PhobosAnomaly

Fuck knows, fuck you, and merry fucking Christmas.

In seriousness though: no idea. It's nice though, not every sentence needs an f-bomb or a c-nuke. They're just helpful and/or satisfying sometimes.

Remember to hydrate my dude/dudette, nobody likes that yellow filter!

Tom Scott is a brilliant (subjective opinion) YouTuber, and he seems to be the "Simpsons Did It" YouTube equivalent to unique and interesting topics to cover.

I was super surprised to hear him basically say - and I am paraphrasing because I forget the exact video to reference - "I don't want to meet all my fans, you don't know me, I'm a YouTuber putting on a polished front to make good videos", and it was beautifully brutal in how honest he was in keeping that distance between him and his fan base. I think it's nice to ride the wave of being cool and famous, but there must come a point where nobody's interested in who you are, they're just in awe of the channel you embody. That must be super tough - and it's a tale as old as time in showbiz but for the first time, it seems like the everyman (other genders and identities are available) can end up going through this on their own without the glitzy PR campaign behind them, without easy access to medical staff paid for by big production studios, or without big Hollywood wages to cry in to at the very least.

Geoff Marshall is another fantastic UK YouTuber, someone I imagine I'd quite happily buy a pint and chat bollocks for half hour waiting for a train - but even he's quite open about having his YouTube channel to address the world, alongside his own social media identities that are completely disconnected from his public-facing life.

I'm not sure if it's healthy for people to have to go through this, or whether it's just a necessary evil of wielding influence online.

That's a fair comment, and represents the core tradeoff of balancing protecting vulnerable members of society against privacy or liberty concerns.

My preference would be to - in a massively reductive statement - teach the paedos that their urges are less-than-healthy and treat them as medical cases, in order to reduce the need for such content.

The other element is that it's rarely a great idea to make sweeping reforms of a system that is failing because silly cunts are doing illegal things. I'm pulling a stat out of my arse here but why are we implementing legal interventions to prevent 5-10% of the population from downloading or producing illegal content, when surely it would be more effective to target those involved in the criminal practise rather than the other 90-95% of happy carefree legal chuggers?

I do see your point though, and it's refreshing to see you've not gone straight for the "much chuldrun" trope.

I see your view and appreciate the time you've taken to articulate it well.

My view takes another level of abstraction from it, and ignoring the implementation detail for the moment - the question for me is "what are we trying to protect underage/vulnerable persons from?"

Sex is a natural thing and I'm not arsed either way - and some of the more extreme content (within the legal sense, non-consent and animal porn etc are another ball game) such as exploitative content or covertlyy recorded stuff really need to be addressed as society issues so that the ensuing pornography isn't such an issue.

That said, the line defining the three (or more) groups is arbritary and different for everyone I guess.

It's still illegal - however it's a defence to prosecution to say that there was a form of emergency or other mitigating factors.

As always, the wording and mitigations are specific to the jurisdictions.

I'm making the assumption that you're not deliberately daft enough to conflate the two issues of "a cheeky tug looking at some low resolution grot" and "mass casualty attack planning", but surely you must see the difference between harmful content and porn, and why measures should be taken (however easy to circumvent) to disrupt terrorism or other large-scale atrocities?

Man, that sounds exciting!

Particularly if you're in someone else's house, of course.

Ah yes, but where's the fuckery and unearned profit in that?

It's a different industry but the same point of view still applies in this cartoon.

I do accept this is an overly simplistic take though.

My experience is that EE are pretty decent - pretty decent and well-supported network, and brilliant customer service. Even the £2/day charge to use your package allowance while roaming wasn't brilliant, but wasn't terrible either.

I took both my contracts elsewhere this month after 13 years though because price-wise, they just take the piss. I've got a phone that's almost brand new after an insurance swap, so I only wanted a SIM-only month-to-month contract, and they were easily at least 50% more expensive than the rest, even without the other sneaky shit like throttling, 4G-only provision, and such like on some packages.

Fuck that. They've gotten greedy. Quelle surprise.

Stupidly, I signed up for a 10k for today. So, I've gone with a black coffee and a jammy dodger.

Apparently all the athletes do it.

edit: great success, better than roids

Right, but if I stop now, how am I going to perform my magic flag butthole trick? checkmate