most of the world is poor.
Liar. The percentage of impoverished is nowhere near 50%, let alone a over it: https://socialincome.org/en/int/world-poverty-statistics-2024
In fact world poverty is increasing, if we exclude China and it's poverty eradication efforts.
Liar. This is an easily-debunked talking point, I'm surprised people are still parroting it. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/was-the-global-decline-of-extreme-poverty-only-due-to-china
Except it's done more to solve it since anything that preceded it, so it's not only not funny, it's a misleading/disingenuous talking point.
In 1800, 80% of the world lived in extreme poverty. Now it's under 10%.
Fact is, the vast majority of the so-called "exploit[ed]masses" rose out of poverty over the same period of time that capitalism established itself as the primary economic system the world over.
So who were they all exploiting, to get out of poverty? Each other?
we can't know how many also choose to escalate because of these outlets.
But we do know that in general, porn doesn't elicit that kind of escalation into real life. If this particular category of porn did cause that, it'd literally be a total outlier.
Same with other media, too. Rape porn lovers aren't statistically more likely to rape irl, violent video game lovers aren't more likely to be violent irl, etc., compared to the general population.
So I think it's pretty fair to hypothesize that, if anything, it would reduce the incidence of real-world offense. Just look at the massive negative correlation between the proliferation of porn (thanks to the Internet), and the overall incidence of rape.
Also, I'm familiar with one bit of evidence out of Japan that apparently showed that child molesters consume less porn than the average citizen, which I was definitely surprised to learn, but once you think about it in the context of the stuff I mentioned above, it actually makes perfect sense.
In all likelihood, fictional 'simulations' like LLMs will directly reduce the incidence of CSA, if anything. If that's the case, I can't oppose such things in good conscience--it'd be pretty narcissistic to put my personal disgust over even a single kid not getting bad touched.
If they were actually good products/services, they wouldn't need to advertise
How do they get their first customers without advertising?
Hell, I don't even want to ban users guilty of piracy.
Yeah, if someone shoplifts from a store, the punishment/penalty should not involve confiscating the car they drove to the store, lol.
In the US at least, we already pay more every year in welfare programs than we could afford even if we wealth taxed our "very richest" at literally 100%. Nearly $800 billion. Yearly. This is not a solution.
We as a country pay more than enough taxes already, period. It's the government not spending it efficiently, and not being held accountable when it doesn't.
As just one example, the US government already pays more per person for healthcare than any other nation on the planet. But how many health categories are we first place in? We put the most in, we should be getting the most out, right?
The majority just give enough to lessen their tax burden.
There is no amount of charity you can give that results in you having more money than if you hadn't, Kramer.
My man I don't think I give a shit where you think I belong.
show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions
You can't prove a negative, screwball. It's literally impossible to prove "never took advantage of anyone" about anyone, billionaire or not.
Not that you aren't almost certainly using an overbroad definition of 'take advantage', on top of it.
I'm down to change my view.
No, you aren't. People who are don't play these kinds of semantic games.
Understatement of the century, lol. And social media's influence has only exacerbated the overall polarization/radicalization, making civil discussion in that area feel like even more of a pipe dream as time goes on.