# Will the UK 's digital economy bill result in Furry Sites being BANNED for UK residents



## Skystrider (Dec 6, 2016)

(Sources at bottom of page)

 So the UK is looking at law that seems as if it will affect many furry art websites such as FA, Sofurry and other's since they contain "adult" images if they are deemed "non-compliant" 

 "It is contained within provisions of the bill designed to enforce strict age verification checks to stop children accessing adult websites. After pressure from MPs, the culture secretary, Karen Bradley, announced on Saturday that the government would amend the bill to include powers to block non-compliant websites." - The Guardian (Cited below)

 Anyone know if Sites like FA, Sofurry, etc are going to update / enhance their age verification checks to ensure compliance with this if it passes or will some big Furry sites be Blocked for access by the United Kingdom?

 I wanted to bring attention to this as it MAY affect popular furry websites going into the future if this passes. I will admit I am American so it will not affect me, however I know the fandom does have a good sized following in the UK.

Sources:

www.theguardian.com: UK to censor online videos of 'non-conventional' sex acts
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/23/uk-wants-to-censor-non-conventional-sex-videos/
www.independent.co.uk: These are the sexual acts which are about to be banned from porn in the UK
www.theverge.com: The UK wants to introduce mandatory age checks for online porn and ban a range of sex acts


----------



## Zipline (Dec 6, 2016)

Doesn't effect me. >:3


----------



## Shameful_Cole (Dec 6, 2016)

Quick! We need Dedskunk!


----------



## Tetrachroma (Dec 6, 2016)

Zipline said:


> Doesn't effect me. >:3


This totally looks like something straight out of Tim and Eric.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Dec 6, 2016)

I hope Furry sites aren't banned. But how else can you verify someones age without actually giving an ID number or some form of ID online that actually proves you're the age you say you are?


----------



## nerdbat (Dec 6, 2016)

Okami_No_Heishi said:


> I hope Furry sites aren't banned. But how else can you verify someones age without actually giving an ID number or some form of ID online that actually proves you're the age you say you are?


A mandatory "Are you adult enough to save the pervsident" warning before entering the site, I suppose


----------



## JumboWumbo (Dec 7, 2016)

Damn redcoats had it coming. All their tea sipping pip-pip-cheerio bullshit.


----------



## Tetrachroma (Dec 7, 2016)

Oh, this just occurred to me; get ProVPN. If the UK can't handle maturity, you can just change your visible IP to look like you're in some other country.



I'm uhh... not quite sure how legal it is. If it isn't legal, I can gladly delete this comment and this will have never happened.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 7, 2016)

Welcome to the UK, Europe's fascist dictatorship police state. This shit is only the beginning, mate. The Snooper Charter your piece of fucking shit Prime Minister, Theresa fucking May, signed, is just the tip of the iceberg of CRAP they will use to censor people and opinions/views they don't like.

Sweden's already Europe's rape capital, Germany is Europe's Cuck, Greece the dropout and France seems to be FINALLY waking up to the garbage Islam really is. It only took them some 200 deaths and 700+ injuries over the past year, but we're getting there.

The UK STILL haven't woken up. Bikini bans in London, the Rotherham grooming gang, Sadiq Khan wanting country-wide Sharia law, London's Sharia courts are only the start.

Lots of stupid shit happening all over the western world because of Regressive Leftist Liberals are destroying their countries from the inside, the UK being one of those countries.

Europe is fucking plagued by spineless, gutless pussies. Or as someone else might call them: Politicians.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 8, 2016)

We're aware of the developments and keeping an eye on them - if the need arises we'll look into what we may be able to do to not leave UK furries in the lurch. 



Yakamaru said:


> Sweden's already Europe's rape capital


Read: "I don't understand how to critically read statistics." The "study" (and I use that word loosely) usually quoted for that gem even itself notes that comparing numbers between countries is not likely to be representative for a number of reasons. Estimated rate of unreported rapes in Sweden? About 20%. Estimated rate in the UK? Somewhere upwards of 75%. Sweden's criminal code also has a much wider definition of rape than most countries. So shut up about my country, eh? 

More seriously, though, you could do to tone down the xenophobia a few notches, Yakamaru.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 8, 2016)

quoting_mungo said:


> Read: "I don't understand how to critically read statistics." The "study" (and I use that word loosely) usually quoted for that gem even itself notes that comparing numbers between countries is not likely to be representative for a number of reasons. Estimated rate of unreported rapes in Sweden? About 20%. Estimated rate in the UK? Somewhere upwards of 75%. Sweden's criminal code also has a much wider definition of rape than most countries. So shut up about my country, eh?
> 
> More seriously, though, you could do to tone down the xenophobia a few notches, Yakamaru.


To quote Wikipedia you linked:

"According to Brå, it is likely that *only around 20 per cent of all rapes are being reported*, which was confirmed in a 2001 study of the extent of violence against women, funded by the Government of Sweden and the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority.[44][48] This can be compared to a 2007 British Government report, estimating that *between 75 and 95 percent of rapes are not reported in the United Kingdom*.[49]"

It is not xenophobic to wanting every group to be treated equally under the law. Currently, one group is for the most part, not treated equally under the law because it might be "racist", "xenophobic", "Islamophobic", "nazi" and what have you because you criticize Islam and its followers for not taking action about them being at the top of most statistics. It does not make me xenophobic, "racist", "Islamophobic" nor sexist to want to preserve MY culture, MY country and MY values. Besides. A bit of xenophobia is GOOD if you actually want to preserve your identity and your culture.

I will not compromise on values nor the security or well-being of my countrymen just so people can feel good about helping "migrants".

Also. Might wanna read these:

Islamic Statistics on violence, rape, terror, sharia, isis, and welfare | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

List of battles and other violent events by death toll - Wikipedia

www.wonderslist.com: Top 10 Countries With Maximum Rape Crimes

Until Islam are capable of addressing the issues within itself and with its followers, Islam in general does not belong in the western world. Demographical criticism is neither racist, xenophobic, "Islamophobic" or sexist. I will criticize any group/demographic. I don't mind immigrants IF they integrate. So far only one group is notorious for not doing so, and you know which group I am talking about.


----------



## Shameful_Cole (Dec 8, 2016)

Tetrachroma said:


> Oh, this just occurred to me; get ProVPN. If the UK can't handle maturity, you can just change your visible IP to look like you're in some other country.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm uhh... not quite sure how legal it is. If it isn't legal, I can gladly delete this comment and this will have never happened.


I'm not an expert on UK law, so don't trust me, but usually actions like that are only illegal based on terms of service agreements. Just having an IP address that doesn't match your region isn't illegal, as I know a few kids that literally just have their ISPs report the wrong location, with no VPN or anything set up, but as for changing it yourself, I'm a bit less sure.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Dec 8, 2016)

I see no problem with this as long as they actually enforce age restrictions. Children in today's time  are not being monitored enough by their parents so this will at least help amend that in the UK.



Yakamaru said:


> To quote Wikipedia you linked:
> 
> "According to Brå, it is likely that *only around 20 per cent of all rapes are being reported*, which was confirmed in a 2001 study of the extent of violence against women, funded by the Government of Sweden and the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority.[44][48] This can be compared to a 2007 British Government report, estimating that *between 75 and 95 percent of rapes are not reported in the United Kingdom*.[49]"
> 
> ...



He's right though. Shariah law is in no way compatible with the more civilized Western societies. I'm all fine and dandy if you're an immigrant and want to keep your faith, but Shariah law is not part of our culture nor should it ever be.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 8, 2016)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I see no problem with this as long as they actually enforce age restrictions. Children in today's time are not being monitored enough by their parents so this will at least help amend that in the UK.


The concern is "how do websites realistically restrict user age?" At the moment, a good-faith "believe what your users say until you find evidence otherwise" is good enough, and that's something that's generally doable for content providers. Having higher standards for verification when there aren't many (affordable) systems for it may have a significant impact particularly on non-commercial content providers. (A paysite is more likely to be able to work costs for age verification into their budget, since they profit off of the adult content in the first place.)

Children aren't being monitored enough, that much I will agree with, but I'm not certain why the burden ought to be shifted _away_ from the parents. To me it would be more reasonable to impose a fine on parents (or caretakers presently in charge of the children) who fail to monitor their children sufficiently to prevent them from obtaining access to age-inappropriate media. When my brother was like... 12-13 and was caught having acccessed Internet porn, he was grounded, but our parents didn't blame the website for what he'd done. And why would they?


Yakamaru said:


> "According to Brå, it is likely that *only around 20 per cent of all rapes are being reported*, which was confirmed in a 2001 study of the extent of violence against women, funded by the Government of Sweden and the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority.[44][48] This can be compared to a 2007 British Government report, estimating that *between 75 and 95 percent of rapes are not reported in the United Kingdom*.[49]"


I'll acknowledge that I misread that; either way reporting rates are relatively high and the bar for what offenses are considered rape is relatively low. My mistake.


Yakamaru said:


> France seems to be FINALLY waking up to the garbage Islam really is


That is xenophobic, nothing else. You cannot call a religion "garbage" and claim what you're doing is "demographical criticism". You don't need to love your metaphorical neighbors unconditionally, but you do need to watch how you express yourself. And, to be clear, I say this as a moderator - tone it down.

Immigration, xenophobia, and crime have little to nothing to do with the UK bill, anyway, so I suggest dropping the subject.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 8, 2016)

quoting_mungo said:


> And, to be clear, I say this as a moderator - tone it down.


Very well, I will severely tone it down. Sorry about that.

@Skystrider: Currently it's not really looking good for the UK. The UK is looking to become a police state by how the government is running things, and honestly, I am starting to fear for freedom of speech and expression over there. I've got friends all over the UK, and if the Snooper Charter and these bills are used to censor people the government doesn't like..

Hopefully the people will see it for what it is and turn it down. Come next elections vote in a government who will have the well-being of UK's citizens in mind when they get in power.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Dec 8, 2016)

o_o this escalated quickly...

I am in the US so this does not affect me, but I feel for you furs in the UK regarding this issue :/


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 2, 2017)

I found this thread and yeah, the digital economy bill and snooper's charter are things I'm worried about too. The small amount of news coverage they have received is agonising because it leaves me unsure what's going to happen.
Members of Parliament were discussing how they could prevent British users from seeing pornography on twitter for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38143757

Does this mean we can broadly expect all of the content we consume online to be pre-screened and filtered by the government? :\



Yakamaru said:


> Welcome to the UK, Europe's fascist dictatorship police state. This shit is only the beginning, mate. The Snooper Charter your piece of fucking shit Prime Minister, Theresa fucking May, signed, is just the tip of the iceberg of CRAP they will use to censor people and opinions/views they don't like.
> 
> Sweden's already Europe's rape capital, Germany is Europe's Cuck, Greece the dropout and France seems to be FINALLY waking up to the garbage Islam really is. It only took them some 200 deaths and 700+ injuries over the past year, but we're getting there.
> 
> ...



The European Union has challenged the snooper's charter, describing mass collection of people's data as illegal: www.theguardian.com: EU's highest court delivers blow to UK snooper's charter
Unfortunately, since the UK is going to leave the European Union, this means that British politicians will likely then be able to exercise whatever data collection or limitation laws they wish.

I don't know where this leaves the snooper's charter, and the digital economy bill now. Certainly I haven't noticed any of my favourite furry sites being blocked.

The rest of your comment is a bit weird. I don't think Sadiq Khan has ever said he wants shairah law anywhere. Sadiq voted in favour of same sex marriage. A fatwa was declared on him and he's received death threats for supporting gay rights...so you know, he's actually a pretty decent fucking person, who will do the right thing even if people are really nasty to him for it.


----------



## GreenReaper (Feb 2, 2017)

It's a real concern. Unfortunately the UK government is saying "commercial sites must use a reliable system of age verification for UKians, but we're not going to give you one, it's up to a quango to certify what you use (in this case, the British Board of Film Classification, because their 'main' target is porn video sites. [Never mind that they have GOV.UK Verify which is supposed to fix this kind of problem.]

