Otome-chan

Yeah those sorts of positions are usually locked to college students. So once you graduate you can no longer apply despite those being the positions you’re qualified for.

yeah learned my lesson. I might try again though and just lie and say I’m latina when I’m not. maybe I’ll start getting some offers that way lol.

yeah sorry I don’t have that sort of mental health to be able to just continually throw myself at a wall for years on end when there ain’t even a person on the other side.

If they’re amab and self identifying as nonbinary, they’d be transgender by definition.

How do you distinguish between the people who genuinely identify as nonbinary and those who are dishonestly doing it?

I’m a woman and wasn’t even at the event. No clue it was going on, and it seems like it’d be far too expensive for me to attend in the first place. If they’re looking for women who are eager to work for them, they’re looking in the wrong place.

>hiring for entry level

>saying people are underqualified

The problem is with the companies, not the job seekers. Actually offer true entry level positions, and actually hire the people that apply.

I’m a trans woman and don’t bother applying because I know that my resume isn’t even looked at, and the interview hurdles are just so high that they’ll just say no anyway. What’s the point if companies refuse to hire me?

Tech is overcrowded as a field and it gets worse each year. So yes.

So they identified as men, and the event allowed the men to come? Then I’m failing to see what the issue is?

Every time I see something about tinder it’s just worse and worse. why would I want to use it?

typo of google.

as people say for hate speech laws: “if you aren’t wanting to show children anything sexual, then there shouldn’t be a problem. what do you wish to show kids that you think may be considered sexual?”

naturally gov overreach is a concern even for speech but that doesn’t stop people from trying to regulate speech.

I think ultimately though with the system in place mentioned, it wouldn’t completely block access to educational materials as parents could easily show that stuff to their kids if they so choose.

Personally I believe that there should be at least some attempt to protect kids from seeing adult content online. Ideally of course it’d be parental responsibility, but having some sort of system in place would be good. I think the tech around porn as it currently exists is deeply harmful, both for children and for women. I’m not against porn as a thing, but like… come on, we can’t just be spreading around videos without any sort of filters and removing it from the control of the people featured in the video.

There’s not a good technical solution for these problems just yet it seems. I think the idea of age verification on-device, and then sending an 18+ or minor flag to apps/sites/etc. would be a good solution. We already click on a “I’m 18+” button, and this is functionally the equivalent but having age verification going on completely offline. Yes, people could bypass that with technical knowhow, but the point isn’t to stop adults, it’s to largely prevent kids from seeing this stuff.

I was wondering their reasoning, here:

We have publicly supported mandatory age verification of viewers of adult content for years, but any method of age verification must preserve user privacy and safety.

Basically, they don’t disagree with mandatory verification, they just wish for it to do so in a way that doesn’t violate the privacy of adults legitimately accessing the content.

Their suggestion for this is:

The only solution that makes the internet safer, preserves user privacy, and stands to prevent children from accessing age inappropriate content is performing age verification at the device level.

Essentially, do age verification on-device, and have the device send the okay to view signal to the site. This is something websites cannot implement on their own, until device/os developers implement such. I agree this is a good solution, but I think it’ll be difficult to push tech companies to do this without further legislation.

I think it might be good to seek the EU to require tech companies to implement such a on-device feature, which will naturally roll out to all tech devices.

Edit: these quotes are from the porn company, not the court.

what happens if you don’t have a phone number? you’re just prevented from having a bank account?

that’s good to know. I’ll just switch everything over to google authenticator then.

phone numbers are typically tied to your name/identity, and phone companies can locate you using their towers and such. Giving a company your phone number is identical to giving a company your full legal name and address.

there’s quite a lot of services that want phone for verification/2fa/whatever. whenever I run into them I usually just refuse to use the service altogether.

websites explicitly said to get one or the other so I did.