u/SimpleEmu198

I need an answer from a criminologist. The gangsta rap moral panic about music making people violent is driving me nuts. Does serial swagger create serial murder and if so is Gangta Rap responsible for it?

If we're going to blame gangsta rap for people's behaviour, why stop at the comparatively mundane?

I'm asking for scientific analysis of the causal chain, or whether this is a serial problem of treating gangsta rap as society's scapegoat.

No hairs please.

I dunno but as a photographer at first I was like wut? But the more I look at this, it seems like an insidious attempt to destroy the very premise of what Instagram was originally for, and now people can take a shit photo with zero effort and have an AI filter turn it into basically anything they want...

Is this where we're at? Kid picks up iPhone and with a click of a button takes a "photo" of something that could fool someone that it came out of a professional mirrorless camera?

Photos that don't exist, impossible lighting scenarios, digitally re-rendered and upscaled images?

WTF.

What's worse is that AI has to learn on some sort of garbage and these clowns get to feed in whatever image they like to train their algorithm.

I might be slow, but playing around with this last night I just realised I could post "photos" I had basically no input in creating.

Instagram is changing from a platform for photographs into a platform for visual and motion images that merely retain the visual language of photographs and videos with no photograph or video ever needing to be in it.

Or are you just obtuse?

It has cabbage and mayonnaise.

And then apparently my account appeared as if deleted even though I know I'm in good standing with high CQS and am currently not shadow banned. Is anyone else getting this or just me?

I called the and got the fee removed but when did they start doing it?

Honestly I hate AfterPay and will only go near it when PayPal isn't an option. But, this is the first time this has happened to me.

I'm not even in debt, I'm basically just using it as a modern laybuy/layway system.

I've had an account with a transaction history going back to 2021 and never incurred this on a Payin4.

I don't get it. People with 1 number pay once, people with 2 numbers pay twice as much, people with 3 numbers pay 3 times as much, heaven help people with four or more numbers.

How is this undiscovered social injustice not important to people?

Do they need to get used to Keefe Coffee for the rest of their lives thinking about that?

As of their most recent changes they are no longer a safe space for people with institutional trauma caused by the state, which was once one of their mission statements.

That and the closure of SANE help line is a 2/2.

There are now effectively zero safe helplines Australians can contact for institutional trauma without standardised mandatory reporting.

This is a loss for everyone.

Further to this:

Blue Knot is now under the Medicare Mental Health (PHN) model and there is a disclosure link between the NDIS and Medicare Mental Health, so it is not safe for anyone with a substantive mental health component of their NDIS package to disclose anything to Blue Knot using personal identifiers.

For someone whose livelihood, including NDIS supports, living costs, and relationship with government systems that can be affected by information entering linked systems, the perceived consequences of disclosure are not imaginary and Medicare Mental Health does absolutely share data with the NDIS, and it's one of the ways they've been booting people off of the NDIS for "double dipping." This is not isolated:

https://www.advocacyforinclusion.org/a-cut-is-a-cut-ndis-participants-speak-out/

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/ndia-management-of-claimant-compliance-with-ndis-claim-requirements?

I also spent this afternoon doing some data mining about this from their own website and information and under their old model.

To my best reconstruction using their website I would therefore currently represent the evolution:

“I am contacting a trauma-specific service and can begin talking about my experience and will only be interrupted if I say something that invokes mandatory reporting.”

2024: “I am contacting a trauma-specific service and can begin talking about my experience.”

↓

2024: Counselling-first / contact-first based model.

↓

2025–early 2026: Increasingly formalised Telehealth service and clinical/risk framework. Removal of previous funding for the Disability Royal Commission Redress Service.

↓

Recent 2026 operational change: New website front end, new telephone architecture, new recording process, new queuing system, no voicemail, defined service selection.

↓

Current model: Explicit intake questioning, counselor asks standardised risk management questions, you cannot object even if they are refrigerating/retraumatising.

“Before I can access the trauma service, I have to pass through a standardised intake/risk-disclosure process.”Current model"

For someone with institutional trauma, this service purports to support this isn't a neutral administrative change. The assessment itself can reproduce the very dynamic that makes the person reluctant to seek help: an institution asking them to disclose sensitive information, classifying what they say according to institutional risk categories, and determining what happens next.

The people most likely to need a space where they can disclose trauma without immediately being placed into a generic risk-management pathway may be precisely the people for whom the new pathway is most alienating and with regards to statistics of those unwilling to disclose to the very institutions that have caused that harm that number can be a figure around

33% https://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/house-of-assembly/tabled-papers/2018/HATP1q_20_6_2018.pdf

and

45% https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39644727/

depending on what data stream you use.

GG: it was good while it lasted.

Honestly, I recently bought a 2025-2026 washing machine and you don't get used to it. This law is utterly ridiculous.

Boom