You might think that if you're not paying for the site, it's not a concern. But the UK is deeply concerned by people giving away porn for free (think of the children!), in part because they are often "fronts" for pay-sites, and thus include within the definition of "commercial" any site using "commercial hosting" - which seems to be include anyone not running off a home DSL/cable connection.

Their reasoning probably goes that "legitimate" sites will be fine as they will have a merchant account anyway. However, many payment providers won't do business with sites involved with "extreme" kinks, many of which are featured on FA/IB/SF/etc. And they don't seem to have thought all that much about sites where only a minority of users actually pay for the service, either through ads or donations.

Like F-list, I don't expect furry sites to censor their members to accord with UK requirements. Those which do would simply lose traffic to those which don't. As far as I know none are actually hosted _in_ the UK server-wise, and I'm not sure how much practical financial pressure they can exert. Oh, but they _are_ willing to threaten a £250,000 maximum fine ($312,500) even if you don't have any revenue to speak of.

I agree with quoting_mungo that the whole concept is backwards and overly authoritarian. Inkbunny tags each page to indicate that the site is intended for adults, which may be read by parental control software. That _should_ be sufficient, if their concern is parents being be able to filter. But no; somehow it's the responsibility of the world to nanny your citizens. (Most of the Middle East feels this way about Twitter.)

Of course, we also provide end-to-end encryption, because we don't believe it's the _government's_ business to snoop on its citizens. Unfortunately, that also makes it hard for the Channel Firewall to read the tag. Or the Great Firewall of Moscow, for that matter. That doesn't stop them blocking server IPs, but doing so just drives kids towards Tor and makes everyone's life harder, including their own security services.

As such, I predict this law will do more to undermine legal privacy intrusion than any amount of media coverage. In that sense, maybe it's a good thing - but for those running sites, it's a huge pain.


----------



## Mircea (Feb 24, 2017)

Found out about this bill by accident and read about it. I have lived to see everything at this point, and have no words... we are clearly heading into a dystopian future ruled by fascists.

Whatever happens, I hope FA will not comply with anything like this: I really care about UK furs too, but this would be like seeking compliance with China at this point. Unless the UK is liberated from fascism, it should be scrapped off the list of countries we should care about complying with. I'm truly sad to say it, but I have no doubt in saying it either.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2017)

Mircea said:


> Found out about this bill by accident and read about it. I have lived to see everything at this point, and have no words... we are clearly heading into a dystopian future ruled by fascists.
> 
> Whatever happens, I hope FA will not comply with anything like this: I really care about UK furs too, but this would be like seeking compliance with China at this point. Unless the UK is liberated from fascism, it should be scrapped off the list of countries we should care about complying with. I'm truly sad to say it, but I have no doubt in saying it either.



I think this is a case of prudishness rather than fascism, although I am uncomfortable with the entire prospect of our government being so intrusive into private citizens lives, or regulating which legal fetish content we're allowed to view. :\


----------



## Mircea (Feb 24, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> I think this is a case of prudishness rather than fascism, although I am uncomfortable with the entire prospect of our government being so intrusive into private citizens lives, or regulating which legal fetish content we're allowed to view. :\



The only words for this in my book are "fascism" and "primitivism". Perhaps also lack of education in addition to that, as the people behind it clearly have zero understanding of how the internet works and is used. It's legitimately as if a bunch of people were transported from the victorian age using a time machine, and given absolute power to write laws in today's society.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 24, 2017)

Mircea said:


> Found out about this bill by accident and read about it. I have lived to see everything at this point, and have no words... we are clearly heading into a dystopian future ruled by fascists.
> 
> Whatever happens, I hope FA will not comply with anything like this: I really care about UK furs too, but this would be like seeking compliance with China at this point. Unless the UK is liberated from fascism, it should be scrapped off the list of countries we should care about complying with. I'm truly sad to say it, but I have no doubt in saying it either.



You're not that boned my dude. Hillary lost and AntiFA has no power so you have no need to worry about any fascist regimes for a good while or so. It's mostly just an authoritarian stance but I still stand by my statement I made earlier of it


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2017)

Mircea said:


> The only words for this in my book are "fascism" and "primitivism". Perhaps also lack of education in addition to that, as the people behind it clearly have zero understanding of how the internet works and is used. It's legitimately as if *a bunch of people were transported from the victorian age using a time machine*, and given absolute power to write laws in today's society.



Oh, you mean 'English people'? ;3


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2017)

I'm a bit confused - is this aimed at anyone below the age of 18? I read that one example of the age restrictions that would be added was a credit card requirement, which obviously only adults could obtain one.

If so, this seems extremely short-sighted. I have had fetishes since I was around the age of 7 and I have doubts that seeing porn of it did me any damage. Not sure if this is a controversial opinion or not, but I don't see anything wrong with teenagers being able to access fetish porn.

Edit: I had originally thought the bill restricted exclusively kink/fetish content from the internet, but apparently not.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I'm a bit confused - is this aimed at anyone below the age of 18? I read that one example of the age restrictions that would be added include a credit card requirement, which obviously only adults could obtain one.
> 
> If so, this seems extremely short-sighted. I have had fetishes since I was around the age of 7 and I have doubts that seeing porn of it did me any damage. Not sure if this is a controversial opinion or not, but I don't see anything wrong with teenagers being able to access fetish porn.



Our government thinks under 18's accessing sexual content online is a grave issue. 

I also was a fetishist before I was aware that online porn exists anyway. 

I don't think children should access sexual material, but I think that the responsibility lies with the parents to supervise their children properly online.


----------



## JumboWumbo (Feb 24, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Our government thinks under 18's accessing sexual content online is a grave issue.



And silverware, apparently.







lol at the redcoats


----------



## Mircea (Feb 24, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> You're not that boned my dude. Hillary lost and AntiFA has no power so you have no need to worry about any fascist regimes for a good while or so. It's mostly just an authoritarian stance but I still stand by my statement I made earlier of it



Thank goodness I'm lucky enough to be living in a sane EU country (at least from this perspective). Not trying to blindly praise the EU here, but I'm so glad we're sticking with an union that understands at least the basics of progress and how technology works... now that I'm seeing a country go from occidental to pure medieval in a matter of months. If Romania ever becomes like the UK and I can't get citizenship elsewhere... hope the bottom of a lake with a boulder around my neck feels good.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2017)

Mircea said:


> Thank goodness I'm lucky enough to be living in a sane EU country (at least from this perspective). Not trying to blindly praise the EU here, but I'm so glad we're sticking with an union that understands at least the basics of progress and how technology works... now that I'm seeing a country go from occidental to pure medieval in a matter of months. If Romania ever becomes like the UK and I can't get citizenship elsewhere... hope the bottom of a lake with a boulder around my neck feels good.


Perhaps a bit of an overreaction? 

I also dislike the bill, but it's certainly not medieval nor is it comparable to fascism.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2017)

For clarity, is the bill in question only attempting to add strict age restrictions to sites that have specifically fetish/kink sexual material or is it trying to restrict all forms of pornographic material?

I was reading through the links posted and some of them seemed to suggest different things from one another.


----------



## Mircea (Feb 24, 2017)

Lcs said:


> Perhaps a bit of an overreaction?
> 
> I also dislike the bill, but it's certainly not medieval nor is it comparable to fascism.



Disrupting the internet and potentially banning thousands of sites, forcing people to send sensitive personal information to strangers on the internet just to enter a website, criminalizing the creation or publication of select drawings... all over something outright ridiculous that parents can just solve in the privacy of their own home? Yeah... actually it's not medieval or fascism: It's just pure insanity, and these people need medication.

And from what I read today as I discovered this, there are two different categories: Special types of porn that are deemed immoral and banned for every citizen of the country, and all types of porn which will only be banned for underageigger... ahem... underage children is what I meant. If any website either contains "porn that's indecent for everyone" or "porn that's decent but not age restricted", the government will ban the site in the entire nation just like China bans non-Communist-friendly sites.


----------



## JumboWumbo (Feb 24, 2017)

Lcs said:


> is the bill in question only attempting to add strict age restrictions to sites that have specifically fetish/kink sexual material


If it's just that, then I don't see what the big deal is.

"Are you 18 or older?"
"Yes."
"Okay."

A lot of websites already do that.

But shit like verifying bank accounts and credit cards? That's a surveillance state right there.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2017)

JumboWumbo said:


> If it's just that, then I don't see what the big deal is.
> 
> "Are you 18 or older?"
> "Yes."
> ...


I wouldn't call it a surveillance state considering that there is nothing to be looked at by the government by verifying a credit card. However, we are in agreement that the use of credit cards and such to verify age is very bad.

Anyways, to answer my question, the restrictions are for all forms of pornographic content and not exclusively fetish/kink types of content, right?

Edit: Nevermind, I found a better website for information on the bill.


----------



## Mircea (Feb 24, 2017)

JumboWumbo said:


> If it's just that, then I don't see what the big deal is.
> 
> "Are you 18 or older?"
> "Yes."
> ...



Jesus... it's 2017: It shouldn't be anyone on the internet's business how old you are... people have the right to be anonymous if they wish, especially when it comes to porn which not everyone wants friends / family / government knowing they draw or watch. If a parent thinks their child shouldn't watch porn, they can easily solve that at home with countless options of software. Why is this even a debate today... is it a free world and internet we're supposed to be having, or are we devolving and pissing on people's privacy and rights over the most laughable reasons? I'm sorry that I am upset, I just no longer understand what world we live on and why we let any lunatic make laws however they please!

Only thing I do know is I'd rather die before I have to send a piece of my real life ID to any website in order to watch a select category of artwork. Hell no! Linden Lab of Second Life already forced me to do that long ago for this same shebang, threatening they'd ban my account if I didn't give them my real life data... I looked into ways that they could be reported for identity theft through blackmailing, but unfortunately this practice is commonly allowed and now even encouraged by some. How I wish I had a million dollars to pour into organizations defending people's digital (and not only) rights...


----------



## JumboWumbo (Feb 24, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I wouldn't call it a surveillance state considering that there is nothing to be looked at by the government.


I just meant it's a pretty big invasion of privacy. Poor word choice on my part. My bad.

But the articles in the OP refer only to "adult websites" so I'm guessing that's anything pornographic.

I'm not inherently against trying to keep kids away from porn, but I think it should be more the parents job, not the governments.



Mircea said:


> Jesus... it's 2017: It shouldn't be anyone on the internet's business how old you are... people have the right to be anonymous if they wish, especially when it comes to porn which not everyone wants friends / family / government knowing they draw or watch. If a parent thinks their child shouldn't watch porn, they can easily solve that at home with countless options of software. Why is this even a debate today... is it a free world and internet we're supposed to be having, or are we devolving and pissing on people's privacy and rights over the most laughable reasons? I'm sorry that I am upset, I just no longer understand what world we live on and why we let any lunatic make laws however they please!



The Current Year doesn't really have much to do with anything, but I agree. Unfortunately companies like Facebook and Google already have plenty of your information anyways. I wish more people would at least be aware of that.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2017)

JumboWumbo said:


> I just meant it's a pretty big invasion of privacy. Poor word choice on my part. My bad.
> 
> But the articles in the OP refer only to "adult websites" so I'm guessing that's anything pornographic.
> 
> I'm not inherently against trying to keep kids away from porn, but I think it should be more the parents job, not the governments.


Agreed that it should be primarily left to the parents.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 24, 2017)

Mircea said:


> Jesus... it's 2017: It shouldn't be anyone on the internet's business how old you are... people have the right to be anonymous if they wish, especially when it comes to porn which not everyone wants friends / family / government knowing they draw or watch. If a parent thinks their child shouldn't watch porn, they can easily solve that at home with countless options of software. Why is this even a debate today... is it a free world and internet we're supposed to be having, or are we devolving and pissing on people's privacy and rights over the most laughable reasons? I'm sorry that I am upset, I just no longer understand what world we live on and why we let any lunatic make laws however they please!
> 
> Only thing I do know is I'd rather die before I have to send a piece of my real life ID to any website in order to watch a select category of artwork. Hell no! Linden Lab of Second Life already forced me to do that long ago for this same shebang, threatening they'd ban my account if I didn't give them my real life data... I looked into ways that they could be reported for identity theft through blackmailing, but unfortunately this practice is commonly allowed and now even encouraged by some. How I wish I had a million dollars to pour into organizations defending people's digital (and not only) rights...



