21 sats \ 8 replies \ @Majjin 5 Jun 2023 \ parent \ on: Onlyfans has 50x more revenue than Substack. Why don’t we built a ⚡️ version? bitcoin
Pornography is a horrible industry and the medium decays soul and body of the people who consume and produce it. We shouldn't encourage its use or creation. We can choose to promote constructive, good things to spend our money on instead. If that makes me no longer a "bitcoiner", I'm okay with that.
okay but if you support permissionless transacting between those who wish to make money and those who wish to spend money, then what are we complaining about here?
You can't make YouTube without creating the path for Pornhub to exist.
You won't be able to make a Lightning based Patreon without creating a lightning based OF. Should we never create a platform where supporters can interact and exchange value with content creators?
You can only become a centralized curator who determines what is or isn't allowed on your platform.
I get it, porn is degenerate, but to me, all the good things that can be achieved with lightning and bitcoin in general is much like "the head of the cat" and all the bad things and degeneracy that it could fuel is like "the ass of the cat". Different ends of the same spectrum that are completely interconnected and inseparable from one another.
I'm not personally pushing to spend my btc on porn, sounds like an awful plan, but someone else might send 1000 sat to see a picture, and who am I to tell anyone how to spend their money?? I might pay 1000 sat to read a well regarded newsletter and I don't care how anyone else feels about what I value, what I want to buy and who I choose to transact with. I'm also glad that I am transacting on a platform where no matter how much you do end up caring about this, you can stop me from hitting send.
reply
You're comment kinda implies that consent is the only metric of morality and ethics. You probably don't believe that is the case, but that's how it reads.
We have a responsibility to one another to discourage and shame immoral behavior, even if its consensual. At the very least we can choose to not encourage bad ideas. We can create YouTube and Patreon like platforms. Yes, it means that people have the means of creating Onlyfans and PornHub like platforms - Lord have mercy on them. However, we don't need to promote these things. We can make the good and abhor the evil at the same time.
reply
Your comment implies morality or ethics are relevant in this discussion at all. Can you take your dumb religiously motivated censoring bullshit elsewhere please?
Go make a "Jesuscoin" that doesn't let other people do things you don't like if that's the kind of money you want to use but fuck off with that attitude when it comes to Bitcoin.
Bitcoin transactions are confirmed from sender to receiver. Whether it's morally or ethically sound transaction is none of my business (or yours) on a protocol level.
If you think you have some responsibility or duty to morally guide me or anyone outside of your family unit and close circles, then you're delusional, full stop.
Leave your subjectivity out of Bitcoin. If you want to preach against porn, paint a sign and stand by a busy road.
If you feel it is your duty to impose your thoughts and beliefs onto others, I would say your ass ain't welcome here but fortunately for you Bitcoin is a permissionless protocol and you can't be stopped from donating to some insane church like someone can't be stopped from sending sats for pornographic content... And that's why I'm here.
Porn and internet have been intertwined since probably literally day 1. You know a a nude was one of the first photos sent online. Don't be surprised when Bitcoin and porn get along too
reply
What I am saying is that we ought to promote and encourage good things and discourage bad things. If morality and ethics aren't relevant to this than what is? I say morality is very relevant if we're talking about a predatory industry such as porn.
Here's a hypothetical for you. Suppose that someone made a post about building a platform for human trafficking on top of Lightning. Assuming it isn't instantly removed, as it should be, would you not speak out against it?
I personally think you would. You seem to have a strong sense of justice.
reply
You have me at "promote good things" and then lose me at "discourage bad things."
I acknowledge your right speak up about how you feel AND their right to trade with whom they choose for whatever they choose to without risk of censorship because their transaction it is not aligned someone's rules, ethics, morals...
I'm not interested in a hypothetical discussion of semantics, but I will answer as you seem interested in a productive conversation. I would,
a.) choose to have no involvement in developing a platform that is not aligned with my goals, morals, ethics in life, such as a lightning based HT platform.
b.) I would laugh at the idea all together as a visible immutable constantly verified public ledger is a silly place for anyone to be conducting transactions of such criminal magnitude.
c.) I would know that the harm done would be by the people who created such a system and not the money itself, and they are who are responsible and culpable for the harm done.
reply
Thanks for humoring me, I do appreciate it!
I definitely agree with all three of those points. I would go as far as asking k00b to remove the post and ban the user. I think that's where you and I differ.
I'm interested in digging down to the fundamental root of the disagreement. I asked the hypothetical to see where your mind is at. So why not discourage bad things?
reply
Discouraging bad things is way way way worse then encouraging good things. People don't break out their pitchforks to encourage good things, but they do when they discourage bad things.
Bad things happen to innocent people when groups of like minded individuals decides to start making decisions for "the sake of humanity" or because they are morally right and their victims are "morally wrong" according to the oppressor.
I'll give a simple example. Who does more for society? The guy inviting everyone over for a BBQ to strengthen bonds between neighbors or the group of Saudis publicly hanging homosexuals?
One is encouraging good behavior and one is discouraging bag behavior (if you ask them). You see why I'm defensive about approaching situations with a "I'm here to discourage bad behavior" mentality ?
Consider this, think of all the terrible things and crimes that could be orchestrated through the email protocol. Undoubtedly, humans have been sold via email.
While I do not support this, I wouldn't also not support a government backdoor to all emails to catch the 0.00000001% of people who use the platform for nefarious reasons.
reply
I'm not here to discourage bad behavior. However if I see, it I'm not going to leave it be. I'll at the very least speak up about it and/or call the individual out.
Encouraging the good is definitely the better way, but that doesn't make negative feedback any less necessary. Everyone does bad things from time to time, despite all the encouragement in the world to do good. Although their number is tiny, we can't ignore those who do evil because its pleasurable to them.
We have a responsibility to keep each other accountable in proportional ways. Even the Lightning network has watchtowers and penalty transactions for when people try to cheat. Proportionality is the key here. We should strive for the golden mean. Your email example is perfect. People have definitely done evil with email. That doesn't mean we install a mass surveillance state. That would be a gross overreaction.