I'm not going to install the app, not sure what that blocks me from but not going to do it. and there's really nothing that tells me why I would like to use the app. I guess reply? or post? the web part seems pretty bare, I can't tell if it's meant to thread, or go longer with infinite scroll, or be a conversation, or just a wall of posts. I don't get the concept based on the website.
Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
251–260 of 411 posts
Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
#252What’s wrong with Grindr, the biggest app for queer and trans people to meet?
As a queer person who hasn't used Grindr but has heard about it from others, my understanding is that it has a reputation for being more for hookups than actual dating. Heard a story about a gay male friend-of-a-friend setting up an account on it and getting 4 unsolicited dick pics within a very short period of time. Obviously this is just secondhand anecdotal evidence—I'm sure someone who has personally used the app…
Extremely correct.
Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, "Minors can't learn of trans people? What other people should they be warned of, Jews?" is starting a flamewar. This is not a borderline call. I think it's pretty clear what "the flamewar style" means to anyone who's been around internet forums for a little while, but if you want a definition, it could be somewhere in the neighborhood of: conversation that's focused on aggressive/snarky/indignant expression for t…
Respectful conversation involves sarcasm and satire. I hope we are not in church to avoid using those. I wasn't using aggression against the person I was replying to and my comment was pretty calm, was it? What is really flamewary and pretty rude to say is stating that trans people need an NSFW tag. If you so much want to avoid flamewars, whatever this means, you probably should have replied to that person in the fir…
> Respectful conversation involves sarcasm and satire
It can in some contexts! For example with friends or close colleagues, or a small group of familiars. But the context is the dominant variable.
In a context like HN (a large, public, optionally anonymous internet forum), sarcasm and satire and snark are likely to come across as cheap attacks. The odds of that are so high that such messages should either be avoided or disambiguated enough that the median reader—someone who doesn't know you or anything about you—can still detect that you're conversing respectfully.
This sucks a bit—it means we're all subject to a certain blandness here. But the alternative is the war of all against all, followed by scorched earth, and that isn't much of a choice.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
#254(I work in social media content moderation.)
Echoing some other comments here, I highly recommend (in strongest possible terms) that you sit down with a lawyer well versed in Internet law wherever you are based out of and lay all of this out on the table for them.
All it takes is a bored official finding this thread or your site directly and your sincere effort here will transform into some kind of nightmare. Particularly given some of the major political swings recently, you have a target on your back and no megacorp legal team to protect you.
It is crazy easy to end up hosting an image known to NCMEC as seriously bad news and have no idea. Or NCII and not have an adequate reporting/actioning mechanism. Or someone tosses your user DB and people get harassed, swatted, or worse.
Not to mention you yourself are a target. By working on your passion project you've definitely already crossed lines that put you at physical risk if your info gets out. And over time the chance that it will climbs toward certainty.
I don't mean to dissuade you or wrap subtext in plausible corpolegal BS. I do mean, one human being to another, that you aren't merely building a fun community for people, you've also entered a field where very real, very heavy consequences--legal or not--now need to be a core part of your daily risk calculus.
Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's time you stopped creating accounts to prosecute this fixation on HN.
Agreed with the other poster. You are great at not letting this hateful rhetoric fester. Most times I see anything like that by the time I refresh the page I'll notice the comment is already removed.
I wish that were true, but thank you both for saying so.
Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the porn companies have handled this by simply blocking the sites in the states in question, just forcing people to use VPNs. If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII. The whole thing is just moralistic BS anyway. I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN bett…
> If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII. Yes, and that is exactly why Morality in Media (the right-wing, evangelical group behind these laws) has been proposing them. Their goal is to outlaw pornography (and other "immoral" content) on the internet by making it so diffi…
I was curious about the origin. It may not be what you expect.
> These bills didn’t originate from some evangelical PAC or conservative think tank. Their actual origin was, ironically, The Howard Stern Show. [0]
While it seems like everyone has overwhelmingly sided against free speech advocates (ACLU) and porn sites, there are some interesting points about access/addiction. I'm less impressed if it's purely evangelical driven (at least now), but I'm sympathetic to arguments about access for minors (or their ability to post under-age content). I don't have the answer.
[0] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/08/age-law-on...
Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
#257I wish I could do the same for people with depression
Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Several US states now require age verification for adult content (I don't know how that is defined). A case challenging such laws is being considered by the US Supreme Court, but most experts believe the court will allow the age verification. That may mean users identifying themselves, which seems dangerous. (It should not at all be dangerous, but it is.) All you need is some phobic government official to sue or inve…
All the porn companies have handled this by simply blocking the sites in the states in question, just forcing people to use VPNs. If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII. The whole thing is just moralistic BS anyway. I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN bett…
> just forcing people to use VPNs
Does this really even work? The law isn't "if the user's ip address appears to be from this state, then you must require id".
Properly enforcing georestrictions like this costs money and destroys businesses, but that is kinda the point.
Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the porn companies have handled this by simply blocking the sites in the states in question, just forcing people to use VPNs. If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII. The whole thing is just moralistic BS anyway. I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN bett…
It's 100% bullshit. The parents themselves are responsible for letting their children browse the internet unsupervised. The culture of over-reaction to danger that has taken over the political domain is creating a nanny state where it's impossible to avoid crosssing red lines and doing something wrong. It's paralyzing society by instilling inaction as the only safe path.
> The parents themselves are responsible
Parents give their kids access to guns and we all know how that ends. If we can't hold parents accountable for their children's violence, I seriously doubt we can do anything about parents failing to parent their kids on this topic.
What are we going to do? throw the single mom with 2 jobs and 5 kids in jail because she didn't pay $20/mo for parental controls on her kids devices?
Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII. Yes, and that is exactly why Morality in Media (the right-wing, evangelical group behind these laws) has been proposing them. Their goal is to outlaw pornography (and other "immoral" content) on the internet by making it so diffi…
I was curious about the origin. It may not be what you expect. > These bills didn’t originate from some evangelical PAC or conservative think tank. Their actual origin was, ironically, The Howard Stern Show. [0] While it seems like everyone has overwhelmingly sided against free speech advocates (ACLU) and porn sites, there are some interesting points about access/addiction. I'm less impressed if it's purely evangelic…
> I was curious about the origin. It may not be what you expect.
As someone who's been following this for over a decade, I can assure you it is, in fact, what I expect.
That article is absolute nonsense, which you can tell by the fact that it claims the clock starts in 2021, when these bills have actually been introduced multiple times before then.
Furthermore, the article contradicts its own narrative, first claiming that a Howard Stern spot "started" it, then admitting two paragraphs later that the legislator was inspired by that radio show to contact... an anti-porn lobbyist that she had already known about for years. That's a really... interesting definition of "origin" that they're using.