I'd argue the opposite. The internet is a great place but children really shouldn't have as free of a reign as they do on it. Allowing children such freedoms with something as vile as the internet is how you get the really pitiful things like AntiFA and the whole Tumblr shtick of what it's famous for (and I don't mean porn). Obviously many parents aren't doing their part well enough as evident by the Millennial generation's actions in recent events.


----------



## Mircea (Feb 24, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I'd argue the opposite. The internet is a great place but children really shouldn't have as free of a reign as they do on it. Allowing children such freedoms with something as vile as the internet is how you get the really pitiful things like AntiFA and the whole Tumblr shtick of what it's famous for (and I don't mean porn). Obviously many parents aren't doing their part well enough as evident by the Millennial generation's actions in recent events.



If we're arguing that children shouldn't have free reign on the internet because they do and say stupid things, we can say the same about a lot of people. Most trolls are probably within their 20's and more... and don't get me wrong, I would love to see them disappear forever along their stupid comments like "cancer" or "autism" which they spam everywhere they go. But to make a law about banning known trolls off the internet, or demand ISP's to shepherd them and be responsible for their behavior, or to ban any website associated with hate speech... that's no solution, and once you do it for one thing others will want to abuse it for more and ultimately ban whatever doesn't suit their ideology.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 24, 2017)

Mircea said:


> If we're arguing that children shouldn't have free reign on the internet because they do and say stupid things, we can say the same about a lot of people. Most trolls are probably within their 20's and more... and don't get me wrong, I would love to see them disappear forever along their stupid comments like "cancer" or "autism" which they spam everywhere they go. But to make a law about banning known trolls off the internet, or demand ISP's to shepherd them and be responsible for their behavior, or to ban any website associated with hate speech... that's no solution, and once you do it for one thing others will want to abuse it for more and ultimately ban whatever doesn't suit their ideology.



I think you misunderstood. Their free reign is what allows them to absorb useless and damaging information that easily molds their malleable minds. What's more, this unchecked freedom allows their behaviour to be encouraged and enabled regardless of how broken it is (the whole mental illness fad for instance). We wouldn't really have anywhere near as much of this cancerous behavioural encouragement if parents actually paid attention and did their damn job.

Surprisingly, I hear generation Z is almost as conservative as people around World War II or so which is nice.


----------



## Mircea (Feb 25, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I think you misunderstood. Their free reign is what allows them to absorb useless and damaging information that easily molds their malleable minds. What's more, this unchecked freedom allows their behaviour to be encouraged and enabled regardless of how broken it is (the whole mental illness fad for instance). We wouldn't really have anywhere near as much of this cancerous behavioural encouragement if parents actually paid attention and did their damn job.
> 
> Surprisingly, I hear generation Z is almost as conservative as people around World War II or so which is nice.



Maybe... I can see your point with that though. Personally I blame it more on social norms: I don't think it's because people have too much freedom to do what they want, but because they are encouraged to want to do bad things with that freedom! The whole "lol mental illness" or "kill yourself faggot" fads are likely part of the same culture as school bullying and general gang mentality, which are still fads because society in general teaches people that behaving like assholes and using force is the way to succeed in life. Sure, we have "propaganda" everywhere in the media to teach people to be reasonable... everyday life and practical situations are different stories though, and often encourage the opposite even in subtle ways.


----------



## modfox (Feb 25, 2017)

highly doubt it. in order for you to view NSFW material on FA you need to make an account. SoFurry on the other hand well.. i guess we can only wait and see


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 25, 2017)

Mircea said:


> Maybe... I can see your point with that though. Personally I blame it more on social norms: I don't think it's because people have too much freedom to do what they want, but because they are encouraged to want to do bad things with that freedom! The whole "lol mental illness" or "kill yourself faggot" fads are likely part of the same culture as school bullying and general gang mentality, which are still fads because society in general teaches people that behaving like assholes and using force is the way to succeed in life. Sure, we have "propaganda" everywhere in the media to teach people to be reasonable... everyday life and practical situations are different stories though, and often encourage the opposite even in subtle ways.


But that's my point. This freedom means children can use social media and their parents most likely won't bother to watch what they do on it so they're wide open to these influences. Hell, I've seen children in grades as low as primary with working iPhones and shit.

I don't think the mental illness thing is the same as the edgy "kill urself faget" pack. What I meant by it was "I HAVE OCD, SCHIZOPHRENIA AND ALZHEIMERS. AREN'T I SO COOL?!?!?!?!?" when in reality they have none of that. We have options available to treat broken behaviour like this but children exposed to this filth at young ages tend to be influenced towards refusing help and continuing it, thus making this fad drag on and on.

Lastly, I've been noticing a sickening trend with society. At one point we did tell people to grab life by the balls and force your way into everything, but now it seems like society is telling you to do the opposite. To bend over and accept everything with a smile, rather than fight for what you want. It's something I'm noticing fairly often in Canada



modfox said:


> highly doubt it. in order for you to view NSFW material on FA you need to make an account. SoFurry on the other hand well.. i guess we can only wait and see



Didn't SoFurry die a long time ago? Or am I thinking of the furnation one?


----------



## Mircea (Feb 25, 2017)

An important piece of information: I read more into this whole madness, being unable to stop bawling my eyes at what the heck is happening there. The relevant part regarding FA seems to be as follows:

FA and other art sites like it should in fact be safe! As long as they don't make money off of people accessing any porn, and none of it is behind a paywall or explicitly funded. The law only applies to commercial content, meaning online shops that actually sell porn. I don't think commissions matter as they don't affect what gets shown to you (the normal website user) though this might include individuals posts like "go to my paid website to buy this". So until these fanatics think of censoring freely available art on the internet as well, which after what I've seen I realize they may one day be capable of trying, I think we're good from what I'm understanding.



Sergei Sóhomo said:


> But that's my point. This freedom means children can use social media and their parents most likely won't bother to watch what they do on it so they're wide open to these influences. Hell, I've seen children in grades as low as primary with working iPhones and shit.
> 
> I don't think the mental illness thing is the same as the edgy "kill urself faget" pack. What I meant by it was "I HAVE OCD, SCHIZOPHRENIA AND ALZHEIMERS. AREN'T I SO COOL?!?!?!?!?" when in reality they have none of that. We have options available to treat broken behaviour like this but children exposed to this filth at young ages tend to be influenced towards refusing help and continuing it, thus making this fad drag on and on.
> 
> ...



I've heard about that trend before, though I think it's in part also due to it being hard to get a proper diagnosis. For instance I'm quite sure that I have asperger or some form of autism... NOT because it's something I find interesting to wave around, but because I seem to match every description and "symptom" whereas nothing else justifies some things. Example: In times of stress or if staying in an unfamiliar place or around people for too long, I tend to suddenly go brain dead, to the point where I can barely even move my limbs or talk properly and everything feels like a dream... still not sure what every reason for that may be, and I never visited a doctor since I have neither the money nor trust in most (especially state ones).

I also heard about the interesting argument that today's society teaches everyone to be withdrawn and not take risks rather than being determined and productive. If that's really true, I won't hide that I'm definitely a product of that! I don't however think it's because we are indoctrinated per say; Rather that some of us grow up to believe that others around us take all the choices, and our actions don't matter because stuff's gonna be bad anyway (learned helplessness).

That being said, freedom of children on the internet is generally something I approve of, even if I see why many don't... especially for anyone at a reasonable age like 14. Truth is, children are people too... and equally true is that parents aren't perfect either. I say this in part because I joined the furry community when I was 16, and made a lot of friends and learned much at the time; If my parents found out about everything I was accessing, they could have banned me in a fit of rage... all to "protect" me from things that never had and never could have harmed me at the time. I'm saddened how few people realize that over-protection can be just as dangerous of an issue as no protection.

As for Sofurry, it's still alive and I use it today alongside FA / Inkbunny / etc  You might be thinking of it having renamed in recent years, after previously being called Yiffstar.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 25, 2017)

> Redacted by staff



I have no moral obligations my amigo



Mircea said:


> I've heard about that trend before, though I think it's in part also due to it being hard to get a proper diagnosis. For instance I'm quite sure that I have asperger or some form of autism... NOT because it's something I find interesting to wave around, but because I seem to match every description and "symptom" whereas nothing else justifies some things. Example: In times of stress or if staying in an unfamiliar place or around people for too long, I tend to suddenly go brain dead, to the point where I can barely even move my limbs or talk properly and everything feels like a dream... still not sure what every reason for that may be, and I never visited a doctor since I have neither the money nor trust in most (especially state ones).
> 
> I also heard about the interesting argument that today's society teaches everyone to be withdrawn and not take risks rather than being determined and productive. If that's really true, I won't hide that I'm definitely a product of that! I don't however think it's because we are indoctrinated per say; Rather that some of us grow up to believe that others around us take all the choices, and our actions don't matter because stuff's gonna be bad anyway (learned helplessness).
> 
> ...



Oh no it has nothing to do with actual diagnosis. People either haven't gone to the doctors or they have, were told they're perfectly fine and still go on about how they're all 40 people inside 1 body.

I believe it's more to do with self entitlement and being spoiled as a child which loops back around to my argument: parents aren't doing their jobs. Children _need _discipline, strcuture and punishment in order to grow up and be somewhat decent human beans. If you remove structure, punishment and discipline then you're left with a child who will have a very high likelihood of growing up to be what you see now.

Yes, children are people, but they're also pretty stupid and naive through no fault of their own. That's just their nature and it's up to their parents to provide the correct paths to learn, grow and prosper. Total freedom as I've mentioned means they can easily be persuaded, coerced and manipulated and encouraged to think or do certain things that are simply broken and reinforces their thoughts. I'm all for children learning through their own stupidity (I.E. they themselves putting their own hand on a burning hot stove top to learn it's hot and they shouldn't do that) but too much of that leads to irreversible damage and thought patterns.

Case in point look at AntiFA: delusional LARPers that think they're "fighting fascism" wit hthe "working class" when in reality the working class spits on them and they themselves are the bigoted fascists.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Feb 25, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I have no moral obligations my amigo


Does that make you amoral, or immoral?


----------



## Sagt (Feb 25, 2017)

> Redacted by staff


Lol.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 25, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Does that make you amoral, or immoral?



Who knows


----------



## Mircea (Feb 25, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I believe it's more to do with self entitlement and being spoiled as a child which loops back around to my argument: parents aren't doing their jobs. Children _need _discipline, strcuture and punishment in order to grow up and be somewhat decent human beans. If you remove structure, punishment and discipline then you're left with a child who will have a very high likelihood of growing up to be what you see now.
> 
> Yes, children are people, but they're also pretty stupid and naive through no fault of their own. That's just their nature and it's up to their parents to provide the correct paths to learn, grow and prosper. Total freedom as I've mentioned means they can easily be persuaded, coerced and manipulated and encouraged to think or do certain things that are simply broken and reinforces their thoughts. I'm all for children learning through their own stupidity (I.E. they themselves putting their own hand on a burning hot stove top to learn it's hot and they shouldn't do that) but too much of that leads to irreversible damage and thought patterns.
> 
> Case in point look at AntiFA: delusional LARPers that think they're "fighting fascism" wit hthe "working class" when in reality the working class spits on them and they themselves are the bigoted fascists.



I'm almost always against the idea of classic punishment, which I think is often very misunderstood. People like to think that if a child is punished for a wrongdoing, they'll always go and sit in their room and think about what they've done them never do it again. This is not however the case for everyone: Some will only take it as an act of hostility and not understand anything out of it, unless it's also explained clearly to them in a way they can understand. In such a case, the more you punish them the more they'll grow to resent you and plot to do something worse.

I know because once more, I was one of those kids; I happened to not have a good ability of integrating what's happening around me, and understanding the connections between things. I would occasionally do various things that today I realize were wrong, but back then had no awareness of. The more people criticized me for them, the more my brain went into a "they're all against me, but I'll show them and do worse next time" mode... and that caused its share of harm. I only understood some things a few years back, as friends and (furry) family discussed it with me and put in a light that changed my perception... until then there was simply no way my brain could have been made aware of them.

