side story..... honest.... I stumbled across the story because I like music festivals and EDM (electronic dance music)...... I probably saw it on reddit /r/Coachella or something.
There is a DJ that got tired of youtube taking down his 60 minutes videos of his sets. youtube (or someone) claimed copyright issues. So he started uploading them to pornhub.com. I didn't bookmark the video, and searching for it on pornhub is not giving me the result I am seeking to make my point, so I'll just go back to watching Big Brother now. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:05 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:22 AM Adam Bowie <a...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote: > >> The interesting things is that these companies tend to be quite at good >> at keeping some things off their sites - notably porn. Sure they also end >> up banning Renaissance paintings, iconic photographs from the Vietnam war, >> and mothers feeding their babies. But the algorithms seem reasonably good >> at identifying bare skin. >> > > So, I feel like this actually supports my side of the argument. When FB > censors classic art, historically important photographs and images of > breastfeeding mothers, I do feel like it is an unjustified limitation on > free speech. If they want to ban porn fine, but put in the effort to make > at least some distinction between that and the other important and > non-pornographic representations of human nudity. And since these are fuzzy > categories, be prepared to err on the side of allowing a little bit of porn > so we don’t lose important aspects of humanity. > > Again, I do insist this is about free speech, though it if helps you can > read that as “culture of free speech” or “free speech values” if it helps > distinghiush it from the First Amendment. The US Constitution guarantees > speech free of government interference, but it does not have a monopoly on > the values and culture of free expression, which is a fundamental > characteristic of the American Idea. I know that is not true of our > European cousins (I once had a long conversation with a British colleague > who scolded me on the American insistence on making a fetish of free > expression, which I took as a huge compliment). > > I actually have not read any serious source who argues that banning Jones > violates the First Amendment so I am not sure why we are hearing this being > disputed so much. > >> -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
