OnlyFans / Online camgirls

Days of Broken Arrows

Crow
Gold Member
This. Curation isn't the answer, it's the problem.

Without curation, you have:
  • Comment sections dominated by right-thinkers that insult and make fun of the idiots and babbling lunatics that show up
  • The chans, in which the leftist babbling lunatics (but I repeat myself) get drowned out by autists with a HUGE ax to grind with them
  • Facebook pre-censorship, where it was mainly boomers making fun of millennial soy boys
You will observe that the worst, most left-wing, most insane online communities lay on the most militantly censored and sterilized websites. Look at Reddit, which is basically an online communist gulag at this point. You have the gamer version, neogaf, which is an online gaming communist gulag full of pedophiles. They're completely fine with pedophilia because the moderating staff consists of known pedophiles, but if you even dare mention the dirty T word (Trump), you're banned on sight. Mainstream news websites no longer allow commenting because the moderators lost to the deluge of dissenting voices.

That said, there is a difference between curation and (reasonable) moderation. Roosh's forum isn't a place of curation, it is an uncurated platform with rock solid moderation that follow the rules. The mods here don't ban you because they don't like you, unlike on a lot of leftist websites, they ban you mainly just if you break the rules. Coming to a place like this, you can expect to clearly understand where the boundaries are. More importantly, you can expect that there ARE boundaries at all, rather than the capricious whims of a pedophilic mod with a meth problem.

It's also worth pointing out that software also matters. You will observe that right-wing discourse dominates on platforms where messages are sorted by time. Left-wing discourse dominates on curated platforms where messages are sorted by "likes", like how Reddit does it. The difference is that the former presents a less biased view of where discourse is going and offers a broader range of discussion, whereas the latter represents a kind of consensus-building approach where discussion orients around how much consensus there is on a particular topic.

Years ago, almost all online news sites had reader comment sections. This was a major part of their online presence.

But commenters didn't follow "the narrative." They picked apart the articles, sometimes citing better sources than the writer. Commenters also called out the newspapers and various other sites for bias.

Little by little, these reader comment sections disappeared. These days it's hard to remember that CNN, Slate, NPR, and The Week ever had comments sections. As did your local newspaper -- whichever one that is.

Even Yahoo News recently removed its comment section. That section dates back to the mid 1990s.

If you research this, you'll find news stories that (falsely) claim that comment sections were nixed because of "trolls." This is B.S. Their idea of "trolls" is anyone who disagrees with them.

This whole thing should be an embarrassment to the news industry. I was working in this field in the 1990s. The buzzword then was "interactive." They wanted interaction with readers.

But when they got that interaction, they balked and then backed away. What a disgrace. For more on this, do an online search and you'll find article after article explaining away why newspapers and online news sites don't actually want to hear from readers.
 
Years ago, almost all online news sites had reader comment sections. This was a major part of their online presence.

But commenters didn't follow "the narrative." They picked apart the articles, sometimes citing better sources than the writer. Commenters also called out the newspapers and various other sites for bias.

Little by little, these reader comment sections disappeared. These days it's hard to remember that CNN, Slate, NPR, and The Week ever had comments sections. As did your local newspaper -- whichever one that is.

Even Yahoo News recently removed its comment section. That section dates back to the mid 1990s.

If you research this, you'll find news stories that (falsely) claim that comment sections were nixed because of "trolls." This is B.S. Their idea of "trolls" is anyone who disagrees with them.

This whole thing should be an embarrassment to the news industry. I was working in this field in the 1990s. The buzzword then was "interactive." They wanted interaction with readers.

But when they got that interaction, they balked and then backed away. What a disgrace. For more on this, do an online search and you'll find article after article explaining away why newspapers and online news sites don't actually want to hear from readers.

In other words, content is no longer being curated by the people. They are actively preventing it from happening. Curation is now being done by tech oligarchs.
 

Days of Broken Arrows

Crow
Gold Member
In other words, content is no longer being curated by the people. They are actively preventing it from happening. Curation is now being done by tech oligarchs.

Yes. And it's worth noting that it is, in fact, the oligarchs.

In 1996, Bill Clinton signed off on a new Telecommunications Act. It turned back FDR's anti-monopoly laws and allowed big media companies to buy up multiple "assets" in one market.

This had a major consolidation effect. And it wasn't good.

Daily newspapers bought up suburban weeklies and urban "city papers." So all those individual voices disappeared or were "folded into" bigger companies.

Radio stations got syndicated content and became less local. Sometimes a company like Tribune would end up owning radio stations, TV starions, and newspapers in one market.

This is why we now get a monolithic opinion when it comes to news. Most of it is owned by a few big companies. It's not your imagination. It really is the oligarchs.

