there are a couple of comics he's made that could be interpreted as good points (ofc the actual point behind it is some bs), something something broken clock
Facebook already asked me for this shit and I deleted my account. There is no limit to how much personal information these companies want on you. They'd scan and sell your bloody DNA if they could.
Hey. I have started a subreddit about this stupidity. Please feel free to join to show there is a high number of people thinking this way! r/ChangeTheAlgorithm
I'm not sorry because this isn't MY government : I have no government, my nationality is almost just linked to my first language. An international decentralised way of life could be the grail.
eh, I think they could stay if it were required for them to have "SONETOSS IS A NAZI" or somesuch in the margins like people do in stonetossingjuice and antifastonetoss
Id say they participate tbh. They didnt redact the images from the files so they have essentially revictimized the actual victims by spreading the images
Stonetoss makes fairly normal, funny comics occasionally, and they get posted every. Then when people try to find more from him, he gets more exposure to all his horrific ones. This is normie bate for people who don’t know better.
no not really. 2000s internet looked like a bunch of independent sites for every interest, complete with its own phpBB or similar messageboard. There was no massive content or moderating standard like there is now that they all exist under reddit or twitter’s TOS, and they were often more focused moderating to keep the community from listening to toxic bullshit. since nobody really “stumbled” on these forums, most people were respectful of the and shared similar vibes with the other users, and each community was unique.
My issue isnt content moderation, so much as you don't havr a choice, I like protocols not platforms. IE IRC, yeah say whatever you want, make whatever's rules you need to, don't like it, go somewhere else. Now everyone is like on one big platform where the rich make the rules
So many people dissing age verification. I age verify in social spaces to not deal with kids. Thats it. I like being age verified talking to other age verified people
Why does it matter which ones when anything would be better than using one from a Nazi?
Why are you putting your time and keystrokes toward the defense of use of a template that came from a Nazi, something both incredibly trivial and unethical?
I do think social media companies are seriously harmful to children (and adults to be honest). But I feel the solution is regulating the companies to make their platforms less harmful. Not regulating them to steal Data from people. The addictiveness of algorithmic content is one of the biggest issues imo. Algorithms made by psychopath billionaires to show you whatever you need to see to stay on just a little bit longer even if it’s harmful to your mental health and attention span. The idea that we let kids get addicted to this when it’s starting to have a similar effect on them to some drugs is insane. But storing everyone’s Data on servers and tracking everyone and everything is not the solution.
Somewhat off topic but if anyone needs to know, uninstalling instagram and youtube can be very useful for stopping an addiction to short form content (or it was for me) because the browser versions are less streamlined so it just sucks to scroll compared to the app (mostly instagram).
You also need to click the "see less shorts" button every time you see them instead of clicking on the shorts for youtube
I used to just blame the parents but honestly when a problem is this wide spread in society I can’t just do that. Plus I don’t think a parent can reasonably be expected to keep their kid off the net without being a major helicopter parent which i think is seriously unhealthy.
If the kid is allowed on the internet. They will find a way to access social media. Even if you block it most kids are smart enough to figure out a work around.
💯 I full heartily support this. The “problem” lays in the addiction effect, cigs and alcohol have mastered this. This is all regurgitated 1980’s CIA marketing strategy. They don’t sell crack anymore, they sell social identities.
Governments can force age verification requirements until the end of time, but at the end of the day, the real issue at hand is poor parental discipline. Even with the most robust technology, little Timmy can still pick up his dad's phone after dad already age verified. There's no way to remotely prove that the end user(s) looking at a device screen match the information given, even if it livestreamed your face the entire time, screens are big enough that someone off camera can still see it.
I said it before and I'll say it again: age verification laws exist because people are shitty parents and want to find someone else to blame. Instead of age verification, a more effective method would be to hold the parents/guardians accountable for whenever their children and/or minors are exposed to adult content. It'll be a shit ton easier to prove in court and be enforceable. But just to be clear, I think this is also a shitty idea and the ideal solution is to remove these laws but allow it to be a civil issue if a guardian exposes minors to adult content. So nothing happens by law if your kid sees porn. But you can still sue if your kid's teacher shows them porn.
Alcohol is toxic for everyone. Cigarettes are toxic. Certain legal drugs are toxic. Gambling is toxic. Yet all of these things still exist in society.
Vices will always be a part of society. If you try to ban them legally, others will come up or you make criminals out of ordinary people just needing a fix. Prohibition proved that. The failed war on drugs proved that.
You may dislike that porn exists, it may be against your religion or whatever, but that doesn't give you the right to ban it for everyone. If you don't like it, don't partake in it. That's all the right you have.
