bloodrose wrote on December 14, 2020 at 10:31 PM

Reply to comment by TheLegendaryBirdMonster in [RESOLVED] u/BrowseDuringClass1917 - anti-SW comments, reactionary nonsense by black_fox

The argument is kinda flawed because porn of people without their consent is already illegal and nobody supports it.

Agreed. It would've been nice if someone had a "hey, analytics have been done on uploaders of content and found that x% are self-uploaders" to counter the suspicion that the illegal content is being ignored to support the legal content.

GlangSnorrisson wrote on December 14, 2020 at 10:34 PM (edited on December 14, 2020 at 10:36 PM)

More than that, the suspicion that people would ignore the illegal content to support the legal content is really poorly founded.

It sounds like someone projecting their absolutist views onto others.

ToS Breaches

Let admins know about people breaching the ToS here!

If you aren't an admin and aren't directly involved, stay out, or you'll be making work for us.

The format for posts is:
[oppression(s)] by [u/username]

Limited to one username per post, unless multiple usernames apply to one person.

Title example:

Ableism and Transphobia by u/shitlord69

If there are slurs in the username then replace the slur with '[slur]', but do list the full username in the body of the text.

The post body should have links to specific breaches with whatever relevant context made clear.
Users are welcome to contribute constructively towards establishing a case in the comments.
Low-effort, non-constructive, or otherwise troublesome posts may be locked or deleted. The post is not a vote.

Trivially weaponizing the ToS so you can poke at your enemies is not looked upon as good faith.

Related:
f/meta
w/terms_of_service