Honestly I'm not sure why I'm sharing this, though I guess it's to make a point: Some people don't work how we expect them to, for whatever reasons that may be. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with how the world expects people to be and sets them up for such, though in recent years I got the impression it progressively got better. That impression does of course go away whenever I walk down the street and occasionally hear a child yelling as if placed on a torture device, with an angry parent dragging them and slapping their head along the way while mumbling random cuss words.


----------



## Mircea (Feb 25, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> I wonder if ID-checks would force touchier art, eg "cub", out of some places. Mere content bans of such per specific website simply made them a bigger problem on other websites. The UK is probably ~50% of all furries out there, and its never getting any less Orwellian.



I think the two issues are unrelated, so no. Cub porn is blocked separately because some users are unfortunate enough to be living in countries that still have a "cartoon police"... which could similarly threaten to ban FA nation-wide if they don't respect their censorship demands, or arrest users who click the wrong link on FA as another risk. Apparently instead of fixing this descend into madness, places like the UK are looking to make it even madder.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 25, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> I wonder if ID-checks would force touchier art, eg "cub", out of some places. Mere content bans of such per specific website simply made them a bigger problem on other websites. The UK is probably ~50% of all furries out there, and its never getting any less Orwellian.
> 
> Come to think of it, I wonder if it wouldn't curtail straight up "embarrassing" content either. If Pony content got scrubbed, but I'd be pretty ecstatic to see that scourge destroyed as well.


There's no way that ~50% of furries are from the UK. What about America, Japan and the rest of Europe?

I would think that UK furs make up less than 10% of the furry population.


----------



## JumboWumbo (Feb 25, 2017)

Mircea said:


> I think the two issues are unrelated, so no. Cub porn is blocked separately because some users are unfortunate enough to be living in countries that still have a "cartoon police"... which could similarly threaten to ban FA nation-wide if they don't respect their censorship demands, or arrest users who click the wrong link on FA as another risk. Apparently instead of fixing this descend into madness, places like the UK are looking to make it even madder.


I thought FA didn't allow cub anyways?



Lcs said:


> There's no way that ~50% of furries are from the UK. What about America, Japan and the rest of Europe?


Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if at least 25% of them came from Germany.

Germans are some kinky motherfuckers.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 25, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> Huh: UK, Germany, USA as the top 3...
> ... aaaand Germany seems to be half of the entire world's furry population. You learn something every day.
> ... is there a huge net of German speaking furry sites I'm missing out on by not being Bilingual?
> 
> ...


Looking at Japan, I doubt that map is accurate. I suspect the US would have more furs as well.


----------



## Mircea (Feb 25, 2017)

JumboWumbo said:


> I thought FA didn't allow cub anyways?
> 
> Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if at least 25% of them came from Germany.
> 
> Germans are some kinky motherfuckers.



It did allow it in the first few years of its existence. Then the cartoon morality team came by, and reminded them that fictional characters only have sex when the state says they have sex.

I doubt that number is accurate as well: Most furs are by far from the US, and many are from the rest of Europe (myself included), indeed many from Germany. There are however quite a few UK furs too!


----------



## Sagt (Feb 25, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> No population map is accurate for this.
> 
> Eg, furrypoll.com puts damn near all furries in the USA and the bulk of those just in California.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.

I'm still a bit skeptical about Germany, the Lowlands and the US though. I don't doubt that Germany has a lot of furs, but I have a hard time believing that they have more furs than the US.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 25, 2017)

Mircea said:


> I'm almost always against the idea of classic punishment, which I think is often very misunderstood. People like to think that if a child is punished for a wrongdoing, they'll always go and sit in their room and think about what they've done them never do it again. This is not however the case for everyone: Some will only take it as an act of hostility and not understand anything out of it, unless it's also explained clearly to them in a way they can understand. In such a case, the more you punish them the more they'll grow to resent you and plot to do something worse.
> 
> I know because once more, I was one of those kids; I happened to not have a good ability of integrating what's happening around me, and understanding the connections between things. I would occasionally do various things that today I realize were wrong, but back then had no awareness of. The more people criticized me for them, the more my brain went into a "they're all against me, but I'll show them and do worse next time" mode... and that caused its share of harm. I only understood some things a few years back, as friends and (furry) family discussed it with me and put in a light that changed my perception... until then there was simply no way my brain could have been made aware of them.
> 
> Honestly I'm not sure why I'm sharing this, though I guess it's to make a point: Some people don't work how we expect them to, for whatever reasons that may be. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with how the world expects people to be and sets them up for such, though in recent years I got the impression it progressively got better. That impression does of course go away whenever I walk down the street and occasionally hear a child yelling as if placed on a torture device, with an angry parent dragging them and slapping their head along the way while mumbling random cuss words.




It's not so much about them reflecting on their actions. They're kids and they wouldn't really do that. The whole idea of punishing is to make them realize what it is they can and shouldn't do. It's about establishing the rules and structuring your child

It won't work for everyone, no, but it does at the very least establish that what they did was "wrong" and invokes the negative emotions. Surely someone will realize "hey they always act this way when I do this. Maybe I shouldn't do it"

That's the beauty of the age we live in. We can fix or help correct almost any form of broken behaviour, thoughts or even views with anything from precription medication to talking to a mixture of both. It's a wonderous thing


----------



## Sagt (Feb 25, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> It's not so much about them reflecting on their actions. They're kids and they wouldn't really do that. The whole idea of punishing is to make them realize what it is they can and shouldn't do. It's about establishing the rules and structuring your child
> 
> It won't work for everyone, no, but it does at the very least establish that what they did was "wrong" and invokes the negative emotions. Surely someone will realize "hey they always act this way when I do this. Maybe I shouldn't do it"
> 
> That's the beauty of the age we live in. We can fix or help correct almost any form of broken behaviour, thoughts or even views with anything from precription medication to talking to a mixture of both. It's a wonderous thing


Instead of punishing a child for when they do something wrong, you could reward them when they do something right (positive reinforcement).


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 25, 2017)

Lcs said:


> Instead of punishing a child for when they do something wrong, you could reward them when they do something right (positive reinforcement).



That still runs the risk of creating self entitled and thin skinned little shits. Positive reinforcement is good, yes, but you need to dole out punishments as well. Otherwise you get the kind of people many millennials are today


----------



## Sagt (Feb 25, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> That still runs the risk of creating self entitled and thin skinned little shits. Positive reinforcement is good, yes, but you need to dole out punishments as well. Otherwise you get the kind of people many millennials are today


I don't see how this would encourage someone to be self-entitled or thin-skinned.

However, I do see many potential problems as a result of punishment:

Lack of self-discipline from child
Encourages lying to avoid punishment
Children may be more aggressive
May encourage excessive escapism


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 25, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I don't see how this would encourage someone to be self-entitled or thin-skinned.
> 
> However, I do see many potential problems that be caused with punishment:
> 
> ...



If you do not provide punishment and structure then your child is missing out on:

Learning about consequences
Accepting responsibility
Learning to deal with negativity and bad consequences that doesn't devolve into crying and tantrums 
Realizing that they're not incapable of doing no wrong
This why I said a mix of positive and negative. Having simply 1 means you're going to end up with one of the extremes


----------



## Sagt (Feb 25, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> If you do not provide punishment and structure then your child is missing out on:
> 
> Learning about consequences
> Accepting responsibility
> ...


3/4 of those points were basically rephrased versions of each other. Anyways, I disagree with them.

When a child does something wrong, they are not rewarded and so they are discouraged from doing the behaviour again. In that way, they are taught about consequences and responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 26, 2017)

Lcs said:


> 3/4 of those points were basically rephrased versions of each other. Anyways, I disagree with them.
> 
> When a child does something wrong, they are not rewarded and so they are discouraged from doing the behaviour again. In that way, they are taught about consequences and responsibility for their actions.



Yeah no I didn't realize it until after the fact that _one _of them is the same as the other.

You give children too much credit. They're very low-level thinkers and, like I've stated earlier, if you do not provide structure and punishment in moderation with positive reinforcement then you get weak and defective children. I've seen this shit time and time again. I've taught elementary for some time. Most of which was overseas, but I have done some rounds in north america.

I can tell which child was raised in a house hold without discipline
I can tell which child was raised in a household of only discipline
I can tell which child was raised in a household of mixed

Children who were raised in a mixed environment were able to take criticism much better than those who had nothing but positive reinforcement. They also tend to be much more docile and all around a decent student. Those who grew up in nothing households of nothing but punishment and strict ruling were more prone to ignoring staff, aggression and fits of rage. Also had some who just did not care about anything because their parents didn't care at all. They would typically skip class or come in at a much later time during the day



Rykhoteth said:


> "_Millennials_" are defined as either the generation whose label is the most poorly defined, having simply expanded to later include half of the previously defined generations before and after, or simply as the only generation anybody talks about aside from baby boomers.


They're generally referred to as people who are between the ages of 16 - 24 in the context of current time, as it's mostly college aged people who are enabling and encouraging broken and defective behaviour with a bit of mid teens showing tendencies as well.

But I have hope for generation Z


----------



## Sagt (Feb 26, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Yeah no I didn't realize it until after the fact that _one _of them is the same as the other.
> 
> You give children too much credit. They're very low-level thinkers and, like I've stated earlier, if you do not provide structure and punishment in moderation with positive reinforcement then you get weak and defective children. I've seen this shit time and time again. I've taught elementary for some time. Most of which was overseas, but I have done some rounds in north america.
> 
> ...


Admittedly, I do think that some forms of punishment do work - such as perhaps making the child clean up for their messes or mistakes. However, I do not think that punishment such as verbal (calling them a dunce) and physical (spanking) are suitable. You probably weren't referring to this kind of punishment, but I was mainly arguing against you for the sake of being contrarian.

From my understanding, millenials are more often considered the prople born between the years 1980 and 2000. Also, I have read that generation Z is supposed to be more conservative, but I think that's only in relation to the fiscal side of politics. From what I've read, they are just as liberal, socially, though. I could be wrong about that, and they are still very young so it's hard to tell.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 26, 2017)

Lcs said:


> Admittedly, I do think that some forms of punishment do work - such as perhaps making the child clean up for their messes or mistakes. However, I do not think that punishment such as verbal (calling them a dunce) and physical (spanking) are suitable. You probably weren't referring to this kind of punishment, but I was mainly arguing against you for the sake of being contrarian.
> 
> From my understanding, millenials are more often considered the prople born between the years 1980 and 2000. Also, I have read that generation Z is supposed to be more conservative, but I think that's only in relation to the fiscal side of politics. From what I've read, they are just as liberal, socially, though. I could be wrong about that, and they are still very young so it's hard to tell.



Of course not. Physical and emotional do nothing but damage the child. That's why I kept mentioning structure

I could be wrong, but in most cases that I see it's almost always college age adults. I've also been hearing mixed things from just money-wise, to just liberal topics to both money and liberal topics


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 26, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> Generally 24? Says the guy who's 27? If I speak to someone older than you, they'll say 16-32 (~1985 to now). Some sociologists peg it as early as very late 70's, while some say it's very clearly those were are 18 in 2000 aka 1982, aka 35 now. Most people have no set end date or don't even realize there's a Gen Z, let alone a Gen Y. So now everybody is a Millennial, depending on when you were born and what you're arguing.
> 
> Or, as I most often heard it, "_Kids these days_".
> 
> Pet peeve. Actual research for things like work ethics, behavior, etc, looking at larger studies, IIRC I'm actually thinking of the results of studies pushed by the US Army, basically find there's jack shit differences between generations, even back to Baby Boomers. Or simply that people really never changed.



Probably, but I'm being a hypocrite and calling it under my age because I value myself higher than being lumped in with this nutcases.