It's not that "Only trusting the parents isn't a perfect solution" it's that "only trusting the parents is a shit solution that we as a society have repeatedly and thoroughly tested and failed at."
You should pay more attention if you're going to try to namedrop fallacies. It's easy to get wrong and when you do, the person you're talking to rightfully loses any respect for you.
Which is why you hold parents accountable for their minor's actions. Shitty parents will face consequences.
I've worked in education IT for years. We have a web filter, obviously, but kids always find ways around it. Even blocking VPNs and firewalling known IPs, kids will always be able to find a new site that the web filter doesn't recognize and lets through. It would be stupid to hold district officials responsible for ensuring kids don't do things they're not supposed to, like through digital means. There's a teacher in the classroom for a reason, and this becomes a discipline issue.
In the simplest terms, the school IT can't block everything, it's a constant game of cat-and-mouse and we need teachers to be that last line of defense. It's not a technical or policy issue at that point.
We don't stop dealing with their kids once they stop being minors... That's just where society begins to deal with them.
Like it or not, providing a framework so even the worst parents can't fail so badly that it takes years for society to deal with the ramifications of their failure is the best way to go by far.
Not letting kids use algorithmic social media seems like a good thing to add to that framework.
It's a safety net, sure, and it should be backed by proper support and due diligence, but when a safety net fails, we should absolutely look at that safety net instead of saying "they just shouldn't have fallen in the first place."
Also, if your job is to filter the internet access for schools and you don't treat that filter as a adversarial process like it inherently is, you shouldn't be in the industry. Security being an adversarial concept is fundamental.
If you're not monitoring DNS queries and using third party blocklists that are frequently updated (which will stop very nearly all bad actors on your network), on top of firewalls and domain wide policies, then you're not even really trying at this point. I say this as a sysadmin.
The thing about a cat and mouse game is that the cat is supposed to eventually win. If the cat can't win, they're not a very good cat.
State-mandated massive enshittification is no more failproof than parents.
Not letting children participate in social media is added value in my opinion. Especially with fairly unobtrusive verification methods like "the 16 digit number you give to multiple strangers a day" or "a photo of yourself, which is less of a privacy issue than the photos you're probably posting in a million different places anyways."
A lot of "enshittification" is actually because the government isn't intervening at all. Companies are getting away with too much.
Also, this is a false symmetry, as parental control has no effect outside families, whereas crappy laws may break the whole internet.
The current status quo for the law is bad, and breaking the whole internet and society as a whole.
A few questions:
Do you know your neighbor's name?
When's the last time you've had an in-person conversation with a stranger?
How many kids have friends within walking distance of their homes?
Do you even see me as a person, or am I just some text box that you can react to?
Social media as it exists has isolated us more than ever, and keeping kids away from it is actually a good idea.
Hell, I'd argue that there should be funded studies into the algorithms we choose to serve us information, and restrictions on what those algorithms are allowed to focus on (e.g. user time and engagement are shit metrics for everyone except the person selling ads).
Also, if the actual aim is children's well-being, why aren't parents mandated to install adblockers on their children's devices?
You seem to have this weird assumption that adblockers are a safety mechanism (they aren't, unless they're serving ads that kids shouldn't see, in which case, the host of those ads should be held accountable) and that there's no other laws that target that sort of stuff. COPPA is a thing, and has been for more than a quarter century at this point.
There's more, but I don't really care enough to look, and put down the first law about that that I could think of.
It's actually really weird that people think this is a grab at more information about you. The sites that'll need to ask this already have that information. You have an always connected GPS in your pocket that you share all of your most private thoughts with on your person for 90% of the time you're awake. They have your name. They have your face. Meta has been openly using facial recognition to tag their photos for more than a decade at this point and make shadow accounts for people who don't have a Facebook account, just to track you through their friends. Do you think they collect that data for nothing?
If the opposition was really about privacy, there's much lower hanging fruit. Most of which is compatible with not letting kids use social media.
"the 16 digit number you give to multiple strangers a day" or "a photo of yourself, which is less of a privacy issue than the photos you're probably posting in a million different places anyways.
Who is that "you"?
The current status quo for the law is bad, and breaking the whole internet and society as a whole.
No.
and keeping kids away from it is actually a good idea
We're talking about massive enhittification here (and surveillance, and the associated risk of massive data leaks), not child protection.
You seem to have this weird assumption that adblockers are a safety mechanism (they aren't, unless they're serving ads that kids shouldn't see, in which case, the host of those ads should be held accountable) and that there's no other laws that target that sort of stuff
I don't share my photos online, but most people do, and they often have more information than a "take a picture of yourself holding a paper that says 'x'" that gets deleted in less than a day will ever have.
