Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sex censorship killed the internet we love

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 520 posts

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#131

Post by jackvalentine »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #77
erdo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should read the article, it's not complaining about the lack of commercial porn

yeah, right. I was online since 1999, which is probably year when article author was born. I've seen internet changing at least 4 times. I do remember using napster, for example. So, some 20 year old is unhappy that tumblr she liked is no more? Cry me a river.

I'd like to address your attempt to de-legitimize the author based on your assumption she was "probably" born in 1999.

Firstly, a twenty year old's voice is just as valid as yours. It may be presented from a place of less experience, or it may even be even more experienced than you.

Secondly, your assumption is incorrect and the author has been a published writer since at least 1998.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#132

Post by drodgers »

aussieguy1234 wrote: post #54
IndrekR wrote: post #12

"Google News shows one lonely result for "porn," an article that is 26 days old." Must be a regional thing. Gives plenty of fresh (less than a day old) articles when searched in Estonia. Edit: this is for Google search "news" tab. If I go to Google News ( https://news.google.com ) and search from there, get no results.

I've confirmed this happens in Australia. Except it's zero results, not one.

Interesting. I just searched (in Oz too) and got a bunch of results; if you click on settings, is safe-search turned on? It's off for me.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#133

Post by ndnxhs »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #35
halfjoking wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the real story here - payment processors and the US gov are policing morality by making it impossible to run a for-profit NSFW business: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are... Tumblr and similar sites are just a casualty of monopolistic payment processors doing the bidding of the government. IMO - as long as what you're doing is legal you should be able to make money for it. Anything l…

oh come on. tumbler is aiming for sweet sweet sweet branding advertising dollars, which has nothing to do with payment processors. they are looking for a hefty 1-10-100M transaction from BMW, P&G or Unilever. payment processors are not in this business at all.

Most payment processors ban selling adult content and the ones that don't explicitly ban it will often kick you off.

A developer posted about it a little bit ago (since deleted). People pay for porn subs and then their wives see it on the bank account so the one who paid makes up a story about how they must have been hacked and calls the bank to report the transaction. All these reports end up with the websites account getting shut down.

Its also an issue with selling marijuana in the places where its legal. In the modern world, visa and MasterCard have the final word on what businesses can exist.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#134

Post by ndnxhs »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #61
jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why the corporate monoliths refuse to slap their ads on porno. Porno has got to be the most popular kind of content on the internet. Why cant my porno be brought to me in part by pepsi cola?

I'm guessing, but one consideration may be that they're afraid of "moral panic" from their non-porn-watching customer segment. The situation is ridiculous, though. Plenty of companies, including Pepsi and other FMCG brands, car manufacturers, tobacco manufacturers, etc. advertise themselves with clips so sexualized they're borderline pornographic. The market doesn't seem to mind. Avoidance of porn seems hypocritical.

Journalists actively go out of their way to find adverts on controversial YouTube videos and then they email the companies involved as well as publishing it on their website to shame the companies who did not pull the adverts from YouTube.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#136

Post by carlob »

unimpressive wrote: post #8
lazyjones wrote: post #3

YMMV... For me, the last straw was having to click away 2-3 banners that cover the content on every website and then often being slapped in the face with a subscription box. This is simply conditioning me to expect disappointment and hence to stop clicking on links. Even on HN I find myself clicking straight on the comment links to get an idea of what the link is about.

My friend wrote a browser plugin that removes sticky web elements like subscription boxes on pages (Chrome only, for now). https://git.sr.ht/~achmizs/AlwaysKillSticky.git Sad that we have to resort to this sort of thing, but... p.s: He would probably be happy to accept a patch which makes it compatible with Firefox.

    javascript:(function()%7B(function%20()%20%7Bvar%20i%2C%20elements%20%3D%20document.querySelectorAll('body%20*')%3Bfor%20(i%20%3D%200%3B%20i%20%3C%20elements.length%3B%20i%2B%2B)%20%7Bif%20(getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position%20%3D%3D%3D%20'fixed')%20%7Belements%5Bi%5D.parentNode.removeChild(elements%5Bi%5D)%3B%7D%7D%7D)()%7D)()
Bookmarklet that does the same

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#138

Post by fdggdfsvscvsd »

logicchains wrote: post #71
sgt101 wrote: post #55

The real "original sin" of the free internet is the curation of the experience of using neutral information systems to drive engagement and skew users decisions away from their own interest towards the commercial interest of the web sites. Routine deception and manipulation mean that there are no clear lines or defensible moats of freedom. There is no rule of law or communal standard of fairness on the internet. This…

> I hear of no stories where people have found happy and fulfilled lives as prostitutes Here's one: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-majority-of... . "In fact, when you ask sex workers about their job satisfaction and working conditions – as a study led by Leeds University just has – the majority of them are happy. When asked to describe their work, respondents typically selected positive or neutral w…

I have read several stories about happy coal miners, actually. There seems to be something about the companionship among coal miners that makes it great (for them).

In general - if somebody does a job, presumably the alternatives would be worse. That applies to prostitution as well.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#139

Post by watwut »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #56
pishpash wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always like that. TV and radio were quirky in the early days too, but as soon as you go mass market it changes. It's not the medium, it's the people on it. Time to keep moving and get away from the mainstream.

Is it really "people on it", or is it just the ad-based business model? Sure, mass market means lowest common denominator, but people generally don't mind weirdness as long as it doesn't force itself on them. I feel most cases of censorship or self-censorship of weirdness on the media has always something to do with some advertiser not wanting their ads associated with weirdness.

TV was heavily regulated. So it is not just market, but also politics and governing.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#140

Post by mrhappyunhappy »

lazyjones wrote: post #3

YMMV... For me, the last straw was having to click away 2-3 banners that cover the content on every website and then often being slapped in the face with a subscription box. This is simply conditioning me to expect disappointment and hence to stop clicking on links. Even on HN I find myself clicking straight on the comment links to get an idea of what the link is about.

If on mobile you can set to open everything in reader view which removes ads, pop ups and all the nonsense.
Post reply on HN