That's not the troubling part, though. The worst part is that people don't realize their information is coming from companies like Tribune, Disney (which owns ABC), or Hearst. They only recognize the pretty people they hire as news anchors and they think these people tell the "truth."

They don't understand that these people are paid to say what they say by giant corporations. You don't get to say what you think is "truth" when paying your mortgage depends on continued employment with something like ABC/Disney.
 

Elipe

Woodpecker
Interesting insight. Would you say curation generally has no fixed rules while moderation relies on them?
Curation is, by its own nature, subjective. Curation is just the act of selecting things you want to elevate above other things to show people. There is no rulebook that tells you how to curate stuff. Museums curate stuff they want to show to the public, but there's really no non-subjective reasoning behind what they're curating. A natural history museum isn't curating dinosaur bones because dinosaur bones are somehow more important than the rocks they were found in; they're curating the bones because they think that's what people want to see.

Curation is, in a way, a form of narrative-building. You are contributing to the framework of a narrative whenever you curate - show off - stuff. To use the natural history museum example, you may claim that the curation is being performed in order to boost visitor numbers, but there is a sort of feedback loop to it as well. People think dinosaurs are cool, so they come to see the bones, and because they did that, other people come to think that dinosaur bones are cool too, and you've got an organic narrative that says that dinosaur bones are interesting and worth seeing in a museum.

Now, replace the natural history museum with Netflix and the dinosaur bones with Cuties. What do you think is going to happen to the feedback loop? Let me remind you that they didn't decide to make or show Cuties for no reason. That film made it past scripting, dialogue writing, auctions, multiple shoots, and distribution. Lots of eyes saw this thing while it was in the making, and not a single mouth along the decision-making hierarchy said "no". They are trying to hijack that narrative-building aspect of curation.

As for moderation, I wouldn't say that moderation is not subjective either; speaking as a former forum moderator myself, I am aware of how moderating a forum takes a good sense of judgment. I mean, how many of us here on Roosh's forum have dropped the occasional f-bomb? If I recall, that's against the rules here, but it seems that the mods let that slip, because the occasional f-bomb doesn't ruin discourse on the forum, and that's what the mods' job here is to do: make sure that as users of this forum, we continue to gain insight and value from it.

But the most important aspect of moderation is this: what the mods do is based on a set of rules that can be referenced, and the mods' rulings can be contested on that basis. If mods just did whatever they wanted and banned users for no reason whatsoever, people would stop using the forum and Roosh would be very unhappy that they were driving users away from his forum, and strip them of their authority. Also, they know that Roosh is watching what they do. You get accountability from both ends of the system: the owner and the end-user.

Yes, moderation can be weaponized, but this usually just pisses people off, so they walk away. This is why you see the Big Tech platforms using all kinds of underhanded tactics like shadowbanning, because they know that being overt about it pisses people off. Of course, people figured out what they were up to, and still got pissed off.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
...Those small accounts...


While it has occurred to me that it would be very, very easy to create a fake OF account.
If he's putting in that much effort, dealing with Simps & that world for that amount of time & he's only making six figures.

Think I'll stick to my six figure job which requires only half the time, yet is actually important to the state of the nation...
 

eradicator

Peacock
Gold Member
While it has occurred to me that it would be very, very easy to create a fake OF account.
If he's putting in that much effort, dealing with Simps & that world for that amount of time & he's only making six figures.

Think I'll stick to my six figure job which requires only half the time, yet is actually important to the state of the nation...

If the story is even true(it is plausible that this happens), I think the anon in question is probably somewhere between a little gay and a total flaming faggot. You’d have to be to talk dirty to horny simps all day
 
I've been saying this for a few years now. There used to be limits to the reach of deranged people before the internet. The loudest people on Twitter are the most emotionally damaged.

Soapboxes cannot be just given out at random. We need content curation.

I hate to say it, but porn and other degenerate behaviour needs to be made highly illegal and strictly forbidden on the internet. And Twitter should have a max tweet per day limit or something. These tools are giving outlets to people who under normal circumstances would not have it.


An even better solution would be to get rid of the entire Internet.
 

Beaker

Robin
This is very sad, you have on one end career women that act like men and have their feminine side damaged, and on the other women that sell their bodies for money. This is capitalism’s dead end—corporations pushed feminism to get women in the workforce and are now pushing OnlyFans and the promotion of sex work, even directed at children like in the recent Netflix movie admitted to be under the direction of feminism—unveiling the core of it—which is to monetize women however way possible.

If you can't turn them into men, turn them into whores.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
6 figures would not be worth the mental damage that would occur from perusing onlyfans accounts and dealing with simps for 12-15 hrs a day...

Yet oddly.
The chicks who genuinely manage their own accounts. So desperate are they for attention & validation.
That those girls will spend vast amounts of time with the simps...
 
Top