Just because someone was victimized doesn’t mean every thing they do afterwards is a smart idea. It’s a fundamentally flawed approach and her being a victim doesn’t change that.

There’s 4 billion men on the planet. If you want to find men with 3 arms, you’ll find a lot of them.

Woman who goes looking for shitty men found shitty men! More at 11

Post the screenshot

You’d be banned faster than trying to say “Tiananmen” on grad

If you happened to go in there and speak against them, you’d just be banned and have your post removed.

Literally EVERY SINGLE TIME a news article mentions both “porn” and “children”, it turns out it’s some bullshit being pushed by a Christian fundamentalist group, and often with an added dose of state surveillance and restricting liberty. Add in “terrorists”? Don’t even bother with this article, it’s pure hysteria propaganda. It’s like a WASPy suburban mom’s wet dream.

I disagree, I’d like a greater variety of topics especially on general conversation communities.

The randomness is the point. He wants the markets to yo-yo so those with insider knowledge can make a bunch of money.

Expect this to continue until Trump gets bored of it.

I don’t care why he did it, and neither should you. What a ridiculous purity test.

Fifty. MILLION.

The man should literally be made into a saint. “Oooh Linux blah blah” FIFTY FUCKING MILLION LIVES SAVED. The man has far outweighed anything bad he’s ever done in his life.

Oh no, not that horrible person Bill Gates who checks notes saved 50 million peoples lives

And we have absolutely no data to suggest that’s happening. It’s purely hypothetical.

It would probably make me distrust the prosecution, like if they’re bringing this up they must not have much to go on. Like every time a black man is shot by police they bring up that he smoked weed.

I guess my main complaint is that it’s insane to view it as equivalent to real CP, and it’s harmful to waste any resources prosecuting it.

This sounds like you’re searching really hard for a reason to justify banning it. Pretty tenuous “what if” there.

Like, a dildo could hypothetically be used to sexualize a child. Should we ban dildos?

It’s so vague it could apply to anything.

With a set of all images on the internet. Why do you people always think this is a “gotcha”?

If a child is not being harmed, I truly do not give a shit.

such material can easily be used to groom children

This literally makes no sense.

Kind of a moot point I guess. You’re right, they were always cowards.

But really, journalists don’t need to pretend any of this is legitimate.

In 2016, I would have agreed with you. I think now, journalists’ personal safety might be at risk if they don’t fall in line.