That phrase about sums it up

I dunno, you take a look at college aged people and you'll find people are much less apt to take initiative or risks and would rather be in tow as opposed to being in charge. Maybe it's just where I studied, but they seemed to be mucn ore meek and timid with tendencies to avoid confrontation and just accept whatever negativity went their way without a word


----------



## Sagt (Feb 26, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Probably, but I'm being a hypocrite and calling it under my age because I value myself higher than being lumped in with this nutcases.
> 
> That phrase about sums it up
> 
> I dunno, you take a look at college aged people and you'll find people are much less apt to take initiative or risks and would rather be in tow as opposed to being in charge. Maybe it's just where I studied, but they seemed to be mucn ore meek and timid with tendencies to avoid confrontation and just accept whatever negativity went their way without a word


Damn millennial.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 26, 2017)

Lcs said:


> Damn millennial.



Straight to my ego :c


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> Generally 24? Says the guy who's 27? If I speak to someone older than you, they'll say 16-32 (~1985 to now). Some sociologists peg it as early as very late 70's, while some say it's very clearly those were are 18 in 2000 aka 1982, aka 35 now. Most people have no set end date or don't even realize there's a Gen Z, let alone a Gen Y. So now everybody is a Millennial, depending on when you were born and what you're arguing.
> 
> Or, as I most often heard it, "_Kids these days_".
> 
> Pet peeve. Actual research for things like work ethics, behavior, etc, looking at larger studies, IIRC I'm actually thinking of the results of studies pushed by the US Army, basically find there's jack shit differences between generations, even back to Baby Boomers. Or simply that people really never changed.



Yes, there are even records of the ancients complaining that subsequent generations were inferior to them. For example there are a long line of Latin writers bemoaning the decline of their language, as if their generation spoke the one true Latin and all subsequent innovations were corruptions.



Lcs said:


> 3/4 of those points were basically rephrased versions of each other. Anyways, I disagree with them.
> 
> When a child does something wrong, they are not rewarded and so they are discouraged from doing the behaviour again. In that way, they are taught about consequences and responsibility for their actions.



I've been following this conversation, and I found the use of the terms 'punishment' and 'reward' rather vague. 

For example, if a child breaks something in their haste, would having them help you repair it count as a 'punishment' ?

Perhaps a better question would be what sort of intervention should happen to redress unacceptable behaviour, and I'd like to imagine that approaches which focus on explaining the detrimental effects of the behaviour and helping to atone for them are better, rather than for example trying to instill humiliation. 

I think the latter approach is like treating children as though they are pavlov's dogs, rather than developing humans who need to understand how their actions affect other people in order to cultivate empathy and their own intrinsic measure of determining right from wrong, even when they know an adult isn't watching.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 28, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> I've been following this conversation, and I found the use of the terms 'punishment' and 'reward' rather vague.
> 
> For example, if a child breaks something in their haste, would having them help you repair it count as a 'punishment' ?
> 
> ...


There are two types of punishment: positive and negative. The example you wrote down in your post was positive punishment, while as negative punishment is an infliction of pain (emotional, mental or physical).

From what I read, you seem to be in favour of positive punishment. To an extent, I agree with you that it is an effective way to teach children empathy. However, I think this only works on children that respect and are willing to listen the person who is administering the punishment.

Overall, I still think that positive reinforcement is the most effective tactic to teach children about what is right and wrong. That said, I do believe that a mixture of both is needed though.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 28, 2017)

Lcs said:


> There are two types of punishment: positive and negative. The example you wrote down in your post was positive punishment, while as negative punishment is an infliction of pain (emotional, mental or physical).


Actually, no. Both of those are positive punishment. Negative punishment is things like taking away a favorite toy. 
Having a child help fix something they messed up I suppose could be described as _constructive_ punishment.

Basically, punishment/rewards are broken into four quadrants:
Positive reinforcement: Giving/inflicting something pleasant as a reward for desired behavior.
Negative reinforcement: Taking away something unpleasant as a reward for desired behavior.
Positive punishment: Giving/inflicting something unpleasant to deter undesired behavior.
Negative punishment: Taking away something pleasant to deter undesired behavior. (This also includes things like putting a child in the corner or ignoring them as a consequence of inappropriate behavior - you're taking away attention at that point.)

AND NOW YOU KNOW~


----------



## Sagt (Feb 28, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Actually, no. Both of those are positive punishment. Negative punishment is things like taking away a favorite toy.
> Having a child help fix something they messed up I suppose could be described as _constructive_ punishment.
> 
> Basically, punishment/rewards are broken into four quadrants:
> ...


Fake news. 

For real though, I read about this a couple months ago and remembered it being different. Upon looking it up again just now to confirm what you wrote, I suppose I remembered it wrong.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 2, 2017)

Back to the orginal topic


----------



## Mircea (Mar 3, 2017)

Guess I'll share this here as well: I decided to make an artist challenge about this stupid bill, as a means of spreading the word about it and really just having fun in the process. Had a blast working on it these past couple of days, and hope other artists will want to do it as well!

Template: Here

My version (very NSFW!): Here


----------



## JumboWumbo (Mar 3, 2017)




----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 3, 2017)

Mircea said:


> Guess I'll share this here as well: I decided to make an artist challenge about this stupid bill, as a means of spreading the word about it and really just having fun in the process. Had a blast working on it these past couple of days, and hope other artists will want to do it as well!
> 
> Template: Here
> 
> My version (very NSFW!): Here



I clicked on both but 1 loaded before the other and I wish I hadn't of clicked it. On the bright side, it means I have a reason to buy a bottle of bleach now


----------



## Mircea (Mar 3, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I clicked on both but 1 loaded before the other and I wish I hadn't of clicked it. On the bright side, it means I have a reason to buy a bottle of bleach now



Well, I warned accordingly that it's NSFW... some artists make way worse things really  And love the above version, nice one JumboWumbo!


----------



## Mircea (Mar 4, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> I'm more distracted by the 250$/month patreon for fetish indie games. And here I am selling limbs  to ease student loan payments.
> Holy shit Fenoxo is making over 300,000 $ a year on Patreon to do less than I accomplish in a month at work.
> Save some bleach for me, my brain needs some. I need more vodka as well to process this. Hmmm. Shit. What is my life.



Ummm... you are aware that some vore artists make over $3000 a month on Patreon for "fetish stuff", aren't you? A sum which in my country would make you as rich as a politician in power. If you have a problem with that... well, I hope this knowledge gives haters trouble sleeping at night I guess? Really though, this went very off-topic very suddenly... just enjoy something made in good fun and spread the word about it if you wish, and let's not make this a Youtube comment section


----------



## GreenReaper (Apr 28, 2017)

The Digital Economy Act has now passed. The final version has not yet been published, but here's a recent copy (there was some attempt by the Lords to remove "extreme pornography" from the clause allowing Internet blocking even _with _age verification in section 23, not sure if that amendment was accepted).

The focus remains on adult video production and distribution, but of course furry art sites often host rendered animations nowadays. The question of whether sites are "making available […] on a commercial basis" will have to wait for regulation defining the application of that term. The obvious reading would be in line with taxation (would you deduct trading losses?), but they previously tried to slip in use of commercial hosting.


----------



## Mircea (Apr 28, 2017)

I understand it only refers to commercial websites that put their content behind a paywall. FA shouldn't qualify.

Whatever the case, the best course of action is to just ignore them. Even if they want to block FA in the UK, let them block it: That nation is now a dictatorship, and trying to accommodate to their demands would be like trying to convince the China Communist Party not to block FA in China.


----------



## GreenReaper (Apr 28, 2017)

The law is specifically intended to include free distribution, in part because free sites are often used as "teasers" for premium content. Think Patreon, for a start. FA could be seen as a teaser portal for paid distribution, either for artists, or IMVU (which profits from the service it promotes on FA). Ostensibly, they don't care so much about the money, more that kids can get to it.

Where the model does not quite match is that furry art sites are often not profiting directly. But FA and e621 at least serve paid ads, FN is seeking to skim money off the top of commissions, SoFurry has a commission market, and even Inkbunny takes donations.  It is not yet clear which of these activities will be viewed as "commercial".

I agree that for many the answer will be to let the UK do what it will. Past laws in this area have been enforced spottily, and there are specific provisions allowing the regulator to focus its efforts on the most egregious commercial providers, or those which it believes will be most effective. But several furry sites are in or approaching the top-5,000 sites on the web by traffic, so they may become a target.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 28, 2017)

Oh, great... Another thing for me to worry about! Although this won't affect me personally, because I'm an American, all of my closest friends are from the U.K., and I'll be so sad if I can't talk to them anymore because they can't use FA...


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 28, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Oh, great... Another thing for me to worry about! Although this won't affect me personally, because I'm an American, all of my closest friends are from the U.K., and I'll be so sad if I can't talk to them anymore because they can't use FA...


I doubt you have anything to worry about. This is about physical goods. 

And FA's not earning money through the members who use their site, so it should be all good.


----------



## GreenReaper (Apr 28, 2017)

It isn't anything to do with physical goods, at least on the front end - it's specifically about Internet pornography. That's why it's called the _Digital_ Economy Act. See the definition of "material".

As for earning money, ask the site members who are advertised at the top and bottom of every page who they paid to get their ad. (To save you the time: it was FA - and while the ad may be tasteful, what is likely to matter is that the service it was on has porn, and is not using one of the still-to-be-defined age-verification services.)

The goal also appears to be to capture multi-site organizations which offer free 18+ content on one site with the end goal of promoting another paid product or service. See pgs. 22-24 of this consultation. You don't need to earn money on the free site; you just need to be a related organization. This might include IMVU's services, but also Bad Dragon toys, since a related company owns e621, F-list, etc. and it shows promotions for BD on those sites - the argument is that mass unverified distribution of pornography on a commercial scale would be infeasible without BD's dildo-dollars.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 28, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I doubt you have anything to worry about. This is about physical goods.
> 
> And FA's not earning money through the members who use their site, so it should be all good.


Ok... I'll trust the FA god known as Yakamaru.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 28, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Ok... I'll trust the FA god known as Yakamaru.


(Don't stroke his ego too much, or we'll have to deal with 10 more Yakamaru-based threads )


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 28, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> (Don't stroke his ego too much, or we'll have to deal with 10 more Yakamaru-based threads )


Shush. Don't tempt people here. 



FluffyShutterbug said:


> Ok... I'll trust the FA god known as Yakamaru.


...The sky is green, hamsters are just the furry incarnation of evil people, and dolphins are actually name-calling you when they make sounds. 



GreenReaper said:


> It isn't anything to do with physical goods, at least on the front end - it's specifically about Internet pornography. That's why it's called the _Digital_ Economy Act. See the definition of "material".
> 
> As for earning money, ask the site members who are advertised at the top and bottom of every page who they paid to get their ad. (To save you the time: it was FA - and while the ad may be tasteful, what is likely to matter is that the service it was on has porn, and is not using one of the still-to-be-defined age-verification services.)
> 
> The goal also appears to be to capture multi-site organizations which offer free 18+ content on one site with the end goal of promoting another paid product or service. See pgs. 22-24 of this consultation. You don't need to earn money on the free site; you just need to be a related organization. This might include IMVU's services, but also Bad Dragon toys, since a related company owns e621, F-list, etc. and it shows promotions for BD on those sites - the argument is that mass unverified distribution of pornography on a commercial scale would be infeasible without BD's dildo-dollars.


Wait, I posted in the wrong fucking thread, and thinking about a completely different bill about a completely different country.

^ This guy's correct. I was thinking about the trade taxes on goods from Mexico to America. 

My bad. Carry on.


----------



## Tezzy Fur (Apr 28, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Welcome to the UK, Europe's fascist dictatorship police state. This shit is only the beginning, mate. The Snooper Charter your piece of fucking shit Prime Minister, Theresa fucking May, signed, is just the tip of the iceberg of CRAP they will use to censor people and opinions/views they don't like.
> 
> Sweden's already Europe's rape capital, Germany is Europe's Cuck, Greece the dropout and France seems to be FINALLY waking up to the garbage Islam really is. It only took them some 200 deaths and 700+ injuries over the past year, but we're getting there.
> 
> ...



Did you mean to type all those words or did you just start smashing you head into the keyboard to see what nonsense came out?


----------



## Mircea (Apr 28, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I doubt you have anything to worry about. This is about physical goods.
> 
> And FA's not earning money through the members who use their site, so it should be all good.



