uriel238

I was an only child and a latchkey kid, and am not just into sibling incest but full on incest. But yes, distilled, my fetish is for a functional, unneglected and much less solitary childhood. (Not turning into a pariah as soon as I started developing sexual interests in puberty might have also been nice.)

I suppose I also have the V. C. Andrews fetish which is taboo relationships that are formed as a cope due to extreme family dysfunctionality, since part of my fetish is the sex gets out of hand and when discovered, the drama explodes messily.

Curiously, my family on my mother's side are hot, and my cousin was propositioned by Playboy in the 1980s as possible centerfold material. (She was also a high-school swim-team champion.) And yet, full Westermarck effect (reverse sexual imprinting) was active. I just couldn't think about them in that way.

That's okay. Countless musicians lost their jobs with talkies and the rise of recording.

ETA I'd rather see recording industry moguls lose their job from obsolescence than actual musicians.

There is the problem that people are so similar to each other that face recognition technology keeps misidentifying people, in some cases putting innocent people in jail for someone else's crimes.

That would totally suck if we had to prove in court that our randomized face was not intended to look like some famous person.

It would also totally suck if Sony owned my face which means I can only appear in public when Sony allows it.

According to Techdirt , the version that passed the Senate cannot be brought up in it's current form by some of the House Republicans needed to pass it. So it's dead for now.

It does mean it'll have to go through both houses again, and yes, they'll try.

We thought SESTA was dead, and then they ambushed us with FOSTA, the Senate version which has fucked the internet ever since for sex workers, LGBT+ folk and people who like porn. So I expect they're going to pull the same kind of thing, distracting opposition groups while passing it in secret.

Ultimately, both parties want to kill the internet, or turn it into Cable TV, because the public dialoging in forums is dangerous to the ownership class.

BDSM, so yes.

Communism is a far-off ideal, and we don't yet fully know how it would work, or how we'd get there, but people starving or dying would be a sign that it wasn't working.

You might be thinking of USSR, which sought to create a communist state, but was subject to internal corruption and outside threats (not to mention, Wilson sought a pact with the European states -- some of which were still monarchist -- to sanction trade with USSR, so it was at a considerable disadvantage from the get go.

But while USSR was going through its growing pains, the rest of us were going through the great depression, and those of us living in cardboard boxes and stacks of paint cans were wondering if Lenin had a point, the industrialists boozing and gambling with Hoover were admiring the Austrian fellow. Eventually those industrialists decided they need to create a propaganda package and teach it in our schools.

Huh. I can't post images anymore. I wonder if it's a browser problem or a Lemmy problem.

In an ideal (post-scarcity communist) society, we should be able to be completely libertine without judgement from society or from government systems (so long as we're not causing harm). But as with the rest of this ideal we don't know if we can actually get there.

I have an ancient (2016) paper about potential joys of full disclosure (on Wordpress, if you're interested) that portends the enshittification of Google. But it points out Google's original business model, which was to have an enormous body of data that no human being got to look at directly (except their proper owners), and in the meantime the computers would report on observable trends and correlations.

In the end, it got messed up by the usual suspects: Advertising interests pressured Google to reveal more and more. Technicians abused their positions of power to stalk. The police state forced Google to fulfill reverse warrants and list all people near the scene of a crime, making them all suspects. Or to completely reveal all the data of a given suspect, which poisoned the whole idea of your own safe private place to track contacts, dates, travel, etc.

As it is, we need privacy specifically because of all those interests that would want to link our data to us. All the reasons for commercial or state interests to have our data are causes for them to not have our data.

Please do.

I'm glad to not watch content that is enshittified by ads... or is enshittified by poor development.

Death to IP. Full stop.

Innovating new outside-the-box stuff, procedures, code, whatever. A robust public domain would happily be my legacy.

No small amount of art too.

Giving no fucks is the natural state of the universe. One of the human superpowers is we give the most fucks, or we can give fucks about a lot of people, though even hundreds is stretching that limit.

It's one of the things we need to get over is that whether we as a species live or die, colonize the stars or go extinct in a century or less, not only will the universe not notice, but it won't care. It's up to us to care or not.

That said, we humans are cruel bastards, so yes, I appreciate the impetus to minimize the fucks you give.