It's not clear to me that prohibitions on prostitution are helpful. For instance, I remember research showing that decriminalization in places like Australia actually decreased violence?

There are also examples which don't quite fall into the definition but aren't that far off. For instance, in Australia, a book for a popular anime title, NGNL, was banned. It's set in a fantasy world with magical games.

Anime titles are the sort of thing that is popular among younger generations.

what's up with these people coming up with prohibitions.

As for the text, I'd be concerned about it targeting erotica. Something might be offensive but being offensive isn't a good reason for prohibition. The evidence is against it causing crime and it doesn't mean someone's a criminal.

bsky.app/profile/virs... The scientific evidence swings against that causing sex crimes.

As for the choking, even if someone isn't fond of choking, I don't see how it'd be helpful to shame random people in the newspaper or to lock random people up. I feel it would drive toxicity. I don't know

It probably doesn't help that a few people in "polite society" spoke as if the only value in erotic content was whether it prevents someone from committing crimes and not the inherent expressive value in it.

interest of "polite society".

Australia. A gov which has been racist af to anime content. But, this gets a pass (I'm not calling to censor this particular book).

Think of how popular anime is. One stat put it that 80% of younger gens watch it. Anime porn? Likely millions of ppl for taboos. So, why Lolita? Because, it's an

I think it's strange to censor anime gore when there are all kinds of violent films (I'm not calling to censor those films).

Truth be told, there seemed to be hardly anyone who knew about SESTA, or the implications of SESTA. Ironically, I have seen negative opinions of criminalization based policies when it comes to prostitution or other sex work but untethered from any particular bill.

It might be a clever application of math, and perhaps, it's more technically capable than a previous model, but no, it's not "like human thought".

I'm still seeing this tendency to anthropomorphize in new proposals for algorithms, such as one that tries to guess the next four words at once by compressing them into one vector. All of a sudden, someone is like "it's just like human thought!"

I wouldn't compare it to any kind of person, even someone who "might not have the highest EQ". Fundamentally speaking, it is not a person. It's a tool which uses a load of math and weights to create *plausible looking responses*.

Someone's anthropomorphizing the thing, attributing human traits to it, even when trying to *not* anthropomorphize it.

And of course, it can't understand someone's feelings, if they have mental health issues, because it's not conscious.