So the law only refers to ordering physical porn comics or DVD's online, not exclusively to digital content meant to be accessed through the internet? That would be a bit saner than what I've heard about this bill... meaning it's unlikely, because nowadays whatever is sane is most likely not the case.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 28, 2017)

Mircea said:


> So the law only refers to ordering physical porn comics or DVD's online, not exclusively to digital content meant to be accessed through the internet? That would be a bit saner than what I've heard about this bill... meaning it's unlikely, because nowadays whatever is sane is most likely not the case.


They seem to want to ban anything that can't be commercialized and taxed, from the looks of it. Whether Furry shit will be hit is still unknown. Basically, I'd say this is just the government looking for yet another way to get more money. If they even remotely tried that over here, people would sue the government to hell and back for breach of privacy, and dabbling in shit the government have no business shoving their nose in in the first place.

I am for the age restriction up until you're 16, but apart from that, they can leave the porn alone.



Tezzy Fur said:


> Did you mean to type all those words or did you just start smashing you head into the keyboard to see what nonsense came out?








Try harder, mate. I might nibble next time. :3


----------



## Mircea (Apr 28, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> They seem to want to ban anything that can't be commercialized and taxed, from the looks of it. Whether Furry shit will be hit is still unknown. Basically, I'd say this is just the government looking for yet another way to get more money. If they even remotely tried that over here, people would sue the government to hell and back for breach of privacy, and dabbling in shit the government have no business shoving their nose in in the first place.
> 
> I am for the age restriction up until you're 16, but apart from that, they can leave the porn alone.



I think it's a mix between finding excuses to spy on people and get information about their everyday lives, wanting more money, and social control (through enforcing the idea that "every aspect of your life belongs to us").

In any normal country, no government could pull out such a stunt... yet in the UK they somehow managed to. There was not a single protest about it, and barely did anyone (except for OpenRightsGroup) talk about it! I mean come on: I understand being afraid of getting arrested for a night, or tagged as some sort of criminal which could cost some people their jobs... but with no offense intended, the British are overdoing the whole being a sheep thing.

The idea of age verification is pure evil as well as ridiculous in my book: No one is supposed to police what anyone else can look at on the internet, which qualifies as thought policing and we live in a world that should know better... it counts even when it comes to kids looking up porn. I can understand parents who have concerns in this regard... however internet censorship is supposed to be done at home with local software only, as it's a family issue and a matter of personal belief.

I'm glad you agree the age should be 16 though. The fact that in most places it's still 18 makes it all even more crazy. If it were me I'd make the age of consent itself 14, because at that age there's already a risk of oppressing someone who can and wishes to partake in such acts safely... for merely looking at porn on a computer screen however (especially fictional drawings) I'd wipe out any law in this regard without blinking.


----------



## GreenReaper (Apr 28, 2017)

Don't forget securing votes. There's a reason porn was in the Conservative manifesto for two terms running - it appeals to their base. Now they have a new achievement to trumpet in the upcoming snap elections.

As in Russia and Australia - two countries which have brought in similar measures, or attempted to - conservative elements in British society fear that which they do not control. It won't actually *stop* anyone with two brain cells to rub together who's looking for such content, but that's not the point: as anyone who's seen _Yes Minister_ knows, what matters is being _seen_ to do something. [On the positive side, that means that actually implementing and enforcing this new law is at a much lower priority.]

A few people did bring up a lack of actual evidence of harm - as well as the potential applicability of  Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (with respect to choosing for themselves to see sexually-oriented content, including things they might legally be able to do at 16) - but it fell on deaf ears. Who cares about international agreements, anyway? The UK's already demonstrated its willingness to go its own way.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 28, 2017)

Mircea said:


> I think it's a mix between finding excuses to spy on people and get information about their everyday lives, wanting more money, and social control (through enforcing the idea that "every aspect of your life belongs to us").
> 
> In any normal country, no government could pull out such a stunt... yet in the UK they somehow managed to. There was not a single protest about it, and barely did anyone (except for OpenRightsGroup) talk about it! I mean come on: I understand being afraid of getting arrested for a night, or tagged as some sort of criminal which could cost some people their jobs... but with no offense intended, the British are overdoing the whole being a sheep thing.
> 
> ...


The Snooper Charter is one such instance where they use the guise of "counter-terrorism" in order to stifle privacy and put people under surveillance. 

Data Retention Directive - Wikipedia
^ This was tried in my country and the EU, but by the EU Constitution(Lisbon Treaty) and our own laws, it was deemed unconstitutional and a breach of privacy. The Snooper Charter is extremely similar. This digital bill is somewhat similar, due to the government's incapability to control what goes on online, and thus can't commercialize/tax it. Unless they go in the direction China went; They created their own internet basically, with their own version of everything.

Then comes this shit: "But think of the children!" <-- Anyone using this excuse unless it's child trafficking or actual abuse/torture/exploitation or other forms of child exploitation/abuse/torture, can go fuck themselves with a cactus. This is practically child worship, and can in some cases be considered child abuse. Children are not to be protected at all costs and from everything. The only thing you can do as parents, is best teach your child how to deal with reality and the real world, and prepare them as best as possible. 

Make the legal age of consent 16 across the board. I find the age 14 to be slightly low, IMO.



GreenReaper said:


> Don't forget securing votes. There's a reason porn was in the Conservative manifesto for two terms running - it appeals to their base. Now they have a new achievement to trumpet in the upcoming snap elections.
> 
> As in Russia and Australia - two countries which have brought in similar measures, or attempted to - conservative elements in British society fear that which they do not control. It won't actually *stop* anyone with two brain cells to rub together who's looking for such content, but that's not the point: as anyone who's seen _Yes, Minister_ knows, what matters is being _seen_ to do something.
> 
> A few people did bring up a lack of actual evidence of harm - as well as the potential applicability of  Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (with respect to choosing for themselves to see sexually-oriented content, including things they might legally be able to do at 16) - but it fell on deaf ears. Who cares about international agreements, anyway? The UK's already demonstrated its willingness to go its own way.


I can never understand people who are against porn and/or masturbation. 

It's healthy.
It relieves tension/stress.
It feels good. 
It can and will pay well for the actors/actresses.


----------



## Sagt (Apr 29, 2017)

Supposedly many of the 'unconventional sexual acts' had already been banned in 2014 from being produced within the UK. The clause in the Digital Economy Bill is now banning the viewing of such content. Also, the age restrictions are (I think?) not being applied to social media, where there is still a lot of sexual content shared. 



Mircea said:


> I think it's a mix between finding excuses to spy on people and get information about their everyday lives, wanting more money, and social control (through enforcing the idea that "every aspect of your life belongs to us")





Mircea said:


> That nation is now a dictatorship, and trying to accommodate to their demands would be like trying to convince the China Communist Party not to block FA in China.


I think you're being much too cynical - more likely is that British society is just too prudish.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 29, 2017)

I agree wit LCS that English society is stuffy and prudish. 
I'm frustrated that the right wing of British politics wants to force these attitudes on everybody else.


----------



## Mircea (Apr 29, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I think you're being much too cynical - more likely is that British society is just too prudish.



It's probably that too, but not just that. Keep in mind Britain is one of the few countries to have a nation-wide censorship system of such proportions, which is shockingly close to that of China. To create something like this and take internet into the third world, just because a few angry old men are offended by some harmless porn... nah, I've seen crazy, but even I refuse to believe in this amount of madness! It must have been proposed for other interests, whereas the prudishness was the excuse used and possibly why no one had anything to say about this bone-chilling violation of people's rights in the middle of a (supposedly) 1st world nation.


----------



## Sagt (Apr 29, 2017)

Mircea said:


> It's probably that too, but not just that. Keep in mind Britain is one of the few countries to have a nation-wide censorship system of such proportions, which is shockingly close to that of China. To create something like this and take internet into the third world, just because a few angry old men are offended by some harmless porn... nah, I've seen crazy, but even I refuse to believe in this amount of madness! It must have been proposed for other interests, whereas the prudishness was the excuse used and possibly why no one had anything to say about this bone-chilling violation of people's rights in the middle of a (supposedly) 1st world nation.


I was mentioning the prudishness because what I'm saying is that, for a portion of the population - particularly for many conservative voters (voters of the ruling party) and conservative lobbying groups - this is actually popular. So it's not like people are being censored and oppressed, but rather that some people are actually in favour of such legislation.

Anyways, every country has limitations to freedoms - the so called 'land of the free' included. This in mind, it's sort of silly to suggest that the UK is some sort of oppressive dictatorship, like you were doing.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 29, 2017)

Mircea said:


> It's probably that too, but not just that. Keep in mind Britain is one of the few countries to have a nation-wide censorship system of such proportions, which is shockingly close to that of China. To create something like this and take internet into the third world, just because a few angry old men are offended by some harmless porn... nah, I've seen crazy, but even I refuse to believe in this amount of madness! It must have been proposed for other interests, whereas the prudishness was the excuse used and possibly why no one had anything to say about this bone-chilling violation of people's rights in the middle of a (supposedly) 1st world nation.



As Lcs said, draconian attitudes towards sex are commonplace in the UK; it's not just a few angry old men. 
That's one of the reasons that this piece of legislation wasn't openly discussed as a point of contention here. 

Many regard access to online pornography as a pervert's vice and a corrupter of the youth, rather than a right. 

I'm worried that, following the exit from the EU, that the UK will become less liberal on a lot of issues, in favour of more restrictive conservative and popular attitudes.
For example it's possible that the current human rights legislation may be replaced with a British bill of rights.


----------



## Mircea (Apr 29, 2017)

Lcs said:


> Anyways, every country has limitations to freedoms - the so called 'land of the free' included. This in mind, it's sort of silly to suggest that the UK is some sort of oppressive dictatorship, like you were doing.



One addition I wanted to make here: At this point I'm calling the UK a dictatorship for multiple reasons. 20th century attitudes toward porn are just one: The same bill also introduces 10 year prison sentences for anyone who shares and / or accesses copyrighted material illegally, with no distinctions between actual commercial pirates and people like you and me downloading a file off a torrent... expect many lives to be ruined. Then there's the snooper chatter thing, the most evil surveillance and data retention law anywhere in the occident. Encryption (and with it modern technology) is under heavy attack too, as the state believes people shouldn't be allowed to communicate if the state can't spy on them all the time (read the comments of Amber Rudd). They're also pushing hard for a law that will put journalists who talk about leaked documents in prison, making sure whistleblowers don't reveal any abuse that happens in these institutions. Overall the UK has a lot of serious issues, and it's clearly distancing itself from the modern world I'm afraid.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 29, 2017)

Mircea said:


> One addition I wanted to make here: At this point I'm calling the UK a dictatorship for multiple reasons. 20th century attitudes toward porn are just one: The same bill also introduces 10 year prison sentences for anyone who shares and / or accesses copyrighted material illegally, with no distinctions between actual commercial pirates and people like you and me downloading a file off a torrent... expect many lives to be ruined. Then there's the snooper chatter thing, the most evil surveillance and data retention law anywhere in the occident. Encryption (and with it modern technology) is under heavy attack too, as the state believes people shouldn't be allowed to communicate if the state can't spy on them all the time (read the comments of Amber Rudd). They're also pushing hard for a law that will put journalists who talk about leaked documents in prison, making sure whistleblowers don't reveal any abuse that happens in these institutions. Overall the UK has a lot of serious issues, and it's clearly distancing itself from the modern world I'm afraid.



The maximum sentence for copyright infringement in the UK has been a 10 year prison sentence since the Copyright, Designs and Patents act of 1988:
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - Wikipedia
Distinctions are made between people who share content illegally or unknowingly, and commercial bootleggers or pirates. 10 years is merely the maximum sentence that can be given.
The digital economy bill of 2017 widens the power of English and Welsh courts to decide what exact sentence they want to impose. It does not mandate that they impose a 10 year prison sentence for anybody and everybody convicted of copyright infringement.

I'm not a fan of the digital economy bill (for different reasons), but your understanding of British law is pretty wrong, and it's leading you to make embarrassing statements.


