this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
378 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

72739 readers
1525 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Can you stop trying to find a silver lining in the sexual exploitation of teenage girls?

Can you please use words by their meaning?

Also I'll have to be blunt, but - every human has their own sexuality, with their own level of "drive", so to say, and their dreams.

And it's absolutely normal to dream of other people. Including sexually. Including those who don't like you. Not only men do that, too. There are no thought crimes.

So talking about that being easier or harder you are not making any argument at all.

However. As I said elsewhere, the actions that really harm people should be classified legally and addressed. Like sharing such stuff. But not as making child pornography because it's not, and not like sexual exploitation because it's not.

It's just that your few posts I've seen in this thread seem to say that certain kinds of thought should be illegal, and that's absolute bullshit. And laws shouldn't be made based on such emotions.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

~~"thought crime"? And you have the balls to talk about using words "by their meaning"?~~

This is a solid action with a product to show for it, not a thought, which happens to impact someone's life negatively without their consent, with potentially devastating consequences for the victim. ~~So, can you please use words by their meaning?~~

Edit: I jumped the gun when I read "thought crime", effectively disregarding the context. As such, I'm scratching the parts of my comment that don't apply, and leaving the ones that do apply (not necessarily to the post I was replying to, but to the whole thread).

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

The author of those comments wrote a few times what in their opinion happens in the heads of others and how that should be prevented or something.

Can you please stop interpreting my words exactly the way you like? That's not worth a gram of horse shit.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes I can, moreso after your clarification. I must have misread it the first time. Sorry.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sorry for my tone too, I get dysphoric-defensive very easily (as have been illustrated).

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

If only we could all resolve our disputes like this every time, even after it got heated. But 1 interaction like this is better than none. This proves that we can all understand each other if we're willing to put ego aside for a bit. You helpede push that a hit, and I really appreciate it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)