Thanks for highlighting this failure mode. We don't have a supervisor thread in a position to slow readers and writes like you described in your other thread, so I knocked up a job to force a checkpoint if needed. https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/commit/cdf9397f8067fc21... Other things would fall over long before we reached 14k RPS so hopefully this suffices for us.
No. In short, in US law, CSAM is a visual depiction of a real-world act of child sexual abuse. Visual depictions like you're describing are covered under a different law, and I'm not aware of it having a short name. There's a good expert thread on this with links to the relevant federal laws here: https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3lbt7zkvlq...
(a)In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A)depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B)is obscene; or ...
(b)...
(c)Nonrequired Element of Offense.—
It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
I wonder how you'd actually go about prosecuting that. What's the line between crass and illegal?
People have infantilization fetishes - where they wear diapers and shit. You can certainly imagine someone making a cartoon of that in a sexual way.
Adults often don't look their ages. John Mulaney famously had a set about resembling a child when he was 29.
What if someone generated an image that looked like a teenager, but there was a driver's license in the frame that said the person was an adult?
Real people have ages. Imaginary people are imaginary.
What about art from the antiquity when what we would call a teenager would have been treated as an adult? Surely someone painted people having sex before "the age of consent" was a well-defined term. Is it illegal to own that painting?
This isn't elaborated on in the piece, but it does mention that it's written in the context of the Fermi paradox. Adding 50,000 years of technological development and a 1,000 year rebooting phase at each star system doesn't meaningfully change how long it would take life to spread when considered against the 13,500,000,000 years since stars developed.
Or it's a distinction without a difference to the site owner. Ever prod service I've run has seen significantly more abuse from human users using alias services, especially protonmail. I'm not surprised that some owners have chosen to block it entirely, given their resources, but I'd prefer to see it used as a signal in a more sophisticated system if possible.
It's not intentional on this author's part, but this is a great example of how Google rewards people posting slop. The oldest posts on the blog read normally, the new stuff this post says it added to satisfy Google all reads like this post.
What followed was extraordinary: 329 comments and counting, ranging from thoughtful concern to outright harassment.
The thread did not stop at words. One user posted My Little Pony drawings of themselves strangling the "project janitor that pushed vibecoded commits":
It spread to Hacker News and Lobsters, generating hundreds more comments.
It is neat that Lobsters has this feature (and HN should too), and I'm glad you took a beat to explain it. I think you didn't need the last sentence, though.
I have done so! that was a misremembering on my part. first mention of Lobsters is now here:
> On Lobste.rs, in response to the Medium essay Tridge himself posted in response, finally some users like boramalper begin to actually ask for evidence one way or another:
> when I saw someone complain about what he thought the title should be, I just used his idea instead of my own. This upset the moderator so much when he saw that I was optimizing my writing style based on feedback from his site
I was unaware the blog copied my title change until seeing this on HN and I have no emotional reaction to it. I've replaced over a hundred clickbait titles and it's not an emotionally evocative chore. Anyone can read my contemporaneous explanation at https://lobste.rs/c/hjlmw1 to see my reasoning and judge for themself how upset I sound.
Your linked comment comes across to me in much the same way as TFA: seething with bitterness kept just beneath the surface, channeled into a style that projects authority and precision.
This is pure passive aggression:
> To ease her confusion and conscience, and in the hopes of dealing with less trolling, I have banned her domain.
I then read the links in that post, and some of the comments in the Lobsters thread, including by someone now appearing as "inactive-user". I think the points inactive-user made about the distinction between bannable and benign actions being somewhat arbitrary and footgun-ish are sound. At the same time, user matklad pointed out that the subsequent behaviour of Justine's invitees (namely, posting many more articles from their own sites) was exactly what the bans were designed to prevent, which I agree with.
I do accept that a forum like Lobsters (or HN) is beset on all sides by spammers whose participation, if left unchecked, threatens their very existence. So it's unfortunately necessary to have and enforce rules, which will inevitably be imperfect.
For now I've concluded that two people on opposite sides of a really quite small argument about a grey area were looking for a fight, and that both took actions to escalate it.
> Your linked comment comes across to me in much the same way as TFA: seething with bitterness kept just beneath the surface, channeled into a style that projects authority and precision.
It reads entirely to me like someone tired of dealing with a chronic rule-abuser. That is what moderators are for. I don't see how you interpret any of that as the mod looking for a fight.
reply