

Speech is never likely to be free from consequences. That is exactly why we have diplomacy.

The reason the sexism in Jago comics is “just something to roll your eyes at” is specifically because it’s been tolerated ins society for so long that we do not view it as problematic. By contrast the anti-trans hate presented in those same comics is much newer to a lot of people so it seems worse by comparison. Both are examples of marginalized groups being attacked or misrepresented by someone with bigoted views and I am surprised you could write such a long comment on the topic without actually coming to an understanding about that.

Does that mean the rhetoric he spread and the potential for it to do harm are gone?

Let me ask you this. There’s a whole lot of people who really really hate JKR. She’s a bigot and She’s done a lot of real life harm, so regardless of whether or not her art is not connected to that harm, the point is that lots of people are in favor of completely deplatforming her by pretty much any means necessary including harassing other people who they even think might be interested in her art enough to give her money.

Do you think that they will change their minds about buying into her franchise after she’s dead?

How do you suggest we do that with the current way that tagging and content filtering works on Lemmy?

We can block things in text by keyword. However, we don’t really have a proper tagging system on Lemmy. If the comic doesn’t have attribution in text form (in the title or elsewhere in the post body) then it doesn’t help to block the author’s name or pseudonym.

Yeah. There’s a particular person in these comments claiming we can just block things we don’t like but who doesn’t seem to realize that this doesn’t work without some sort of tag system or artist name in the title.

Almost two year old account woke up and chose violence today, huh?

So, ban evasion or are you just doing this to get a rise out of people a la Beep because you took offense to the Meta post?

Ah. You’re one of those. Goodbye.

I missed the word “not”. it has been proven not to do that. Are you done?

What part of him was so undeveloped that he couldn’t understand the wrongness of the situation he was in or the repercussions of what he was threatening? Including that if he was caught he would face prison time?

Keep in mind that I am aware that the threat of prison time literally is scientifically proven to not prevent people from commiting crimes.

Are you suggesting that this person didn’t understand? Are you suggesting that this person can’t be held responsible for his actions? Are you suggesting that this person lacked impulse control and therefore should not face consequences? Are you suggesting that this person is unable to think far enough ahead to understand the situation they were in?

Because “not done developing” doesn’t mean that they lack the ability.

I’m going to leave you with this link because I am done with this conversation. I am and have not argued that this man deserves prison time, only that prison time is the current consequence for his actions under the law.

I have not argued that prison is a good place or a good place for him, specifically because I do not believe that it is a good place or a good place for him.

Read the article or don’t. But I’m over having more than half of what I say ignored so you can regurgitate that same comment repeatedly as if it means something in the grand scheme of this conversation.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/brain-myth-25-development

Ask yourself if he would have stopped without the intervention of law enforcement. Please read the articles where he talks about being addicted.

After you answer that question for yourself, please understand that unless you’re planning on actually saying something relevant to the points I have made instead of reiterating a point I have not disagreed with, you should not expect any further replies from me.

Between August and December 2024, Lane used stolen login credentials to access the computer network of a second victim company – a software and cloud storage company that served school systems in the United States, Canada and elsewhere. Lane caused personally identifying information of students and teachers stored on that company’s networks to be transferred to a computer server Lane leased in Ukraine. Later, the second victim company and others received threats that the names, email addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, residential addresses, parent and guardian information, and passwords, among other data, of more than 60 million students and 10 million teachers would be “leak[ed] . . . worldwide” if the company did not pay a ransom of approximately $2.85 million in Bitcoin.

He was successful. The company paid the ransom. The fact that he was 18 instead of say 25 doesn’t enter into what the FBI charged him with because the law doesn’t care what age you are, and unfortunately, especially at the federal level it has no real way to mete out consequences to “fit the crime”.

You offer no solutions, don’t even have the beginnings of a way to better handle the situation (even though I can think of several that all have problems of their own including the house arrest suggestion I first posited) and this guy freely admits that he was unlikely to have stopped if he weren’t arrested.

Additionally, some of that data was leaked, leading to the company offering credit monitoring for 2 years but clearly we know that that leaked data will impact the victims possibly for the rest of their lives.

It turned out that – despite earlier assurances to the contrary – what one state official described as a “rogue actor” tied to the original breach secretly kept some of the data.

In exchange he got 4 years in prison which is a slap on the wrist when compared to what he might have gotten as far as prison time is concerned.

Let me ask you something. Would you have them let him go? No repercussions? No consequences?

Fair. Thank you for pointing that out.

Sigh. I have not been disputing this.

Just because someone you view as a child did something terrible but you feel like they deserve a pass because the consequences of that terrible thing they did are too harsh doesn’t mean that this isn’t the reality and additionally doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t ask the question of whether they would have stopped if they hadn’t been caught or punished.

If a child was kidnapped or raped because of what he did, what then? where’s the line? Do you feel the same about school shooters, or children who molest other children, or is it just because he made a credible threat but wasn’t able to execute it that you feel he specifically deserves a pass here?

Brock Turner was 19 when he raped a woman who had passed out. He was heavily intoxicated. Should we take the fact that his brain wasn’t finished developing, or the fact that he was intoxicated into account when we decided if he broke the law?

Genuinely asking because there so much danger posed by leaking the data he stole, and pretending he did nothing wrong doesn’t really make sense to me.

I have already stated my views on prison and they hold for most crimes, regardless of age actually. I believe in rehabilitation rather than punishment, and I don’t think prison or the prison system offers that so I don’t believe prison is the place for this individual. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize what he did was wrong or had a great potential for wide spread harm.

He is 20 years old now and the crime he was prosecuted for and convicted of was committed when he was 19 according to the first two paragraphs of the article that is linked.

On a recent Tuesday morning, as his parents were driving him to the federal prison in Connecticut where he’ll be locked up for the foreseeable future, 20-year-old Matthew Lane sent a text message to ABC News.

“It’s extremely sad, and I’m just scared,” he wrote.

Barely a year earlier, while still a teenager, he helped launch what’s been described as the biggest cyberattack in U.S. education history – a data breach that concerned authorities so much, it prompted briefings with senior government officials inside the White House Situation Room.

People seem to think that I’m advocating for him to suffer the messed up prison system when what I’m actually pointing out is that this is something he knowingly engaged in as a legal adult.

Would you like me to post exerpts from the article or are you actually going to read it?

A couple of things. I don’t know if you read the article but this is an adult male. I know that it says teenager, but it says that because he was 19 years old when he perpetrated his crime.

The second thing is that just because I agree that he knowingly broke the law in a way that could result in dire consequences for children, doesn’t mean I agree to ruining his life in return but I am pointing out how we got here, which is that he broke the law and showed himself to pose a threat to children.

That threat isn’t just about the threat to them financially in the event that someone were to steal their identity. This man threatened to release information on millions of children that could put them at risk to child predators including things like home addresses, family information, and medical information.

He knew that was wrong and he did it anyway. I’m sure rehabilitation is possible and I wish it were mandatory. The prison system in this country is fucked. But the system being messed up doesn’t absolve him of the harm he threatened.

The alternative for someone who is addicted is to remove all technology from their homes and work places, throw an ankle monitor on them and force things like mandatory drug tests and check ins.

The point of the US prison system isn’t to rehabilitate anyone, and the ankle monitor situation (house arrest) also doesn’t really rehabilitate anyone. It also doesn’t prevent him from doing further crimes and given that he claims to have an addiction to hacking and the fact that he himself says he should probably go to prison for what he did, I don’t know what the a exact alternative is.

Strong woman. Farm?

Then some judge would try to force a class action lawsuit.