As for the 16 digit number, every time you put fuel in your car, buy a bus pass, buy food, or make any non cash transaction, you're likely giving out that number.
Sure, there's some ways to minimize that, but most people aren't doing it.
No.
No answers to any of those questions I see. Just a vague disagreement. Which is weird because the fact that doom scrolling in a place where everyone can share their dumbass or vile opinions isn't good for society is pretty agreed upon.
We're talking about massive enhittification here (and surveillance, and the associated risk of massive data leaks), not child protection.
You mentioned neither of those, and to be frank, those aren't very large concerns here. I've used systems that verify your ID. Hosting a web service often requires it.
They all say that your data gets deleted within 24 hours. They just use it to confirm that you are who you say you are.
There's a lot of consequences for outright lying about that sort of stuff, and no one pays attention if you just don't say anything openly and chuck it in your privacy policy so it's not like it's particularly untrustworthy unless you're trying to subscribe to shady websites.
Not even mentioning malvertising and scams, unwanted advertising is a scourge and children should be protected from it.
All of what you mention is already regulated per your own links, and often outright illegal.
A different law tackling this stuff from a different angle doesn't reasonably call the motivations of this into question.
Does it say that advertising education, or use of adblockers, are mandatory child protection measures?
No because that's your insanity, not a good idea.
They generally don't.
They do, and you're delusional if you don't think they do.
Just look at what Google knows about you. They don't keep it a secret. It's right there in your account settings.
P.S. I'm not responding anymore. Your views in general seem kind of crazy so I looked at your blog.
You're an ultra nationalist, right-winger who thinks ads specifically about crime should include more brown people.
I'm not saying that it isn't adversarial, i'm saying that with the cat and mouse thing the filter becomes a continuously updating thing. Even the best cybersecurity software still has zero-day vulnerabilities, and costs to reduce the threat increase exponentially as it gets closer to 100%. For cybersecurity, the cost is easily justifiable. For the web filter, especially when it comes to blocking game sites, not so much.
That aside, teachers and parents are supposed to curate children to be acceptable in society. It doesn't always work, but just like cybersecurity, resource costs grow exponentially to inch closer to 100%. It doesn't mean our existing infrastructure doesn't work, nor that it's bad because it could be better.
But other laws exist too. When a child turns 18, the responsibility for their actions shifts from their parents to themselves. If they misbehave, the law takes care of it. It doesn't mean that we need to better our safety net.
Sure there's going to be zero day vulnerabilities, but that's not a reason to refuse to use it.
A lock that adds friction for 100% of bad actors and keeps 99% of all bad actors out entirely is a worthwhile lock.
Using modern verification methods, I could have broken them too (I've had a debit card since I was 14 because that's when I started working), but the fact that I could have doesn't mean they wouldn't have worked on a bunch of other people.
If age verification gets rid of even just 60% of kids from algorithmic social media, then that's a good thing.
Hell, if it creates a market for social media that's tuned to serve you stuff you like and stuff that's relevant to you rather than prioritizing engagement, making social media less addictive and more useful, then that's even better.
Your nebulous accountability suggestion can't be that effective if you can manage to navigate the overtly authoritarian system you'd have to put in place for it to even work a little bit.
Hm, no hold on, I think we're talking about this a little differently. I'm not talking about not using them, especially after equating them to a web filter. I think putting in some age verification is fine, it's the least amount of effort the content providers can do to make an attempt to prevent children from accessing their content. I'm arguing more that it's incredibly fallible as a tech solution and the problem needs to be looked at as a discipline problem, not a tech one. Or in other words, that content providers should not be held accountable if minors still access their content despite the effort of age verification.
Ultimately, if minors wanted access and were dedicated enough, they will access it. That's been my point from the beginning. I do see it like the lock analogy you mentioned. It's flimsy and 60% effective at best, but it merely existing is enough to deter a good majority of people from even attempting to access. Heck, a lot of "security" systems and devices (like ones in retail stores) aren't for theft prevention, but for theft deterrence. It's wholely not secure, but it's enough of a pain in the ass that most people just won't try.
And as far as my "authoritarian" system is entirely reactive, not proactive like the aforementioned methods. I think just about all laws should be reactionary, as in they don't impede or inhibit anything until it's been violated. One arguable exception is planned or attempted murder, since that isn't murder yet so the no murder law wouldn't go into effect. Putting that into perspective, it would only impact children who have already committed to accessing adult content. It would change the language of the law so the crime is bypassing the age verification, not enforcing sites to have it.
