From the linked fandom wiki, quote by Tim Cain about the subject:
> This led to the child killing controversy. We said look, we're going to have kids in the game; you shoot them, it's a huge penalty to karma, you're really disliked, there are places that won't sell to you, people will shoot you on sight, and we thought people can decide what they want to do. [...] This of course contributed to our M-rating, however, Europe said "no". They wouldn't even sell the game if there were children in the game. We didn't have time to rewrite all the quests, we just deleted kids off the disc.
> Codsworth is known to say the Sole Survivor's chosen name if it is an option, although it may be shortened, extended, or have a word omitted. A list of spoken names can be found here.
> Ironically you can be Mohammed but you can't be Jesus. I know I missed a bunch of the good ones, feel free to add some below.
[1] - https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Codsworth
[2] - https://steamcommunity.com/app/377160/discussions/0/49688113...
Every time you kill a subreddit or facebook group, 99% of the users stop participating in that kind of content, and the other 1% scurry off to some out of sight echo chamber until one day they randomly pop up again to murder a bunch of innocent people because they've been corrupted beyond saving.
Everyone was talking about this for a hot moment after the Christchurch massacre, but nothing was done and now nobody gives a shit again.
It's important to let people with divergent views to feel some sort of social pressure to change. Those 99% of people that have no interest in blowing up buildings or murdering children are the best weapon we have to convince the other 1% of people with weird interests that the world as it is ok without them taking some drastic action. There's always going to be a small subset of people that will rebel, but the important thing is to make sure that otherwise normal people (that want to watch porn, or learn how to safely handle a gun, or learn about cybersecurity, or get desensitised to gore, or whatever else is on this week's "think of the children" hitlist) are integrating into civilised society and not being dragged into cesspits of violence and terrorism because their interests have been deemed by a bunch of fucking software engineers to be "bad".
We're well past the critical point where enough large platforms have banned all the "bad" stuff that any new contenders either need to ban it too or become one of those out of sight echo chambers themselves. The only way to fix it now is for everyone to agree to be less stringent all at once, together.
It's worth remembering that the internet wasn't very censored 20 years ago. Most of us grew up during that time and turned out fine. I'll take tubgirl and lemon party over neo-nazis and conspiracy nutjobs any day of the week.
I would love to have actual discussions with people regarding certain views I hold. But quite often others just refuse to even entertain that I have a different view because x and y. And to them I am just dumb/uneducated/other things to discredit me having an opinion at all.
Hell, I went quite a bit more towards "bad" opinions, just because that side is more accepting of discussion/dissent.
It isn't just corporations banning subreddits/websites that drive people into echochambers, but also people simply refusing to engage at all.
Maybe they don't want it to mess with the training data?
Not in the US, but in Canada and many European countries, I believe it's illegal.
> We cannot be at a point as humanity where text is illegal. Right?
Even in the US, much text is illegal in certain contexts. Think false advertising, written plausible threats, etc.
I have to wonder about the legal implications of an AttnGAN or word-to-image type model trained on nothing but illegal pornography. Or one where the ratio of legal to illegal content the model was trained on is unknown and impossible to determine. There are some jurisdictions that consider synthetic images or text to be a victimless crime. At what point does the line become crossed and the images start becoming recognizable and realistic enough to be illegal at first glance under any usual circumstance, but are actually generated from nothing? How would people be able to prove the origin and veracity of such images for the purpose of submitting evidence of a crime?
Obviously I'm not equating any of this with CP - but I wish someone had the energy to stand up to it and say "look, you're censoring AI. It's dumb". But of course no one will because being accused as defender of CP is one of the worst things that can happen in any online discussion.