Yeah... because pirated OF content is a very serious subject... compared to NASA that is.
The world we live in...
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
12 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
12 readers
1 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 2 years ago
To be fair, to an OF model it is. To any creator their content is because that's how they make a living. While getting people back to the moon is great and all, making enough to eat for the next month will always take precedence to people. I mean, if it came to whether I would be able to eat or people walked on the moon again, well, fuck those astronauts, my belly is going to be full.
There is some discussion to be had about making a living vs scientific progress and whether that even needs to be a dichotomy, but the real issue is not OnlyFans vs NASA. The real issue is Google uncritically accepting any spurious DMCA claim they receive with no verification.
Yes, that's the real issue, which is the subject of the article. But this comment thread was started by creating the dichotomy. It clearly came down on the side of mankind's biggest aspirations over making a living using means the Puritans would frown upon.
It's an interesting sub-discussion, and I agree that OF isn't the problem.
Even then I think that's a somewhat narrow way to lead this discussion, considering that DMCA and internet company policies get in the way of internet creators and erotic models more often than they help them. It strayed from the situation that happened for the sake of hypotheticals. This didn't happen by prioritizing OF models making a living, it happened by tech companies prioritizing cutting costs and rushing decisions in support and legal matters at expense of accuracy.
Unfortunately, DMCA abuse rarely has consequences for those behind it.
Oh look! The actual problem is buried at the end of the article.
It's my understanding that filing a DMCA request requires that you certify that you have reviewed the content, and confirm that you believe the content to be infringing.
Here's an excerpt from a sample takedown notice, provided by Georgetown University:
I am providing this notice in good faith and with the reasonable belief that my rights as the exclusive rights holder are being infringed.
Under penalty of perjury, I certify that the information contained in this notification is both true and accurate
I know that "reasonable belief" gives a lot of wiggle room from a legal standpoint, but c'mon. If no one pushes back on that, of course it will be abused!
You should not be allowed to do DMCA searches on words that are over two thousand years old.
I mean, I understand you need to make money but if you choose to use the name of an ancient Greek Goddess as your trade name, you can't get exclusivity. You just can't.