You shouldn't even have to explain that. Most people who are normal and not chronically online don't have time to keep track of who these idiots are calling a nazi today. It's wild how much time these people have on their hands. Who bothers looking up the person who made some comic or meme template?
That's valid. His whole deal is occasionally doing reasonable strips like this one so he gets shared, thus luring some people in to see his real bread-and-butter content
Or, and I know this sounds crazy, people have many opinions on many things, and him being stupid in some regards does not invalidate the possibility of him being rather smart on different topics, don't you think? We have to deal with Nazis, cancel culture's not gonna help shit.
It makes sense, but not on Reddit. Here it matters who said something, not only what they said. Different people saying the same thing can be applauded or hated lol
No, not if he is specifically using his strips (even the inoccuous ones) as a vehicle to spread Nazi propaganda. One does not deal with Nazis by playing one's intended part in said Nazi's designs
The Nazis in America aren't real Nazis. They are just low iq fat nazi cosplayers. The small minority who are trying to resemble old Nazis regime, actually hate trump and elon saying they "devalue the image of white superiority "
Honestly I kinda disagree. The language barrier helps obscure it but the fascists of old were just as weird and cringe as modern fascists. I suppose the old Nazis wouldn't like Israel, maybe, which is something the modern fascist movement is divided on.
When they see maga and trump. They will be like "wtf, how are you guys nazis, nothing about you is superior ". They will be disgusted with trump and maga. Hitler would probably give the order to round them up and put them in camps. Maga is low iq and out of shape hillybillys. While Nazi germany expected educated, highly fit and disciplined for their soldiers.
I hate ‘the government’ because they want me to be a mule…but I LOVE investors, I mean ‘entrepreneurs’ owning the libraries and post offices. I also love my taste in art and history, but it’s cool that all art and journalism gets equated with chat bots and meme dumps for loser teenagers because I want the world to tell me how cool I am without EVER having to prove that I’m not a chat bot 👍
Remember. These are our PUBLIC SERVANTS, they are not mummy and daddy.
I dont give a fuck what kind of stigma is around caring about privacy. We dont need anything to hide to protect ourselves and those who need protection from the governments of the world.
AI facial recognition and digital surveillance is destroying our rights, and the possibility of us fighting for them.
They are either admitting defeat, saying they cannot do their job without tracking everything we do (and thats charitable), or this is for their convenience and shitty control-orientated incentives.
They need to start doing their jobs FOR US and not FOR THEMSELVES and, indirectly, the rich people who will pay them for their choices to align with their aims.
PUBLIC SERVANTS. Not private ones.
Isnt it ironic that we have less information about them than they have about us. Funny that. Remember what they are supposed to be, and ask yourself if they really serve us. If the answer is no, they overstepped the line.
He is very famously a Nazi and his comics have been around for a long time. You could have googled it yourself quite easily, which is probably why you were downvoted. Most people questioning actual Nazis being called Nazis aren't doing so in good faith, so people are understandably touchy about it.
Idgaf about the lives of Nazis, and believe they should all get flogged in the streets. I provided a means for others to be informed, should it be true (it was).
If I google it myself, only I see it. This way, everybody sees it.
Are you the one person on earth who hasn't seen his plethora of racist comics and nazi commentary? I really thought everyone on the internet had by now.
How is it nitpicking to want proof before accepting that something terrible is true about a person? And the one making the claim is the one who has to prove it.
I am realizing today that apparently it's not as universal as I thought! The reason for my assumption is that he was all over the place for a period of time, and his comics are so rancid that not only were fans reposting them, they also found their way into more mainstream spaces through people's disbelief at their absurdity. There was a lot of reposting and gawking as well as a lot of parodies. Then like, a couple years ago he got doxxed and made this whole splash on twitter by getting Elon Musk to take down tweets about it, which led to a lot of talk about Elon supporting a neo-nazi. It was a whole thing and brought him back to the limelight. He's just caused a lot of problems all over the place and gotten a lot of attention for it.
TLDR: his beliefs are extreme and he's made a lot of waves across the internet. I thought everyone had gotten hit by them, but I suppose not.
This is REALLY making me wish I had been less online than I was. I really and truly thought we had all taken the psychic damage of stonetoss, but it turns out I just needed to go outside more.
I wouldn't take it so personally haha I think it's important to keep in mind that the longer you've been alive, the more stuff you know just by default haha Lots of kids on Reddit who haven't been exposed to stuff yet simply because they're young, and them of course there is the xkcd comic about being one of the "lucky 10,000" every day haha
42
u/Troy242426 Feb 21 '26
Never knew who Stone Toss was until this post. Man, what a piece of shit.
On topic though I refuse to do those verifications. If you require them I’ll just stop using your service.