lazyscience

[lazyscience]

Pay attention to the particulars of Mastercard's responses, because this a textbook example of how to create plausible deniability.

"Mastercard has not barred any legal transaction" is, technically, a true statement – because Mastercard is not the one processing the transactions in the first place. Mastercard does not deal directly with any merchant, and in fact typically refuses to communicate with merchants at all; there's always a payment processing service sitting in between Mastercard and the merchant, whether that's Stripe or Paypal or any of dozens of other service providers.

Consequently, there are two layers of service agreements in place: the agreement between Mastercard and the payment processing service, and the agreement between the payment processing service and the merchant. That second layer of service agreements, between the payment processing service and the merchant, is where all of these content restrictions are being imposed. Mastercard can thus truthfully claim that they aren't barring legal transactions.

Now, if you've been paying attention, you've probably already spotted the issue: if the content restrictions are being imposed upon the merchants by individual payment processing services and not by Mastercard, why do all of those payment processing services seem to have exactly the same content restrictions?

That's where the critical sleight of hand comes in: while Mastercard's own terms of service do not require payment processing services to bar transactions of particular types, their ToS does require payment processors to bar transactions which could be damaging to the Mastercard brand. What constitutes damage to the Mastercard brand is not defined; it means whatever Mastercard wants it to mean. The payment processing services are thus in a position where they can be held in breach of Mastercard's terms of service for basically any reason, which gives them a strong incentive not to test any boundaries.

And that's why Mastercard can truthfully say they have never barred any legal transaction: they're never the ones doing the blocking. The layer of payment processing services that sits between Mastercard and the merchants are enforcing those content restrictions, based on a series of unwritten handshake agreements between the payment processors and Mastercard regarding what does and does not constitute acceptable content – and because the particulars of those handshake agreements aren't in writing, Mastercard can assert that their terms of service do not compel payment processing services to bar any legal transaction and technically be telling the truth.

[lazyscience]

People have so much weird morality and social baggage with food it may actually be worse than sex as far as people being shamed about how much of what they're eating when in what combination. People treat their idea of "healthy" the way devout evangelicals do religion, frequently with about the same (faith-based) evidence and the same "but it's GOOD for them, I have to SAVE them from their ignorance!!" attitude towards different opinions. No, you don't.

The only time anyone needs to spread the Good News of whatever their food beliefs are is if someone says "oh, that looks/smells good, what is it" or "mine never comes out like that, can I get your recipe?" If someone says "no thank you, I can't have/don't want that" it should be respected.

Or if religion doesn't work for you as a metaphor, try fandom. If you wouldn't think less of someone for not being a White Lotus fan, why would you be mad they're not in the mushroom fandom? People like different things!

people are absolutely EVIL about the boundaries of "picky eaters". no, they do not have to try it. yes, they can know they don't like it without having eaten it before. no, they probably have not suddenly grown a taste for the food they've said they hate. no, they probably are not going to like it in the Special Way This One Place Cooks It. yes, you are being a bad friend if you try to "trick" them into eating it anyway

[lazyscience]

You have to admit it's funny

[lazyscience]

fuck em up gang

[lazyscience]

[lazyscience]

more pyaari everyone say hi to pyaari

[lazyscience]

things I would do if you're a nsfw/kink creative now because I've been eerily prescient about every single wave:

a) get a personal site with your own domain you own. now. not a carrd or third party squarespace. not next week. now. get it online with ugly-ass html but get your links there.

b) if you have the money: join one or multiple of eff.org / cbldf.org / freespeechcoalition.com

partly because they're actively fighting this, partly because they have members-only Lawyers You Might Need. Hint. Hint. Canary.

c) Write Down Those Lawyer Contact Numbers in meatspace. phone number of a real human being especially on paper, On You.

I have been in contact with lawyers for a few months now as my doujin circle knows. this should be telling you Many Things.

d) www.ecrater.com is where i'm going to be tentatively testing a shop because i like the fact you can *not* have payment processes and order digital/physical products via purely mail order.

(... be prepared for this to fall through too in the next 1-6 months.)

e) friends and followers of nsfw artists who earn most of their income through it: now's the time to support them. they're going to need the grace and financial flexibility especially mental health wise. domain/shop transfer/refund/therapy bills ain't free.

check in on them, and often.

f) get a VPN, use it daily to acclimatize, have them on your hard drive, several VPN's preferable. this is for the age verification laws coming. Start reading up on secure, privacy-focused infrastructure (prioritize email > website > shop in that order).

eff.org has a *ton* of resources.

g) prepare for discord and tumblr to be hit in the next wave. have alternatives *and actively start using them* if they're mission critical platforms for you.

I've played with matrix though I quite fancy IRC. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I say these things not to fearmonger but to give yourself the maximum amount of time to prepare. the pendulum *will* swing back. it did with the 80's moral panic. it will for this too.

you just have to outlast the bastards.

[lazyscience]

I think we are focusing on the wrong thing when talking about mainstream romantasy adult books, instead of shaming straight cis women for reading kinky books, we should tralk about how most of the newer books aimed at that demographic are just conservative propoganda, rebranding patriarchy as a kink.

[lazyscience]

World Record: Five Swimmers Pull 100 Ton Ship Through Lake Zwischenahner Meer in Lower Saxony, Germany

Five swimmers pulled a pleasure ship of 100 tons, 36.2 meters long and 7.6 meters wide, plus five tons of passengers and cargo for 15 minutes straight and made a distance of 402 meters.

