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

361–370 of 520 posts

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#361

Post by whack »

m_mueller wrote: post #334
door5 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also several well-educated and seemingly intelligent Americans who hold strong racist opinions. But that's another subject. Bring up Muslims or Roma people to a European and you'll find this isn't a uniquely American problem.

Those are cultural differences, not genetic ones (for the most part). I think that’s quite a difference as one can adapt over the time span of a couple of generations (or even immediately by strong willed individuals) while race is much more sticky and impossible to shake once you’re born into it. Case in point, when a Roma family settles down, they can in theory just be another Eastern European family to those who d…

FWIW, I don't think cultural discrimination is acceptable either. I've met people who don't bat an eyelid when they hear European accents or southern/Boston/new-York accents, but are openly hostile to those speaking African-American vernacular. Similarly for Mexicans speaking Spanish as well.

Also, I've never met a Roma person, but it's my understanding that they can trace their genetic ancestry to Asia, and that they look significantly different compared to the average European. So I'm curious as to your comment about it not being a genetic difference, and that they can easily assimilate if they wanted to?

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#362

Post by ben_w »

oosjc9a5 wrote: post #224
tnolet wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you’re right, just weird to see young people turn to a form of conservatism.

I think it's normal. We now live in a world were liberalism is being shoved down our throats at all levels (mass media, education, ...). Young people are rebels by nature, so now, young people are moving to the right, especially in Europe. What I mean to say is that this is not the result of US puritanism moving to Europe. Instead, I think it's a natural, homegrown trend, unrelated to religious sentiments.

Left/right is a seating arrangement, literally as well as metaphorically.

Free-market/command-economy is different axis to dynamic/conservative is a different axis to populist/evidence-based is a different axis to moralist/libertarian.

If you just tried to transplant the UK’s Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP or Green parties to the USA, they not only would be unelectable “socialists” for supporting the NHS, but also all support policies the USA considers unconstitutional (variously: ‘guns are bad’, ‘censor more’, ‘the Queen should disolve the government every so often’).

Likewise, the UK’s Labour Party is currently wobbling on the left side of the UK’s Overton Window, despite being a moderate centerist by the standards of several EU nations.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#363

Post by marvin »

fdggdfsvscvsd wrote: post #105

"Because it is women, people of color, LGBTQ communities, writers and artists who compose the majority population of sex communities" While it seems her concerns are warranted, that kind of writing just puts me off. It seems also unlikely that women are more concerned with sex than men. And it is not nazis and incels taking over the internet and censoring sexual content, but presumably US puritanism. And also, presum…

Agree with this; I'm a straight guy that actively supports LGBTQ+ rights (actually being an active, paying member of my country's organization and participating in the Pride festival every year).

I strongly support sex positivity and oppose censorship, but this routine of calling out small and troubled minorities, or even the male gender or masculinity in general as the bogeyman, really needs to stop. It excludes close to half of everyone who would otherwise enthusiastically support the cause.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#364

Post by Juliate »

mberning wrote: post #355
Juliate wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point. The point is about the disconnect of a society that protects/promotes speech/messages/images/behaviour about violence while refusing the same for sex. While one is deadly and the second is not; while one can be a great resource of connection and pleasure, while the other is the exact negation of it.

I’m pretty sure that is exactly the point the op was making when they said “Plenty of cultures have much looser taboos around this than yours, its not how human beings are wired.” All I am asking for is an example of such a culture. A mother and teenage son watching some film with nudity and simulated sex and neither of them is uncomfortable at all about it.

Well... in France, for a start? Or anywhere in Europe? Depending of your circle, you'll have a range of different people about that.

But nudity is pretty much inoffensive here, unless you really insist of putting your luggage in the face of people.

There are family-friendly naturist places all around the country. Some find them bizarre. Some find them offensive. Some find them fine. Some don't care.

And (simulated or not, who cares) sex in a story is pretty much a non-event as well, unless: - it's totally disconnected from the story itself, - it is violent/coercitive.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#365

Post by ben_w »

losvedir wrote: post #291
JBiserkov wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Church is definitely saying sex is bad, sex is a sin, must only be used for making children, not for pleasure, even in married couples. It's insane.

