Greentext

4731 readers

1465 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

630

Anon goes to therapy (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 5 days ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

161 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

very little cost to taxpayers or society

How would it be a cost, surely it would be a net positive since we can now tax something that's already being done, no?

I see no downsides, provided there are restrictions on advertisement and where they can set up shop. I'm not interested in it at all, but I am interested in reducing sex slavery, arrests of women (and men!) who are just trying to feed their kids, etc. My general philosophy is that if someone wants to do a thing, and it doesn't violate anyone else's rights, there should be a legal way to do that thing.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It would need to be regulated to ensure that people are doing this work freely and responsibly (not being compelled by a pimp or spreading STDs). No regulation enforcement is free. It would be a net positive, sure, but not free.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

Sure, but regulation is implied by having it be "legal" instead of decriminalized. It would more than pay for itself w/ tax revenue.