Frank Feldhus, who initiated this project as a charity for a special school for physically disabled children in Oldenburg, had turned heads with other swimming actions before. In August 2023, he swam to all seven inhabited islands in the Lower Saxon Wadden Sea within 48 hours in order to cause awareness to the pollution of the oceans by plastic waste.

This time, he initiated the project a year before. The five swimmers needed this time for training to pull this feat off.

[lazyscience]

[lazyscience]

Google docs isn’t deleting your docs just because they have lewd text.

OP turned off reblogs of the post due to being debunked, but here’s a link of the reblog so you can still read stuff. Hate Google all you want but misinformation helps no one.

[lazyscience]

[lazyscience]

Guys, it got so much freaking worse. KOSA is bad, but SCREEN is even worse, somehow.

"Sen. Mike Lee has introduced the SCREEN ACT, a bill that applies the "harmful to minors" standard used to ban LGBTQ+ books and resources in schools and libraries and apply it nationally to the internet.

Any site that has any amount of material "harmful to minors" would be forced to employ surveillance tech (biometric scans, ID uploads, background checks) to prevent minors from accessing "pornography."

You will not be surprised to learn that this is backed by the Heritage Foundation.

Unlike some of the state age-verification laws, many of which are being challenged in court, SC will be enforced by the FTC, which has the ability to levy fines, raid business and freeze bank accounts. Yes, meaning that even non-for-profits like Ao3 will suffer.

This is something for all US users to keep on their radar. Call your reps, call your senators, and spread the word to protect our archive!"

- When talking with Republicans play up the fact that this would force Elon to implement age verification systems on X (yes do call it X during the call). Elon's been threatening to primary Republicans who stand in his way so there's fear of him. Also play up concerns about "Liberals" doxxing people or Chinese hackers.

- When talking with Democrats, play up the connections to Project 2025 and suggest voters will not be happy to see Democrats siding with it.

Republicans:

Ted Cruz, Texas (Chairman) - Phone: (202) 224-5922

John Thune, South Dakota - Phone: (202) 224-2321

Roger Wicker, Mississippi - Phone: (202) 224-6253

Deb Fischer, Nebraska - Phone: (202) 224-6551

Jerry Moran, Kansas - Phone: (202) 224-6521

Dan Sullivan, Alaska - Phone: (202) 224-3004

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee - Phone: (202) 224-3344

Todd Young, Indiana - Phone: (202) 224-5623

Ted Budd, North Carolina - (202) 224-3154

Eric Schmitt, Missouri - (202) 224-5721

John Curtis, Utah - Phone: (202) 224-5251

Bernie Moreno, Ohio - Phone: 202-224-2315

Tim Sheehy, Montana - Phone: (202) 224-2644

Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia - Phone: (202) 224-6472

Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming - Phone: (202) 224-3424

Democrats:

Maria Cantwell, Washington (Ranking Member) - Phone: (202) 224-3441

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota - Phone: (202) 224-3244

Brian Schatz, Hawaii - Phone: (202) 224-3934

Ed Markey, Massachusetts - Phone: (202) 224-2742

Gary Peters, Michigan - Phone: (202) 224-6221

Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin - Phone: (202) 224-5653

Tammy Duckworth, Illinois - Phone: (202) 224-2854

Jacky Rosen, Nevada - Phone: (202) 224-6244

Ben Ray Luján, New Mexico - Phone: (202) 224-6621

John Hickenlooper, Colorado - Phone: (202) 224-5941

John Fetterman, Pennsylvania - Phone: (202) 224-4254

Andy Kim, New Jersey - Phone: (202) 224-4744

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware - Phone: (202) 224-2441

SCRIPT

Hi, my name is [], and I am one of Senator []’s constituents. I live in [city, zip code - leave your full address if leaving a voicemail].

I am calling in regards to a bill that was recently introduced in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transport: the SCREEN act.

I am asking Senator [] to either take no action or vote against this bill because of its implications for freedom of speech. [insert one of the other concerns listed above]. Thank you for your time and for listening to my concerns.

[lazyscience]

It's important to support your mutuals when they go full hater over really petty and pointless issues.

[lazyscience]

I can even kind of understand that university systems that charge students exorbitant amounts of money for their degrees affect the general view of education and "the academy," but the extent to which people have just stopped believing in and valuing expertise is so scary. You cannot replace scientific training. I am "only" a literary scholar but any person with a lit studies background will tell you that it is a vastly different experience discussing literature (of any kind! my area of expertise is romance novels!) with another scholar versus at a random book club. And it's not bad to not be an expert! You are not an expert about the vast majority of stuff! But when somebody says "I have dedicated years of my life to the systematic study of this subject in conversation and exchange with other people who have done the same, and based on our combined knowledge we conclude that x," that needs to be taken more seriously than someone who has not gone through this process.

An academic degree is no different from, say, a medical license or even a driver's license in the sense that it functions as shorthand for "this person has undergone the necessary training and passed the necessary tests to certify that they possess the skills needed for this specific profession/task." That's it! And yes, there are many problems within academia (these days, the majority of lecturers and researchers are in precarious employment. ask me how I know) and a university degree is no guarantee that a person can't be spouting absolute nonsense. But its purpose is to facilitate the pursuit, expansion, and passing on of knowledge, which is really, really important and should not be devalued by claiming you don't need formal training to know stuff.