lost robot 🔞
LightNews LightNews
lostrobot.bsky.social
lost robot 🔞
@lostrobot.bsky.social
260 followers 220 following 790 posts
🔞 -==𝗡𝗦𝗙𝗪 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚==- 🔞

bsky's official orb girl (i like orbs)

mangosteens are our friends

@lostrobot on discord, feel free to DM

only follow me if you're fine with seeing porn everywhere
Posts Replies Media Videos
lostrobot.bsky.social
pretty
November 26, 2024 at 7:02 PM
lostrobot.bsky.social
yup

bsky.app/profile/lost...
lostrobot.bsky.social lost robot 🔞 @lostrobot.bsky.social · Oct 20
"Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 Section 501" makes it abundantly clear that porn of those that look like *real children* (not cartoons) is not protected by the 1st amendment, and that all artwork outside of that category definitely is.
TITLE V—OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY Subtitle A—Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention SEC. 501. ø18 U.S.C. 2251 note¿ FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) Obscenity and child pornography are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment under Miller v. Cali- fornia, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (obscenity), or New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (child pornography) and thus may be pro- hibited. (2) The Government has a compelling state interest in pro- tecting children from those who sexually exploit them, includ- ing both child molesters and child pornographers. ‘‘The preven- tion of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance,’’ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982), and this interest extends to stamping out the vice of child pornography at all levels in the distribution chain. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110 (1990). (3) The Government thus has a compelling interest in en- suring that the criminal prohibitions against child pornography remain enforceable and effective. ‘‘The most expeditious if not the only practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the market for this material by imposing severe criminal pen- alties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise promoting the product.’’ Ferber, 458 U.S. at 760. (4) In 1982, when the Supreme Court decided Ferber, the technology did not exist to— (A) computer generate depictions of children that are indistinguishable from depictions of real children; Bluesky has an alt text limit unfortunately. Here's part: (B) use parts of images of real children to create a composite image that is unidentifiable as a particular child and in a way that prevents even an expert from concluding that parts of images of real children were used; or (C) disguise pictures of real children being abused by making the image look computer-generated. (5) Evidence submitted to the Congress, including from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, dem- onstrates that technology already exists to disguise depictions of real children to make them unidentifiable and to make de- pictions of real children appear computer-generated. The tech- nology will soon exist, if it does not already, to computer gen- erate realistic images of children. (6) The vast majority of child pornography prosecutions today involve images contained on computer hard drives, com- puter disks, and/or related media. (7) There is no substantial evidence that any of the child pornography images being trafficked today were made other than by the abuse of real children. Nevertheless, technological advances since Ferber have led many criminal defendants to suggest that the images of child pornography they possess are not those of real children, insisting that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the images are not computer- generated. Such challenges increased significantly after the de- cision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Bluesky has an alt text limit unfortunately. Here's part: (10) Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Free Speech Co- alition, defendants in child pornography cases have almost uni- versally raised the contention that the images in question could be virtual, thereby requiring the government, in nearly every child pornography prosecution, to find proof that the child is real. Some of these defense efforts have already been successful. In addition, the number of prosecutions being brought has been significantly and adversely affected as the re- sources required to be dedicated to each child pornography case now are significantly higher than ever before. (11) Leading experts agree that, to the extent that the technology exists to computer generate realistic images of child pornography, the cost in terms of time, money, and expertise is—and for the foreseeable future will remain—prohibitively expensive. As a result, for the foreseeable future, it will be more cost-effective to produce child pornography using real children. It will not, however, be difficult or expensive to use readily available technology to disguise those depictions of real children to make them unidentifiable or to make them appear computer-generated. (12) Child pornography results from the abuse of real chil- dren by sex offenders; the production of child pornography is a byproduct of, and not the primary reason for, the sexual abuse of children. There is no evidence that the future develop- ment of easy and inexpensive means of computer generating realistic images of children would stop or even reduce the sex- ual abuse of real children or the practice of visually recording that abuse. (14) To avoid this grave threat to the Government’s un- questioned compelling interest in effective enforcement of the child pornography laws that protect real children, a statute must be adopted that prohibits a narrowly-defined subcategory of images. (15) The Supreme Court’s 1982 Ferber v. New York deci- sion holding that child pornography was not protected drove child pornography off the shelves of adult bookstores. Congres- sional action is necessary now to ensure that open and notorious trafficking in such materials does not reappear, and even increase, on the Internet.
November 25, 2024 at 1:48 PM
lostrobot.bsky.social
here's the email in question, i wanted to wait a few minutes before sending it to avoid getting anybody in trouble, just in case

for those out of the loop, no, the people being banned have absolutely unambiguously *not* been engaging with CSAM content in any way or shape or form
sorry, i usually work hard to ensure everything i post has good alt text, but i don't want the alt text of this getting scanned by any sort of automated process
November 25, 2024 at 12:48 AM
lostrobot.bsky.social
at this point literally any interaction whatsoever with this site is just russian roulette, there's no point anymore

goodbye
November 25, 2024 at 12:16 AM
lostrobot.bsky.social
how did it go from "finally a viable twitter replacement" to literally worse than twitter in like three days

