Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't justify a double standard.
But making such opening statements questions their integrity
Their integrity is irrelevant when you have the facts and can judge the behavior of CES for yourself.
We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
21–30 of 92 posts
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/10/there-s-a-new-sex-robot-... Did you read through the article? It's laughable for CES to claim that sex toys are somehow too "obscene" for it or are off topic.
They claim it is too obscene in the context of the innovation award categories- there isn't one for sex toys ( https://www.ces.tech/Events-Programs/Innovation-Awards/Honor... ). I absolutely agree that they are overly puritanical when it comes to adult products in general though.
[deleted]
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#23I’m trying to link the accusation of gender bias and LGBT rights with the act of conceding the Innovation Award. Looks like their reason is that “it does not fall under Robotics category” which the article debates well. But, what actions and indications lead to gender bias? If I am a woman and I get rejected from a job, I don’t immediately start accusing the interviewer of gender bias. It hurts the cause for real iss…
It's easy to blame on gender bias in todays climate, unfortunately. Every single major media outlet will publish your story.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between actual gender bias and gender bias pushed by activist, i feel.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#24I’m trying to link the accusation of gender bias and LGBT rights with the act of conceding the Innovation Award. Looks like their reason is that “it does not fall under Robotics category” which the article debates well. But, what actions and indications lead to gender bias? If I am a woman and I get rejected from a job, I don’t immediately start accusing the interviewer of gender bias. It hurts the cause for real iss…
I absolutely agree- every major cause tends to attract those who wish to capitalize off of it for their own gain, and all it does is provide fodder for those who are looking for reasons to detract from the movement.
According to the Fortune article (http://fortune.com/2019/01/09/the-ose-toy-ces2019/), they were notified around two months ago- why publish a response now? Seems more of a strategic PR play in the news cycle IMO
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#25A French sex toy for women (Little Bird by B. Sensory) already won a CES innovation award in 2016. I can't remember if it was in the robotics category or not.
We are already reading the arguments of one side here, I wonder what the actual justification for the rejection was.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/10/there-s-a-new-sex-robot-... Did you read through the article? It's laughable for CES to claim that sex toys are somehow too "obscene" for it or are off topic.
They claim it is too obscene in the context of the innovation award categories- there isn't one for sex toys ( https://www.ces.tech/Events-Programs/Innovation-Awards/Honor... ). I absolutely agree that they are overly puritanical when it comes to adult products in general though.
The "Tech for a better world" category seems to be a catch-all, including such things as the Nissan LEAF, a smart pet bed, and a wine preservation opener.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#27As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics. The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places.
I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a reason to retract the submission to the contest. I do, however, feel like these kinds of sex toys are only minimally related to robotics, so I think they shouldn't have been able to submit their device in the first place. That's another fault on the end of CES. As sibling comments note, there's been vibrators on the robotics section before, but it might be that they slipped through the submission process as well and, to prevent controversy, let through unscathed. Now that more of these submissions come through the board seems to have decided that enough is enough and actually speak out against these just-if-not-nearly robotic devices.
Their defence that the product has been designed with the help of roboticists is very strange. If me and a few aerospace engineers build a fence that fence does not qualify as a space craft, no matter how many heat shield we stick to the side of it.
Spending half the page blabbering about empowerment of women and LBQTI+ only detracts from their argument. Their baseless claim of mysoginy and homophobia distracts from their reasons for why they should be included in the first place and should not have been included in this response. It makes the author of the piece look very unprofessional and desperate for help from some of those action groups that take to the streets the moment they see the word "discrimination".
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#28A French sex toy for women (Little Bird by B. Sensory) already won a CES innovation award in 2016. I can't remember if it was in the robotics category or not. We are already reading the arguments of one side here, I wonder what the actual justification for the rejection was.
The Fortune article has more context- http://fortune.com/2019/01/09/the-ose-toy-ces2019/
Considering CES responded two months ago, why publish this response now? Seems more of a strategic PR play in the news cycle IMO. I'm 100% for the equality/equity movement but this seems to be an attempt at co-oping it for PR in order to boost a bottom line, at the expense of providing ammo to those who wish to discredit the movement entirely.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#29For those who didn't read the article... The author is claiming that their is a partial lewdness order among products so that normal products <= robotic vibrator <= vr porn. Therefore, if the lewdness threshold doesn't ban vr porn it cannot ban robotic vibrators either. But since robotic vibrators are banned and not vr porn, discrimination must be at play.
”Robotic” vibrators are not banned. OhMiBod (woman founder, too) has had them on display for years, and have a booth this year. Apparently it adjusts intensity based on your heartbeat from your apple watch now!
Also, a smart vibrator from last year, also by a woman founder:
https://sextechguide.com/news/mysteryvibe-crescendo-app-upda...
The lewdness thing is inconsistent but clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with gender bias or sexism.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#30As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics. The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places. I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a reason to retract the submission to the contes…
That sounds plausible. And I think if the first communication on the matter had been about the difference between robots and devices containing robotics technology, that would be correct. However the first communication (according to the original post) was about indecent / not in keeping with CES image. The "Oh well, it's not even a real robot" seems like an afterthought.
So not really a "baseless claim". A stretch, maybe, but a pretty reasonable one, all things considered.