Rediphile

joined 2 years ago
[–] Rediphile 0 points 1 year ago
[–] Rediphile 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Your take away from what I wrote was that I think people should never expose themselves to the sun/UV? The benefits of moderate UV exposure are completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

I just explained how they are comparable and really don't know what else to tell you. Maybe someone else can give it a go.

[–] Rediphile 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (25 children)

Skin whitening is not unlike tanning in the west, an indication of status/wealth. In India lighter skin shows you don't need to work outside. In the west tan skin shows you can take vacations.

And in both cases people fake it with creams and tanning salons. And it becomes so entrenched people don't realize why they are actually doing it. Just like makeup and clothing choices.

Yes, there are problematic racial undertones...and in general is definitely fucked up...but I think it's more complicated than just a race thing. I mean, people in the West are literally exposing themselves to cancer causing UV to fake the look of having recently taken a trip to Hawaii or whatever, which is also kinda fucked up.

[–] Rediphile 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Going anyway and just not tipping is also a completely acceptable and legally protected option. Sort of like saying 'no thank you' to the grocery store check out person asking for charity donations or if you would like to sign up for the store credit card.

Again, it's optional. So people can also say 'yes' if they want and that's cool too I guess. Although tipping is inherently harmful to the server's baseline wage which is a bit problematic, if people want to tip they can and no one is stopping them. And I won't give them shit about it unless they specifically inquire about it. Since the whole thing is 'optional' after all I let them make their own decisions and if tipping gives them a nice release of serotonin or dopamine or something that makes them feel better, who am I to take that from them.

[–] Rediphile 2 points 1 year ago

Obviously yes. I imagine many people with nearly dead accounts will check the app and work this, and only this, day specifically for a good rate.

That's how contract employment works. Work when you want at a price that you agree to. No guarantees and no commitment. It's no way to live, which is why I pursued a salaried career. But it is useful in specific situations.

[–] Rediphile 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, striking as contractors isn't meaningful. I fully support strikes btw and am far left, but it just doesn't work for contract work. It only works when a legitimate union is formed. And the first step to achieving that is the refusal of contract work.

[–] Rediphile 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, companies make money off products people want rather than those that they don't.

I agree the only solution is to end capitalism which is kinda what I was getting at. And I'm fine with the associated societal collapse. Worth it.

But in the meantime I'm not going to sit here and pretend Google (or any corporation) is specifically the 'evil bad guy' when they are just playing within the rules that society has set up for them. As are all the other companies, every single one.

It's extremely naive to expect a for-profit business to make decisions that go against their entire point of existence, which is to make money.

[–] Rediphile 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It is possible regardless, even when they try their best to delete it as they do now.

What's your solution here? Shut down all video streaming services entirely? Have actual humans reviewing every single video uploaded before being made public?

[–] Rediphile 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure why one would expect anything else from a for-profit corporation.

I think that perhaps the bigger issue is that NeoNazis and such are socially acceptable enough to be permitted. That's a societal issue more than a Google issue. As you point out, if society did not tolerate it and thus it hurt their bottom line, they would remove it.

[–] Rediphile 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

YouTube already does have age restricted videos.

And do you actually think they don't already detect and flag potential porn using an algorithm? How do you think they prevent most of it from being on the site in the first place?

No one anywhere was claiming a 100% detection rate, which is why sometimes porn does in fact end up on YouTube until flagged manually by people who view it.

[–] Rediphile 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So basically only in a wildly different world in which child porn was widely socially accepted?

view more: ‹ prev next ›