"bluesky doesn't have any many nazis tho" okay but twitter isn't baselessly banning my friends
November 24, 2024 at 9:44 PM
lostrobot.bsky.social
all three of the items in this list would destroy my gut and leave me in pain for hours

i pick the box of brownies so i can give them to somebody else
November 22, 2024 at 6:18 PM
lostrobot.bsky.social
yes
it is very mild and gentle and has the best texture ever
it's like if cold refreshing water on a 90 degree hot summer day was a fruit, i could eat them forever
November 21, 2024 at 4:56 AM
lostrobot.bsky.social
porn and dragonfruits
November 21, 2024 at 3:17 AM
lostrobot.bsky.social
what that self-proclaimed lawyer is claiming can be shown to be obviously untrue with the most baseline level of research...
bsky.app/profile/lost...
lostrobot.bsky.social lost robot 🔞 @lostrobot.bsky.social · Oct 20
"Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 Section 501" makes it abundantly clear that porn of those that look like *real children* (not cartoons) is not protected by the 1st amendment, and that all artwork outside of that category definitely is.
TITLE V—OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY Subtitle A—Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention SEC. 501. ø18 U.S.C. 2251 note¿ FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) Obscenity and child pornography are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment under Miller v. Cali- fornia, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (obscenity), or New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (child pornography) and thus may be pro- hibited. (2) The Government has a compelling state interest in pro- tecting children from those who sexually exploit them, includ- ing both child molesters and child pornographers. ‘‘The preven- tion of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance,’’ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982), and this interest extends to stamping out the vice of child pornography at all levels in the distribution chain. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110 (1990). (3) The Government thus has a compelling interest in en- suring that the criminal prohibitions against child pornography remain enforceable and effective. ‘‘The most expeditious if not the only practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the market for this material by imposing severe criminal pen- alties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise promoting the product.’’ Ferber, 458 U.S. at 760. (4) In 1982, when the Supreme Court decided Ferber, the technology did not exist to— (A) computer generate depictions of children that are indistinguishable from depictions of real children; Bluesky has an alt text limit unfortunately. Here's part: (B) use parts of images of real children to create a composite image that is unidentifiable as a particular child and in a way that prevents even an expert from concluding that parts of images of real children were used; or (C) disguise pictures of real children being abused by making the image look computer-generated. (5) Evidence submitted to the Congress, including from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, dem- onstrates that technology already exists to disguise depictions of real children to make them unidentifiable and to make de- pictions of real children appear computer-generated. The tech- nology will soon exist, if it does not already, to computer gen- erate realistic images of children. (6) The vast majority of child pornography prosecutions today involve images contained on computer hard drives, com- puter disks, and/or related media. (7) There is no substantial evidence that any of the child pornography images being trafficked today were made other than by the abuse of real children. Nevertheless, technological advances since Ferber have led many criminal defendants to suggest that the images of child pornography they possess are not those of real children, insisting that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the images are not computer- generated. Such challenges increased significantly after the de- cision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Bluesky has an alt text limit unfortunately. Here's part: (10) Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Free Speech Co- alition, defendants in child pornography cases have almost uni- versally raised the contention that the images in question could be virtual, thereby requiring the government, in nearly every child pornography prosecution, to find proof that the child is real. Some of these defense efforts have already been successful. In addition, the number of prosecutions being brought has been significantly and adversely affected as the re- sources required to be dedicated to each child pornography case now are significantly higher than ever before. (11) Leading experts agree that, to the extent that the technology exists to computer generate realistic images of child pornography, the cost in terms of time, money, and expertise is—and for the foreseeable future will remain—prohibitively expensive. As a result, for the foreseeable future, it will be more cost-effective to produce child pornography using real children. It will not, however, be difficult or expensive to use readily available technology to disguise those depictions of real children to make them unidentifiable or to make them appear computer-generated. (12) Child pornography results from the abuse of real chil- dren by sex offenders; the production of child pornography is a byproduct of, and not the primary reason for, the sexual abuse of children. There is no evidence that the future develop- ment of easy and inexpensive means of computer generating realistic images of children would stop or even reduce the sex- ual abuse of real children or the practice of visually recording that abuse. (14) To avoid this grave threat to the Government’s un- questioned compelling interest in effective enforcement of the child pornography laws that protect real children, a statute must be adopted that prohibits a narrowly-defined subcategory of images. (15) The Supreme Court’s 1982 Ferber v. New York deci- sion holding that child pornography was not protected drove child pornography off the shelves of adult bookstores. Congres- sional action is necessary now to ensure that open and notorious trafficking in such materials does not reappear, and even increase, on the Internet.
November 18, 2024 at 2:32 PM
lostrobot.bsky.social
i don't even know what a blocklist is for

if i see an account i don't want to see, i'll block it

having somebody else block people for me feels really weird and i don't see how it could possibly go well
November 18, 2024 at 2:35 AM
lostrobot.bsky.social
i felt the same way until i saw this person's artworks and it immediately clicked in my brain: www.pixiv.net/en/users/158...

also see this important video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCet...
天凉多喝防冻液
www.pixiv.net
November 17, 2024 at 12:46 AM