----------



## GreenReaper (Apr 29, 2017)

Dictatorship has a pretty clear definition. The UK isn't a dictatorship. These laws have been debated and passed by an elected parliament. That's the problem.

Last month's Lords' amendments debate is long, but may prove enlightening as to just how few UK lawmakers publicly share any of the views expressed here.

The main party expressing significant concern with this bill was the Liberal Democrats. Even then, some LibDem peers supported it. The main question was not whether anyone under-18 should be able to see such work. Far from it. As Baroness Jones says, preventing under-18s from accessing pornography "is something that not just the Government but all the main political parties have been committed to."

Indeed, the main question on the Lords' minds seemed to be "why are we allowing _adults_ to see stuff with age-verification that they can't get in shops?" The general feeling was that they'd lost their grip and needed to reimpose UK morals on what is "extreme" and should not be allowed - fisting, CBT, watersports, etc. - because the rise of the Internet has rendered strict government control over access to pornography on physical media in licensed sex shops almost entirely redundant.

There was an attempt to add specific measures to the bill to protect anonymity and force a choice of age verification providers, which did not get enough votes. You can probably guess the party affiliations.

---

On the technical side, it'll be hard for sites without a relationship with a card processor to effectively implement age-verification for existing members, let alone new ones. Perhaps in a pinch they can use convention attendance as a proxy? You must, after all, be 18 or above to have attended ConFuzzled, and few would pay for an event knowing they could not attend. Furries typically seek a unique name (sometimes _very_ unique), and an account which existed prior to the date of the convention with the name of such a person might be presumed to be owned by an adult. Or better, with con support, OpenID Connect could be used.

But that approach will only cover a fraction of those wishing to view sites from the UK; for my own site, I estimate it would be at most half of UK-resident members, and I suspect the true figure would be far less. Additional events might increase the proportion, but it wouldn't cover them all. It also discriminates against those who cannot afford to attend a convention, have not had the time, or merely do not wish to.


----------



## Mircea (Apr 29, 2017)

People are entirely missing my point. I am not saying the UK is a dictatorship from a technical political perspective, since people indeed elect their leaders. I'm saying the UK is a dictatorship in how it is behaving! And after the things I've read during these past few months, you can be sure I stand by that comment now.

In the actual modern world, people have their most basic rights respected, whereas penal sentences are reserved for actually serious crimes and only put into law when they're applicable. Britain is one of few nations to have a mainstream national censorship structure... one of the few places where journalists stand to be put in prison for bothering the state... to demand that every device has its security systems crippled to satisfy the authoritarian views of a few. Please tell me where else, other than China or Iraq or Syria, have things gotten quite this bad yet?

I suggest that we do not accept this madness being covered by the label "free and open world". Because here in Europe as well as in America, we have nutjobs with similar views, who are seemingly set on killing progress and taking the modern world back into some weird dark age. Take agents seizing and hacking travelers phones at US borders as one example, of this dangerous authoritarian trend spreading worldwide. What's been happening in Britain during the last months should kinda shock the rest of us, and get us thinking what we can do to make sure the same doesn't happen to ourselves.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 29, 2017)

Mircea said:


> People are entirely missing my point. I am not saying the UK is a dictatorship from a technical political perspective, since people indeed elect their leaders. I'm saying the UK is a dictatorship in how it is behaving! And after the things I've read during these past few months, you can be sure I stand by that comment now.
> 
> In the actual modern world, people have their most basic rights respected, whereas penal sentences are reserved for actually serious crimes and only put into law when they're applicable. Britain is one of few nations to have a mainstream national censorship structure... one of the few places where journalists stand to be put in prison for bothering the state... to demand that every device has its security systems crippled to satisfy the authoritarian views of a few. Please tell me where else, other than China or Iraq or Syria, have things gotten quite this bad yet?
> 
> I suggest that we do not accept this madness being covered by the label "free and open world". Because here in Europe as well as in America, we have nutjobs with similar views, who are seemingly set on killing progress and taking the modern world back into some weird dark age. Take agents seizing and hacking travelers phones at US borders as one example, of this dangerous authoritarian trend spreading worldwide. What's been happening in Britain during the last months should kinda shock the rest of us, and get us thinking what we can do to make sure the same doesn't happen to ourselves.



Some of those things you thought the UK was doing were objectively false though. For example there isn't a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for copyright infringement regardless of circumstance.
The UK also isn't the only country where copyright infringement can result in a prison sentence, that's normal for most western countries.

I agree though that the UK's mandated collection of internet browsing histories and their restriction on images and videos of legal sex acts is prudish and authoritarian in nature and that I'm not comfortable with politics going in this direction.

It is just that presenting this dichotomy between 'free' and 'dictatorship' is silly, because obviously England isn't a dictatorship. It's a western democracy which has some policies which I view as illiberal.



GreenReaper said:


> Dictatorship has a pretty clear definition. The UK isn't a dictatorship. These laws have been debated and passed by an elected parliament. That's the problem.
> 
> Last month's Lords' amendments debate is long, but may prove enlightening as to just how few UK lawmakers publicly share any of the views expressed here.
> 
> ...



I just find it bizarre that the British government thinks it has an imperative to tell Britons which legal sexual fetishes are gross and unacceptable. 

It's judicial kink shaming essentially; I'm really not sure why we should object if some people have a fetish for peeing.


----------



## GreenReaper (Apr 29, 2017)

If the phrase had been "the UK _is acting like_ a dictatorship", people might have been more inclined to agree, to the extent that the UK has ended up doing the same thing as dictatorships.

The truth is that _lots_ of countries have gone down this path at one time or another. The difference is that in the UK you actually need quite specific laws to justify it, and a third-party independent body set up to regulate that in a hands-off manner. In a more autocratic society, you'd use more general laws - as we saw with Wikipedia in Turkey earlier this week - and a single minister or strong-man saying "do this".

There have been occasional news items about this bill, but most of it has been about Brexit and the elections, plus the incidental day-to-day stuff. After all, this isn't "news" per-se, everyone knew (in theory) that the Conservatives and Labour wanted to do this, and they got voted in, so the details aren't as important unless you're directly impacted. When the election came, this was already in the legislative pipeline, so they rammed it through on the grounds that they had to fulfill their manifesto.

The argument around "extreme pornography" has typically been that it encourages behaviour which may result in harm - rape has obvious issues; CBT and fisting _can_ cause lasting injury; and watersports and scat are arguably not all that healthy either. Of course the same argument was previously made for anal sex, and the concept of fetishes being inextricably linked to sexual degradation is relevant to understanding these laws. Where there _are_ specific laws, the BBFC has been trying to edge around the fact that people don't feel the way they did fifty-odd years ago, in part because such material is freely available online.

People _do_ die occasionally, from things such as self-asphixiation, and the typical British response is not "well, they took their own life in their hands" or even "we should have told them how to do it in a safer way", but "_someone_ should have stopped this from happening". The same justification is used for censoring material giving guidence on (or promoting) suicide, which was technically still a criminal offence until 1961, and still is for those assisting it.

You could argue the motivation for such laws two ways - it's bad because it's immoral, or it's immoral because it's bad. But either way the approach is undeniabily authoritarian; taking away choice from the individual, on the grounds that the result of their choices *may* harm themselves or another person down the line. The wording used in committee to justify an earlier pornography-related law was "we want those crimes prevented". Funnily enough, such reasoning just ends up making more crime - and more feel-good laws, which the authorities are incapable of enforcing.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 30, 2017)

GreenReaper said:


> If the phrase had been "the UK _is acting like_ a dictatorship", people might have been more inclined to agree, to the extent that the UK has ended up doing the same thing as dictatorships.
> 
> The truth is that _lots_ of countries have gone down this path at one time or another. The difference is that in the UK you actually need quite specific laws to justify it, and a third-party independent body set up to regulate that in a hands-off manner. In a more autocratic society, you'd use more general laws - as we saw with Wikipedia in Turkey earlier this week - and a single minister or strong-man saying "do this".
> 
> ...



If the United Kingdom could ban viewing videos of anal sex, without being perceived as anti-gay, they almost certainly would. 

I personally just find it depressing that some really rather harmless fetishes are castigated as extreme content, because of the stigmatisation that this confers; I really agree that the BBFC's antiquated guidelines on what is and isn't extreme need to be radically overhauled so that innocuous behaviours are not treated as though they are equivalent to endorsing sex crimes. 

I wonder how this new legislation will manifest; will tumblr and twitter posts that feature sexual content begin to disappear or be regulated? Will my furaffinity gallery suddenly become classified as extremist illegal content?


----------



## Mircea (Apr 30, 2017)

The beginning of any nightmare regime in any nation (whatever label we give to said nation) is almost always the ruling elite deciding they need to extend the law beyond practical facts into the realm of ideas. The story almost always goes as: "This one thing is really bad and makes us feel unusually offended... let's not just criminalize practically doing it in everyday life, but also censor talking about it or put artists in prison if they ever draw it or write a novel of it". Any nation that does this in any form deserves condolences.

This is a horrible thing because people are NEVER good at understanding how other people work, nor at understanding what other people need... trying to will only satisfy the ego of one group while needlessly making life much harder for another. Most of the time, not even parents understand what their kids want or need and end up doing harm in the process. A state concluding it knows what's best for millions of people to see and think is out of touch with modern reality, and shouldn't exist anywhere better off than Africa.


----------



## GreenReaper (Apr 30, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> I wonder how this new legislation will manifest; will […] my furaffinity gallery suddenly become classified as extremist illegal content?



"This submission is not available in your country due to a legal complaint by the British Board of Film Classification. Sorry about that."


----------



## Sagt (Apr 30, 2017)

Mircea said:


> The beginning of any nightmare regime in any nation (whatever label we give to said nation) is almost always the ruling elite deciding they need to extend the law beyond practical facts into the realm of ideas. The story almost always goes as: "This one thing is really bad and makes us feel unusually offended... let's not just criminalize practically doing it in everyday life, but also censor talking about it or put artists in prison if they ever draw it or write a novel of it". Any nation that does this in any form deserves condolences.
> 
> This is a horrible thing because people are NEVER good at understanding how other people work, nor at understanding what other people need... trying to will only satisfy the ego of one group while needlessly making life much harder for another. Most of the time, not even parents understand what their kids want or need and end up doing harm in the process. A state concluding it knows what's best for millions of people to see and think is out of touch with modern reality, and shouldn't exist anywhere better off than Africa.


I like my freedoms as well, but lets be real here - this move was actually pretty minor in importance. That in mind, comparing this move to something typical of dictatorships within developing nations is absolutely uncalled-for.

To elaborate on this, yes, we have a functional democratic system here in the UK; while I'm admittedly no fan of Theresa May, she's still by no means a dictator, nor should she be compared to one. We voted in both our currently ruling party and our MPs. Sure, we have more regulations and restrictions here, but I think it's largely a cultural thing.


----------



## Mircea (Apr 30, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I like my freedoms as well, but lets be real here - this move was actually pretty minor in importance. That in mind, comparing this move to something typical of dictatorships within developing nations is absolutely uncalled-for.
> 
> To elaborate on this, yes, we have a functional democratic system here in the UK; while I'm admittedly no fan of Theresa May, she's still by no means a dictator, nor should she be compared to one. We voted in both our currently ruling party and our MPs. Sure, we have more regulations and restrictions here, but I think it's largely a cultural thing.



Like I said, politically the UK functions like every other country in the modern world, I'm not saying it's a dictatorship by textbook definition. However in my view at least, its recent actions separate it from the advanced world, as it has taken several decisions that I do not associate with such nor consider acceptable and possible in it. That's how I feel and I can't change it... we'll have to agree to disagree on how much the UK still qualifies as a normal nation at this point.

Whatever the case, I really hope someone can drag Britain out of the pit it's falling in. I have at least one close friend who lives there, and was overall a fan of the UK until they suddenly lost their minds (coincidentally or not, it seems to have exploded after Brexit happened). Right now much of the world is dealing with a rise of dangerous ideas, but I'd say that's where it has hit the worst.


