It means HubertManne had a stroke while typing.

Re-read RickyRigatoni’s comment.

Yes, but the perp showed the images to a minor.

You consider it a heinous crime to draw a picture and keep it to yourself?

No-one is talking about “women bears”. There are people talking about women and bears for sure, though.

Removed by mod

Literacy, if I had to pick just one.

“Anyways”. Don’t fucking add the s to the end, it adds literally nothing but costs you more effort. Say or type “anyway”.

Uh… I’ll try.

Society can’t be trusted to handle things like adults should. If it could, very well-done drawings of minors depicting them as nude would be a non-issue as blackmail material both because society would just shrug off any such images being published as inconsequential and because minors would be raised to know that cooperating with blackmailers accomplishes nothing productive.

No.

If we could implement maturity and so on, ease of access to the tools would be a non-issue. And the tools would be as legal as crayons or pencils, and the “material” as legal as any cartoon. But I agree with you that this is a super real practical problem, because we can’t.

Did you post a meme about cow farts contributing to climate change or something?

Zoning laws are so bizarre. I remember encountering them for the first time many years ago trying to play SimCity and being confounded by what felt by wholly arbitrary game rules. They genuinely accomplish nothing at all, so why have them?

We really don’t have any solution to this yet.

We do, and always have, but good luck with implementation. Humanity hates acting like an adult.

1. Critical thinking: society knows to a certainty deepfakes exist and hence should be intrinsically skeptical of any image they see, demanding the image’s source establish some reason to trust the image. We could be less blindly trusting.
2. Body acceptance: for 0 seconds of humanity’s history has it made credible sense to shame someone over having seen them naked. We could choose not to.
3. Competence: Appeasing these people only encourages them. If people would just understand that giving your blackmailer what they want is always strictly worse than not doing so, it would remove the incentive to blackmail. Why would you trust your blackmailer to keep your secret? Makes no sense.

This thread is a garbage fire - a bunch of people who didn’t look anything up (or if they did, they cite no sources, so there’s no evidence they did) spouting a bunch of mutually contradictory shit, all of it upvoted. I will never understand why anyone engages with Lemmy this way.

Here is the list of US charges against Assange, from the actual paperwork charging him.

As you can see here, each of the first 17 charges has a maximum penalty of 10 years (not including fines).

Charge 18 is messier. Under USC 371 the max is 5 years. I believe USC 1030 is also capped at 5 years.

So roughly a 175 year sentence, at cap.

Reclusive houses may or may not be recluse houses, you have to check.

This is Lemmy, we don’t do “informed”. Count yourself lucky if anyone in the comments even read the thread’s post.

Do not buy a recluse house unless you love spiders.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/security_deposit

Basically yes.

Much like in the French revolution but much worse, people want to kill and then eat anyone they decide has too much money. Because of course, the definition of “rich” will wildly vary based on how much the angry crowd wants someone turned into burgers.