beard ひげ @beardalaxy@gameliberty.club

@PonyPanda cumiverse

@bartholin this is what happens when passion is commercialized

You ever brush your teeth and then get hungry immediately after?

@Corfiot @hfaust yup lol

@Humpleupagus @roboneko @sjw @lanodan @hj SJW should maybe just get an actual lawyer's advice instead of a bunch of internet randos who think they know shit lmao.

@Humpleupagus @roboneko @sjw @lanodan @hj it is weird that the press can get away with it because there is no situation where they would ever need to unless they were like, SPECIFICALLY a newspaper/magazine/whatever that reported only on porn industry shit. no normal news site is going to have 1/3 content that is considered harmful to minors.

but i think at that point the intent is that it's more of an access-to-information issue than it is just a bunch of people going somewhere specifically to enjoy sexy pics. there is probably a line to be drawn somewhere when the press is no longer operating as the press, you know?

@roboneko @sjw @Humpleupagus @lanodan @hj

what the material is:

"(4) "Material harmful to minors" is defined as all of the following:

(a) Any material that the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest.

(b) Any of the following material that exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of any of the following, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors:

(i) Pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals, or nipple of the female breast.

(ii) Touching, caressing, or fondling of nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals.

(iii) Sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act.

(c) The material taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

--------------------

it probably doesn't clarify distinctions because the lawmakers don't actually know what those distinctions are, or there don't need to be distinctions because it is all included. it is almost a guarantee that showing any politician a website with a bunch of photos on it will think they are all a part of that website, not embedded from somewhere else. if it can be accessed from your site, it is probably considered to be on your site.

--------------------

i don't think an individual counts as an entity. they use "person" when referring to an individual.

"(7) "Publish" means to communicate or make information available to another PERSON or ENTITY on a publicly available Internet website."

i think that, at least in this context, it's more referring to if the website and business you run with the website is something that you could use when filing taxes. for instance, if SJW were to have bae.st/shitty services as a licensed, legally recognized business, and used it for tax write offs in the form of business expenses, then baest would certainly have to follow this law. if not, if it's just a website he runs for fun and it's not an actual recognized entity, whether that's a legitimate LLC or just a sole-proprietorship, it's not subject to this.

--------------------

the best news is that at the end it only talks about lewds with "ACTUAL CHILDREN" so the lolis are safe

@hfaust this shit is why i'm not going to use firefox just because it's the alternative browser to chromium. "but there needs to be competition" the tech bros cry out. well not when the competition is shit and takes money from their competitor anyway.

i'll keep using the browser from the guy who founded mozilla and then left when people found out he was homophobic.

I'm glad it leaked so early because my life would be in absolute shambles if it didn't xD June is when the new NGS update comes out and it's gonna be a doozy, plus System Shock at the end of May. There's no way I'm beating Tears in 2-3 weeks. I wanna complete as much as I possibly can too.

@roboneko @sjw @Humpleupagus @lanodan @hj baest may already be exempt if it is not a legally recognized business in any way. It defines what "commercial" means, it's basically just any legally recognized entity. So if baest isn't that, then there's most likely nothing to worry about.

Personally I'd think that anything the website can access counts as being part of its content. Twkn. If you can see it on the site, it counts. Alternatively, it could just be content that you HOST, like if you're fetching images remotely maybe that wouldn't count, but I'd think of it the same way as something like a forum being full of imgur embeds, where it isn't hosting the content but you can still see it there.

Let's just say Reddit has less than 1/3 NSFW content. You can still customize your home page to only show that content if that's all you subscribe to. That doesn't mean Reddit has 100% NSFW on it, just that the user only sees 100% NSFW. You still wouldn't need to provide ID to make a Reddit account, or even to see NSFW subs. I know fedi is a little bit different but I'd assume it's a very similar concept, just instead of it being one server it's a lot of them, and those servers can even choose what servers they want to display to their users.

Idk, again not a lawyer, but I don't think this is an issue that needs to be worried about. The feature to completely scrub anything NSFW instead of showing up a warning would still be nice, though.

Tears has so much stuff in it that I need to take a break every one in a while. It gets a little overwhelming. I can see why this took 6 years to make. Approaching 40hrs and I'm still finding new main story stuff.

@sjw @roboneko @lanodan @hj if you can access it from the site then it probably counts. If we're talking about just baest it might actually be 1/3 or more. Twkn though might be less than that.

It is still a good feature to have though at the end of the day I guess.

@roboneko @sjw @lanodan @hj the bill says you need to verify age using either a government issued ID or public/private transactional data ("a sequence of information that documents an exchange, agreement, or transfer between an individual, commercial entity, or third party used for the purpose of satisfying a request or event. Transactional data can include, but is not limited to, records from mortgage, education, and employment entities").

however, it does also say in the bill that the website can not retain this information after it has been given to them, otherwise they will be held liable to the person's ID they kept, including any court costs. so it isn't something they are allowed to keep on file. kind of similar to a bartender looking at your ID real quick to make sure you can legally purchase alcohol.

it says that if 1/3 of a website contains harmful material, then age verification is necessary. if some things slip through by people not tagging stuff as NSFW, then it would surely not make up 1/3 of the content that the unverified user is seeing.

@jack mozilla has been on this gay "make the internet nicer" shit saying that they aren't trying to censor anything for a while now and it's so fuckin disingenuous