----------



## Sagt (Apr 30, 2017)

Mircea said:


> Like I said, politically the UK functions like every other country in the modern world, I'm not saying it's a dictatorship by textbook definition. However in my view at least, its recent actions separate it from the advanced world, as it has taken several decisions that I do not associate with such nor consider acceptable and possible in it. That's how I feel and I can't change it... we'll have to agree to disagree on how much the UK still qualifies as a normal nation at this point.
> 
> Whatever the case, I really hope someone can drag Britain out of the pit it's falling in. I have at least one close friend who lives there, and was overall a fan of the UK until they suddenly lost their minds (coincidentally or not, it seems to have exploded after Brexit happened). Right now much of the world is dealing with a rise of dangerous ideas, but I'd say that's where it has hit the worst.


So first off, calling a country a dictatorship always has a political connotation to it and it seems like you were misusing the word. I suppose restrictions can be considered authoritarian, but this is different from a dictatorship and it should be kept in mind that this is pretty much voluntary since we voted these guys in to represent us.

Second off, the thing is that many other Western countries have far worse things about them. Not to sound too preachy or to go off-topic too much, but...

In Australia, many asylum seekers are forcibly removed away from the mainland to elsewhere in prison-like conditions. Furthermore, for workers to disclose information on the conditions of the refugees is punishable by 2 years, though there have been many leaks that exposed endemic and systemic abuses. Also in Australia, Aboriginals (indiginous natives to Australia) suffer from disproportionate education/health/crime disadvantages and inequality. It should also be mentioned that the forced sterilisation of children and those with disabilities is allowed over there.

In the USA, there are racial disparities in criminal justice - despite African Americans and white Americans having comparable rates of drug consumption, African Americans are arrested, prosected and incarcerated at significantly higher rates for drug offenses. There's also the anti-scientific and extremely dangerous gay conversion therapies, which is legal to provide for minors (though this is also legal in most European countries). Similarly, same-sex marriage was only legalised very recently in 2015 and there are still issues with discrimination and a lack of laws protecting LGBT individuals.

When comparing recent restrictions in the UK brought up in this thread to the human rights violations and harmful policies that can be seen in other countries, the restrictions by the UK seem much less significant. So I think we can easily still consider the UK to be a "normal" country.

Edit: I should probably mention that I would agree that the UK does need to clean up it's act though and also that there are a lot of dangerous ideas going around at the moment worldwide.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 30, 2017)

Mircea said:


> Whatever the case, I really hope someone can drag Britain out of the pit it's falling in. I have at least one close friend who lives there, and was overall a fan of the UK until they suddenly lost their minds (coincidentally or not, it seems to have exploded after Brexit happened). Right now much of the world is dealing with a rise of dangerous ideas, but I'd say that's where it has hit the worst.


What pit? If you're referring to Brexit, it's the best thing that have happened to the UK. Marine le Pen's chances of winning next election is pretty high in France, and that will hammer in yet another nail in the coffin of the EU.

Ideas are harmless if they are not acted upon.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 30, 2017)

Other 'normal' nations also have restrictive attitudes towards pornography and there are a slew of regulations which surround art in several 'advanced' countries too.
Take Megumi Igarashi, who was convicted of obscenity in Japan for making art that involves depictions of female genitals.
Obviously I think these repressive attitudes are undesirable and stuffy, but I think they are the manifestations of cultures with strict etiquette and formality, rather than the whims of dictators.
I think we should be careful to avoid using buzzwords like dictatorship when we criticise censorship of sexual content because it gives conservatives a grounds to stop taking our objections seriously, because they just write us off as young people who will accuse _anything t_hey dislike of being fascism.


----------



## FurPhag (May 1, 2017)

Great, I'm happy about it. And producers of such obscene material should be punished. Think about the children!


----------



## AnarchyLynx (May 1, 2017)

I'm British and I'm certainly not happy about this bill or a great many other developments in UK politics. That said, it's important to remember that, while it may not feel like it at times, the UK is still one of the most liberal, democratic states in the world: we have one of the longest running (consequently a little archaic), most transparent democratic systems of any nation, we have a robust system of checks and balances limiting what the government can impose on the population, and even if we can be notoriously prudish (at least in public) there are very few sexual acts for which consenting adults can be prosecuted (the law enters something of a grey area where physical harm is involved).

If there's one major problem that the UK has in this area though, it's that we still have a pretty firmly entrenched class structure which makes the 'elites' massively over-represented in politics. This breeds a pretty toxic patrician mentality among politicians; a delusion of responsibility to uphold the moral character of the masses. Now I know I'm biased but I think it's fair to say that this kind of 'father knows best' politics comes mostly from the Conservatives, many of whose voters are old enough to remember homosexuality being criminalised and as such were raised in the belief that sexual deviance is a genuine threat to society. All of this together means that the current government feel fully justified in infringing upon people's freedoms in the name of preventing the (perceived) moral degeneracy of the population, in particular the younger generation, but I wouldn't be too quick to draw sweeping conclusions about the general state of UK political discourse. Which isn't to say there aren't other areas of concern - the Investigatory Powers Bill is a major one - just that it's important to realise that British culture makes us vexatiously tolerant of draconian legislation when it concerns issues like pornography.


----------



## GreenReaper (May 1, 2017)

Lcs said:


> it should be kept in mind that this is pretty much voluntary since we voted these guys in to represent us.



Speak for yourself - _I_ voted for Kodos! 

Overall I tend to agree that Australia is a little more out there than the UK, though we have also prevented the mentally disabled from having sex - which isn't quite the same, but involves a similar loss of rights. "Think of the children" is basically what happens in this situation; when you have an adult with the mind of a child, it magnifies the problems they face.


----------



## AnarchyLynx (May 1, 2017)

Lcs said:


> it should be kept in mind that this is pretty much voluntary since we voted these guys in to represent us.


It should also be kept in mind that the current government only got 37% of the vote, so they're only representing just over a third of those who voted.


----------



## Mircea (May 20, 2017)

It seems Theresa May of the Tories held some sort of speech last night. As others have put it, it was something straight out of dystopian science fiction... or what you'd expect Kimmy of North Korea to say in his speeches at best.

Apparently she wants an entirely state ran internet, where you need the government's approval to post or even say anything online. Her fantasy is for Britain to be the world's internet control checkpoint, who decides what anyone on the planet gets to post... when that doesn't happen I figure she wants to build a British intranet and isolate the nation from the outside world. In her view porn is the equivalent of physically bullying someone, and "if you wouldn't do something in a school playground it doesn't belong on the internet".

So please FA (and all other sites out there): Ignore these complete lunatics, and don't try to meet any of their demands! If somehow no one steps in to keep them in control, it's not just FA or porn sites that will be banned, but every website or forum in the world that doesn't accept the UK's strict censorship of speech and ideological control (even this here forum post). Asking not to be blocked in Britain right now is like going to China and asking the CCP to unblock FA for Chinese residents... actually no, it's honestly even more unlikely at this point.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2017)

Mircea said:


> It seems Theresa May of the Tories held some sort of speech last night. As others have put it, it was something straight out of dystopian science fiction... or what you'd expect Kimmy of North Korea to say in his speeches at best.
> 
> Apparently she wants an entirely state ran internet, where you need the government's approval to post or even say anything online. Her fantasy is for Britain to be the world's internet control checkpoint, who decides what anyone on the planet gets to post... when that doesn't happen I figure she wants to build a British intranet and isolate the nation from the outside world. In her view porn is the equivalent of physically bullying someone, and "if you wouldn't do something in a school playground it doesn't belong on the internet".
> 
> So please FA (and all other sites out there): Ignore these complete lunatics, and don't try to meet any of their demands! If somehow no one steps in to keep them in control, it's not just FA or porn sites that will be banned, but every website or forum in the world that doesn't accept the UK's strict censorship of speech and ideological control (even this here forum post). Asking not to be blocked in Britain right now is like going to China and asking the CCP to unblock FA for Chinese residents... actually no, it's honestly even more unlikely at this point.


Well, I said the UK is turning into a police state. People don't listen. Then this shit comes along.

Oh, and Tommy Robinson's going to court. For journalism. Well done, UK. Scotland's going to have Count Dankula in court too, for doing a prank on his girlfriend, the pug that reacts to "sieg heil" and "gas the Jews".

I love how these morons make free speech martyrs all over the place. It's brilliant, but sad as hell for the people who must be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. 

You can't control a population through fear for long.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2017)

Fucking glad I live in Norway where I don't have to deal with this utter crap.


----------



## Mircea (May 20, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Fucking glad I live in Norway where I don't have to deal with this utter crap.



Yep... that's the article I saw too: www.independent.co.uk: Theresa May to shut down the internet as we know it


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2017)

Mircea said:


> Yep... that's the article I saw too: www.independent.co.uk: Theresa May to shut down the internet as we know it


Indeed. It's as if the UK's already forgotten what they fought for only as little as 70 years ago.

Take away people's ability to speak their mind and the only thing they have left is violence and riots. It's as if these blind ideologues WANT civil war. You can't run a country on an ideology alone.


----------



## GreenReaper (May 20, 2017)




----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2017)

GreenReaper said:


> View attachment 18841


At this rate it'll become illegal to simply be human and actually like shit.


----------



## Mircea (May 20, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Indeed. It's as if the UK's already forgotten what they fought for only as little as 70 years ago.
> 
> Take away people's ability to speak their mind and the only thing they have left is violence and riots. It's as if these blind ideologues WANT civil war. You can't run a country on an ideology alone.



It's quite the irony: 70 years ago, Britain was on the front line of liberating Germany, after an extremist group called the Nazis and led by Adolf Hitler came to power and threatened the entire world. Now it's the rest of us who will have to think of how we can liberate Britain, after a fanatical group called the Tories and led by Theresa May seized the state and threatens all of us with fanatical ideologies. You'd think the world would have learned, yet somehow history still repeats itself.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2017)

Mircea said:


> It's quite the irony: 70 years ago, Britain was on the front line of liberating Germany, after an extremist group called the Nazis and led by Adolf Hitler came to power and threatened the entire world. Now it's the rest of us who will have to think of how we can liberate Britain, after a fanatical group called the Tories and led by Theresa May seized the state and threatens all of us with fanatical ideologies. You'd think the world would have learned, yet somehow history still repeats itself.


You'd think that with 150+ million deaths because of Communism, people will learn. And yet, we still have these lunatics all over. The EU's basically the USSR 2.0. Glad they are dying out.

Shit's similar, but we now have something they didn't have 70 years ago: The internet, and full access to information.


----------



## AnarchyLynx (May 23, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Oh, and Tommy Robinson's going to court. For journalism. Well done, UK.


He's been charged with contempt of court for violating a restriction that is placed on journalists to prevent them from influencing juries, that's actually pretty important if you support an independent judiciary.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 23, 2017)

AnarchyLynx said:


> He's been charged with contempt of court for violating a restriction that is placed on journalists to prevent them from influencing juries, that's actually pretty important if you support an independent judiciary.


What kind of fuckwit government grabs people at 4.30 IN THE MORNING and drag them to jail, for then to hold him for 12+ hours without any giving him ANY reason for why he's locked up?

Contempt of court my ass. Have plenty of journalists and news outlets doing the EXACT same shit unscathed. It's only because Tommy's views on "migrants" are unacceptable and want some common sense in dealing with them.

The UK needs to grow some fucking balls. It's a shame to see the only ones with them are few and far between.


----------



## GreenReaper (May 23, 2017)

To be frank, only letting juries know what judges and lawyers think they should know isn't that all convincing - or realistic - in the 21st century.
The government admitted that the existing rules were too restrictive when they made it possible to bring up prior convictions back in 2004.

There's a lot of research out there about how such coverage may change the course of a trial - although the impact of such coverage fades quickly.
But what's far less clear is whether, say, knowledge of past convictions helped juries come to an _accurate_ conclusion about a person's guilt in a current trial.

It's also based on the argument that juries are, essentially, not able to set their prejudices aside.
This might well be true, but in that case, why on earth are they being trusted to make a decision in the first place?
The same thing could be accomplished by a computer, programmed to accept relevant factors such as sex, race, ethnic origin, and religious practices - and far more cheaply.


----------

