1000004515

Not sure how long this has been a thing but I was surprised to see that you cannot view the content without either agreeing to all or paying to reject.

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Absolutely wild that they’re still allowed to call this “consent”

    If we imagine the idea of sexual consent being given in the same circumstances, it sounds a lot like a fucking crime.

    “Either you consent to having sex with me right now or you pay me a subscription fee in order to not consent. If you do that, I’ll still fuck you, but I’ll use protection”

    • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      I like this analogy; it’s provocative and it made me think about the issue for longer than I would have otherwise.

      However, after some thought, I don’t think it aligns perfectly since the user can simply choose not to read the article, so there’s an option where they don’t get fucked.

      In the same vein, I think we could make a better analogy to sexting. You meet someone, seem to hit it off, and when the texts and pictures get a little spicy, they hit you with a, “you can pay me now and I will keep all of this in my private spank-bank, otherwise I’m going to share our entire relationship with a group chat I’m in with 1200+ people”

      I think this is a bit stronger because it hits on a few notes where the hook-up analogy falls short: sharing of sensitive information, extortion in exchange for gratification, and the potential for an ongoing relationship.

      Idk, what do you think?