Live data from Hacker News

Sex censorship killed the internet we love

engadget.com

391–400 of 520 posts

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#391
post #368

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…

Sadly, this massive wave of future censorship is being driven by the very people who would have fought for the right to free speech and expression in the past. We are so frightened of fake news, micro-aggressions, and things which may trigger our mostly white, middle class sensitivities that we are essentially forcing governments around the world to enact censorship for us.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#392

Again and again I see the comments of how crazy it is that we allow violence in films/TV/anywhere, but not sex which is peaceful and harmless -- as if this were some kind of idiocy or hypocrisy. There's a good reason we try to draw lines between areas where sex is "allowed" and "not allowed" -- because it's arousing and has the potential to be greatly embarrassing . It's private , in a way that violence isn't. I seri…

My knee jerk reaction is actually to agree with you wholeheartedly: sex is arousing and violence isn't. But if I can play devil's advocate, isn't it possible that if sex was more commonplace and less censored it would be less arousing? Sure there's a biological aspect, but I think a lot of sex is psychological. And if our threshold for what was considered "exciting" was brought down by a complete normalization of nudity and erotic content, wouldn't it not be that uncomfortable at all? Similarly, if we completely censored violence, wouldn't you be incredibly uncomfortable if violence showed up in a google search while you're presenting to peers at work?

Personally, I'm inclined to think that the answer is yes. I think it's all relative. And I think our censorship is directly linked to the fact that it's uncomfortable.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#393

Wow. This whole thread and Right Wing Conservatives and Republicans aren't called out once? Hacker News has become as pandering to the right wing as Sheryl Sandberg and Facebook. Hypocrites.

Not sure if serious, but sex censorship is mostly a bi-partisan endeavor these days. See, e.g. the whole controversy around Patreon, where creators of sexually-suggestive content and right-wing/conservative intellectuals are both facing the prospect of being "de-platformed" for political reasons.

Creators of sexually suggestive content are being targeted by the right wing because God says it's bad and they don't like it.

Neo-Nazis (or as you referred to them, "conservative intellectuals") are being targeted because their hate speech promotes intolerance and causes pain, suffering and encourages right wing extremists, who then go out and kill people with guns and cars.

Try to learn the concept of false equivalency and stop pandering.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#394
post #9

1. Read article 2. notice that r/dragonsfuckingcars isn't 404'd 3. Disagree with article

Warning: that sub is sort of NSFW and cannot be unseen once seen.

On the one hand I genuinely wouldn't want anyone to get fired by accidentally following the not-a-link I posted.

On the other, if that really happened it would be hilarious and I'd love to do a podcast fundraiser with that person after the sting wore off.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#395

Again and again I see the comments of how crazy it is that we allow violence in films/TV/anywhere, but not sex which is peaceful and harmless -- as if this were some kind of idiocy or hypocrisy. There's a good reason we try to draw lines between areas where sex is "allowed" and "not allowed" -- because it's arousing and has the potential to be greatly embarrassing . It's private , in a way that violence isn't. I seri…

I don't agree. Europe had a culture where the current handling of sexuality in the internet would be considered prude. There were people running around naked in the cities parks, munich was sort of famous for a these naked people in their park in the middle of the city center (englischer Garten). It's the biggest, most central park and munich and people go there with their work-colleagues for a beer after a long day.

There was a strong nudity culture in germany/europe and nudity wasn't something that was entirely sexual. But now it seems to be entirely sexual, at least on the internet.

> When I Google something in a meeting or in front of my mother, I do not want sexual results to appear because some term has an alternate meaning

I don't agee. Not every mention of sexuality is arousing and when something sexual appears and is embarassing for you, that's a cultural thing. I don't see sexual things appearing when you google stuff front of your mother as embarassing in by human nature, I think it's entirely cultural. I honestly don't know whether I would care? My mother is an adult human being after all and smart enought to know that there's an alternate meaning and I didn't want to google sexual stuff with her! I really don't think this would be a problem at all?

> but we certainly don't want to watch a steamy sex scene together

This was weird when I was a teenager, where steamy sex scenes can overwhelme you very quick. But sex scenes are an important part of many movies, it's part of human nature after all. For example, I like art and my father likes art. When I am in my parents city and we go into a museum together, there are many artworks displaying nudity and some are explicitly concerened with the various forms of sexuality. There's no akwardness there, because we're both adults.

> So having major internet services like Google and Facebook default to being non-sexual seems like a pretty smart move to me.

It may be a smart move from a corporate point of view, but I really think it shapes our culture and defines what is a taboo and what not, they are just too powerfull. I don't think it's good that you can't post pictures of nudity on facebook. Nudity doesn't have to sexual. And if you argue that you shouldn't do that because some eployer could google you and sees you half naked, then that's also cultural, I think. Also, there's a privacy setting in facebook.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#397
post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you leave kids alone they also “play doctor”. What’s natural is a poor indicator for what’s a good idea (that said, it’s generally agreed that kids playing doctor is generally a healthy activity — the same is decidedly not true for hitting each other, or other forms of violence).

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#398

Again and again I see the comments of how crazy it is that we allow violence in films/TV/anywhere, but not sex which is peaceful and harmless -- as if this were some kind of idiocy or hypocrisy. There's a good reason we try to draw lines between areas where sex is "allowed" and "not allowed" -- because it's arousing and has the potential to be greatly embarrassing . It's private , in a way that violence isn't. I seri…

My knee jerk reaction is actually to agree with you wholeheartedly: sex is arousing and violence isn't. But if I can play devil's advocate, isn't it possible that if sex was more commonplace and less censored it would be less arousing? Sure there's a biological aspect, but I think a lot of sex is psychological. And if our threshold for what was considered "exciting" was brought down by a complete normalization of nud…

>isn't it possible that if sex was more commonplace and less censored it would be less arousing?

Evidence of this is the female nipple.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#399
post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not prudish here, just also very conscious [that sex] should be between life-long committed people That is prudish. To be perfectly clear, it’s entirely fine to decide that this is the right thing for yourself. But the way your comment is written makes it clear that you think this is the only correct way, for everyone. Yeah, that’s extremely prudish.

definition of prudish: `having or revealing a tendency to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity; excessively concerned with sexual propriety.` Having a belief that a loved one would be happier if they do not take drugs and acting on that to attempt to persuade them is love and concern (and they are free to disagree with me). Having a belief that a loved one would be happier if refrained from using se…

The “excessively concerned with sexual propriety” part of the definition applies to what you’ve written. You’ve got some very clear and quite restrictive ideas about how sex is to be enjoyed, and you view other ways as harmful. And, to reiterate, that’s totally fine. But most people with differing opinions about sex will recognise yours as prudish.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#400
post #319

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…

>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.

Tribal hatred for "out groups" is a human problem
Post reply on HN