It's a shame the actions to get a grip aren't "force costed bids to be remotely based in reality" or "accept it's going to be expensive, and turn the money fire hose at it".
GreatAlbatross
I guess in reality, a NSFW instance could probably also host SFW.
But it's less likely that someone running a SFW would want the additional headache of hosting NSFW.
The reason for this (imv), is that hosting for general and nsfw communities are very different kettles of fish.
For general communities, you want lots of consideration, nuance, and nudging when moderating and setting what is acceptable content. As this helps to gradually build positive self regulating communities.
For NSFW, you have to be hair trigger deleting stuff, or you just end up hosting horrible shit.
I have respect for the guys willing to deal with hosting NSFW content, because it's more than I'd ever be comfortable with!
I would be up for volunteer work vaccinating badgers.
That doesn't sound very typical.
The way to tell so often seems to be if someone has called it AI or Machine Learning.
AI? "I put this through chatgpt" (or "The media department has us by the balls")
ML? "I crunched a huge amount of data in a huge amount of ways, and found something interesting"
The trick with visiting Paris (other than "don't"), is to stay in a small commuter town, then get the train in to see the interesting things.
That was my thought. Just a guy taking a nice photo before an event he dressed smartly for.
IIRC, the reason it wasn't previously taxed, is that it would have opened up writing off gambling losses against tax.
Don't quote me, obv.
So maybe it would need a lot of other tax law changing at the same time, to not end up encouraging people accidentally the other way.
It's like if you went to church, and the vicar said:
"You know what? I don't fancy delivering this sermon with moral guidance. Lets just sing 10 hymns in a row."
The amount of people who would be off with long covid if not for work from home is understated, in my opinion.