The article claims that known pedophiles were banned but then Fast Eddie allegedly told them they could rejoin under new usernames.

Huh.

eta:

TV tropes has, as an anonymous tipper to The Mary Sue noted, “essentially self-selected to become the kind of community that is probably going to be shut down by the FBI.”

Huh.

I am so confused by that article. I am not sure what they want to happen and what they're criticising. The rape thing was easier, but they quote someone who wants the google ad algorithm to be able to tell the difference between sex and rape? Google knows enough to look for cats, but how much are we attributing to it now? People can't agree--what bright (or fuzzy) line is the software to be programmed to observe?

Also--is the issue banning pedophiles, or banning pedophilic content? If you're talking about participating in any illegal stuff, then I think that's a way bad thing. But if you're a closet criminal, how much responsibility does a site have to make sure you can't post?

I don't want to make it sound like I'm defending Gus, because everything he does is clearly wrong, but I am confused as to what the precise issue is, and also--is "fetish" a trigger now? Like, the word? How does that work?

How does that work?

It all starts with a series of tubes.

I'm worried about those fires: my brother & his family are now in the canyons west of Boulder.

It all starts with a series of tubes.

Oh, good god, that's disgusting.

I triggered my sister's honeycomb phobia by sending her a picture of a monochromed flaming Z. It was really weird.

my brother & his family are now in the canyons west of Boulder.

Keep an eye on the Flagstaff fire as that is the one closest to Boulder. Not sure how close but I think it is to the north west. I think.

I'm skipping karate today. Too hot and too much yuck in the air.

But if you're a closet criminal, how much responsibility does a site have to make sure you can't post?

I think a site wouldn't be able to move to ban someone until they posted something that was clearly discussing sexual activity with kids. (I mean, a private website can ban anyone they want, for any or no reason at all. But if we're talking about what criteria to use to ban a pedophile, I would think someone would have to talk about that actual activity/desire to "qualify" for bannination.)

Staying in is a good idea, Suzi. I like you safe at home. I hope Stephanie checks in again, too.

But if we're talking about what criteria to use to ban a pedophile, I would think someone would have to talk about that actual activity/desire to "qualify" for bannination.)

And what the article linked to was one guy admitting he was a pedophile, not any evidence of pedophiles preying on other posters. I think that's a really vague line to walk unless you witnessed someone who identified as a pedophile actively pursuing a discussion with a poster known to be under 18.

And what the article linked to was one guy admitting he was a pedophile, not any evidence of pedophiles preying on other posters. I think that's a really vague line to walk unless you witnessed someone who identified as a pedophile actively pursuing a discussion with a poster known to be under 18.

I don't know a lot about laws related to posting on internet discussion boards, but I picked up the idea somewhere that discussing one's pedophilic urges -- even if it's not pursuing another poster under 18; just discussing it without having a target, so to speak -- would get a board shut down.

I don't know if I'm remembering that correctly, though. It might just be a revenue/advertising thing, like the Google ads thing, where no advertiser wants to give a bunch of pedophiles money.

honeycomb phobia

I totally have this! And I totally did NOT click on the flaming Z link.