This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Before continuing with my reply, I would like to apologize for not responding earlier. I thought this comment deserved a reply in which I sat down and devote my concentration towards it.
First, thank you for this, I know it's expected of Mottizens but it's always a treat to see someone go into depth and articulate their viewpoint, no matter the topic. I can see that you have strong positions regarding civil liberties and how they should be enforced in the US, and your concerns about government and police overreach is something we have in common as it is legitimate and well thought out. We can probably have an even longer conversation to hash out more details and nuances to your view as I certainly have questions about certain aspects of your beliefs ("how to determine what is a non-commercial byte transmission?" or "if videos and photographs don't constitute speech, and therefore shouldn't be protected as a freedom, how come this wasn't brought up by other scholars or legal minds of the last 200 years? Howabout no-text-political-cartoons?" etc.), but I respect that you have a principled position and don't want to get too deep into it at the moment.
Second, I would like to remind both of us of how far we've come in this conversation. We started off with apparently a J6er being framed with child porn material planted, and now we are worried about cases where there are no Romeo-Juliet laws (thanks Transformers for this knowledge). Though your underlying legalistic concerns (government overreach) are the same, and I agree they are legitimate, I do not think the two cases are remotely the same where in one (Tocci) we are worried about government agents engaging in conspiracy, framing the innocent, for political revenge vs (19-year-old with his girlfriend's nude) bad lawmaking, prosecutorial zealousness, etc.
Third, I would really appreciate you giving sources and citations for what you claim. Because though I am worried about government overreach, I am also worried about actually understanding the truth of circumstances to judge for myself. Your narrative of "19 year old in federal prison for 15 years because his girlfriend sent him a nude photo on Snapchat" is so perfectly tailored for your argument, it caught me by surprise because I thought it did happen and well you would have certainly proved your point. So I had to dig up for myself:
Though it is true that Snapchat complies with reporting of"child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA)" to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children NMEC in that they would report "apparent violations" as required by federal law "18 U.S. Code § 2258A - Reporting requirements of providers", I have found nothing that Snapchat would automatically scan private chat information between users of its platform unless it's reported to them. As Snapchat writes: "We do not monitor or use any private content or communications you send to your friends to personalize your experience, make recommendations, or show you ads, and will only review them in the limited circumstance that it's flagged for violating our Community Guidelines, or if you otherwise ask us to.".
Now both you and I don't know whether Snapchat scans private chat, they might, they might not, they might let others do it, but at the very least, I don't think that Snapchat "automatically detects the nudes on private chat and sends evidence directly to the federal government" is an open and shut conclusion we can get to. Anyway, there is such scant information here, it's important that I went looking for what you're referring to.
Well, google search serves me well I think because I found "Greene County man faces charges after allegedly receiving explicit images from a minor over Snapchat. Investigators said 19-year-old Braeden Turner received those images from a minor back in October. He is now charged with sexual exploitation of a minor.". Details are bare, another article says: "According to Greene County District Court records, 18-year-old Braeden Michael Turner was arrested on March 26 after an arrest warrant was issued when a report was filed that Turner allegedly received pictures of the minor female without clothes between Oct. 8 and Oct. 9, 2025 over Snapchat. Turner posted bond and has been released from custody with a preliminary hearing scheduled for April 1 at the Greene County Courthouse. Turner is facing six charges of sexual exploitation of a minor- cause to engage in act, all class B felonies, and possession of a depiction of minor in sex act, first offense, a class D felony. Across all charges, a maximum sentence of 160 years in prison and $10,245 in fines may be imposed.".
But wait, what is this "Greene County District Court"? this doesn't scream federal to me, because.....it isn't, it's a state court, specifically of Iowa 2nd Judicial District, which as you pointed out "states can and should constitutionally regulate the non-commercial transmission of CSAM".
But anyway, your concerns about prosecution zealousness and coercion stands. Maybe Braeden Turner was coerced into a plea deal so he won't have to do the maximum 160 years in prison (much higher than your 15 years). But wait, no, he only recently pleaded not guilty: "Persons pleaded not guilty to charges as follows: Tanya Marie Helmrichs, 46, of Guthrie Center, burglary- third degree, attempted burglary- third degree, theft- second degree (two counts), and criminal mischief- second degree (two counts); and Braeden Michael Turner, 18, of Jefferson, sexual exploitation of minor- cause to engage in act- six counts, and purchase/possess depiction of minor in sex act. Trial dates were set for June 16 in both cases.". So not only is Braeden Turner case not even pronounced yet, he pleaded non-guilty, the way a person who believes they are in the right and have justice on their side would plea! Which if I can remind everyone that the person with 100k CSAM material pleaded guilty.
All this anger, about how Americans are so puritans compared to Europeans. Hello? Americans didn't make "Romeo and Juliet" laws or something? Americans realize there are nuances to human relationships and different parts of the countries have different reactions and encoded their values into laws differently.
Europeans might not allow corporate privacy invasion, but they sure as hell let their governments get away with it:
So let me sum up what I have so far:
Look, I completely agree with you that if Americans don't live up to their ideals then they will be like the regimes they profess to fight against (Russia, China, Iran, etc.). But this is no where or even close to what's happening. So please don't go all outraged on something that is not true and not actually happening. I can understand your deep distrust, but then it's just as bad to then veer so far into non-truths as well.
It's literally happening in Iowa right now. You are correct that the US federal government shouldn't be singled out. Most states are just as bad. That's because it's an issue with Americans, not something particular to Washington DC. The US federal government is what it is because of politicians and personnel from those states. It doesn't exist in a vacuum or as an entity beyond the United States demos.
As for Snapchat, you already found a case involving significant proactive surveillance, which ought to be illegal. What I was talking about hasn't happened yet, but it's a fair guess that it will with new technologies and the way Americans are becoming even more hysterical about this topic.
As for Europeans, sure, every society has hypocrisy and its ups and downs. The United States is not the worst country on Earth right now, nor in history. But it is probably the most narcissistic. And it is probably worse than Europe unless you really value shouting the N word or making Nazi salutes in public.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link