Come on, that's ignorant. Nobody is saying that.

I went to a Catholic secondary school. Some people definitely were saying that.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#366

Post by song-bringer »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #322
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and the Christian Church has always taught that sex should only be for procreation // What's your basis for saying that? Certainly Song of Songs (in the OT) presents erotic intimacy in a positive manner, and does not to my recollection mention procreation.

>Certainly Song of Songs (in the OT) presents erotic intimacy in a positive manner, and does not to my recollection mention procreation. Shir haShirim is a Jewish text. Christians sort of awkwardly avoid bringing it up, because, well, yeah, it's ancient Hebrew erotic poetry.

Actually, evangelicals and Protestants frequently bring it up as an affirmation of married love [1]. Catholics are more likely to bring it up as an allegory of love between God and the Church or even God and the individual soul (even considering the obvious interpretation to be "heretical"). This is pretty similar to the traditional and still occasional Jewish tradition of it singing it at Passover as an allegory of love between God and Israel [3].

[1] https://www.gotquestions.org/Song-of-Solomon.html (popular, very evangelical / Baptist site) [2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03302a.htm (1913 Catholic encyclopedia) [3] https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1708...

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#367

Post by rexpop »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #127

I find the US prudishness thing so fascinating. I'm travelling at the moment, and meeting lots of Americans (and Europeans for contrast). There's definitely a huge difference in tolerance for swearing and blasphemy. Also several well-educated and seemingly intelligent Americans who hold strong racist opinions. But that's another subject. I guess it all comes down to the religion. Americans do seem to be more religiou…

> Americans who hold strong racist opinions. But that's another subject.

I'm not sure it is. America has strongly patriarchal institutions, enforcing very particular and rigid sex/gender roles. Our economy, for example, relies on women staying at home to raise children. This removes them from the arena of compensated labor, depriving them of commercial agency except as a bread-winning man's proxy.

More or less.

This kind of economic role-enforcement is also heavily racialized; latino workers are massively represented in agriculture, black workers in service work, and both groups are deprived of the high-pay, high-tech opportunities that white men like myself take for granted.

In her indispensable feminist text, "The Will to Change", bell hooks uses the phrase “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe the interlocking political systems that are the foundation of our nation’s politics.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#368

Post by apo »

What happened was we failed to consider the consequences of centralization:

- Google with its search

- Tumblr (or Medium) with its blogging platform

- Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram with their connection to friends, family, and news

- Starbucks with its roaming internet access

- Youtube with its ubiquitous video distribution

- PayPal with its payment network

- Apple with its walled garden App Store

It's no accident that these are all American companies. When American companies control the internet's major centralization points, American cultural norms will rule. Like most cultural norms, they are inconsistent and downright ridiculous if examined closely enough. But that's beside the point.

AI and Mechanical Turk workflows enabled these companies to scrub content that violated norms at massive scale.

The article hints at, but fails to go for the jugular on a far more important point. Porn and sexuality are classifications. To an AI or Mechanical Turk, classifications are pretty much interchangeable.

Entire areas of human knowledge have become easy to censor by decree. Vast swaths of scientific research, political discourse, and news coverage can now be branded as "fake," "offensive," "privileged," or "deplorable," and censored at the drop of a hat.

Sexual censorship is just the tip of a monstrous iceberg.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#369

Post by naasking »

code_duck wrote: post #323
naasking wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is almost too much ridiculousness in these two sentences to unpack. From the notion that American hegemony suddenly began post-9/11, rather than 70 years ago. That's when online streaming started picking up steam. I think the OP is spot on that American culture influence would shift social mores, because mostly youth consume this content and then 10-20 years later, they're adults directing policy. Edit: fixed…

Social moors would be either an open field for gathering or friendly Muslims from the Mediterranean region about 800 years ago. You might mean ‘mores’.

Thanks!

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#370

Post by tim333 »

saagarjha wrote: post #325
tim333 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of it's for the kids. Kids are naturally violent but shouldn't be having sex.

Kids shouldn’t really be violent, both in their childhood and throughout the rest of their lives.

Yeah but leave them alone and one will hit the other. You need adult supervision to stop it all going Lord of the Flies.
Post reply on HN