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

421–430 of 520 posts

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#421

Post by jaegerpicker »

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.

How about right here in the USA, I've watched plenty of movies with sex scenes with family members and it was no big deal. Besides that what kind of pansy culture is worth censoring a valid natural healthy part of human life because we are too "uncomfortable" with a real and healthy positive aspect of adult life. I'm not anti-violence in media but I'm certainly against the filtering of expression just so someone else doesn't need to deal with a little uncomfortable feelings.

I'm not personally directing that at you as a poster, more the general idea of the censoring based on uncomfortable feelings overriding someone else's right to expression. Sorry if it comes off aggressive I don't mean it in that way towards you.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#422

Post by uneewkly »

The very premise of this article is flawed. I don't buy it. Censorship of sex didn't kill the internet it killed the popularity of sex on the internet. I am sorry the internet is not only for sex exploration or arousal. It serves many other useful ends besides healthy or unhealthy sexual proclivities.

Decisions made by Google & Co to me are purely business decisions. Think about it, if you wanted to be the most popular search engine how do you reconcile that with getting blocked in schools, libraries, and homes. Call it cultural influence if you like but I personally won't be at all surprised tomorrow if Google made a switch to serve up search results with live hot steamy sex from two strangers on the side because that's the kind of user they are after. I, on the other hand, will block their services.

If the author's argument is that censorship of any form is a threat to the vision of the internet, we can have a meaningful discussion about that.

The problem described in the article is easily solved: The author should start an adult search engine, adult blog (insert your favorite adult content here) and serve up whatever explicit content tickles her fancies but these types of arguments are frankly trite and lacking much depth.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#423

Post by njarboe »

duality wrote: post #413
joejerryronnie wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn't try to racialize this. I'm also not convinced our (whose? I'm guessing you mean USA's) mostly white middle class are the ones frightened of and complaining about fake news, microaggressions or being triggered. Those seem more like Bay Area sensibilities and concerns than Middle America's.

You forget that almost everyone in America considers themselves middle class.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#424

Post by microcolonel »

lenticular wrote: post #360
microcolonel wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, while not a sin, it also isn't a panacea. We get it, you like sex, you think it's great. Lots of people who agree with that also think that having quite so much of it everywhere cheapens it and gives it outsize control of people's desires.

Closed attitudes about sex lead to more teen pregnancy, less opportunities for women, etc. I don't see where it is beneficial. The arguments for sexual prudishness always seem to revolve around "cheapening it" with a heavy subtext of expecting women to maintain sexual purity especially. Most of Western Europe is quite progressive about sex, but yet I can't see how that has been a problem for them. While you may have…

> less opportunities for women

What is the mechanism of that? I don't understand how it's necessary to expose broader society (rather than just people interested in it) to unavoidable sexual imagery in order to... have women in the workplace?

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#425

Post by door5 »

50656E6973 wrote: post #400
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.

Tribal hatred for "out groups" is a human problem

Racism is a political problem. It doesn't arise out of some universal flawed human psyche, it arises because certain political structures exist that stratify and marginalize groups of people. In the United States, for example, "whiteness" was an invention that changed over time to include different groups depending on political circumstances. Calling it merely a "human" problem ignores the strong relationship between racism and the legacy of European and American colonialism.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#426

Post by [deleted] »

DSingularity wrote: post #352
Juliate wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it's arousing So is violence. Not arousing in the same way, we are imitating animals. > and has the potential to be greatly embarrassing. That is also a social construct. Why should sex be embarrassing that violence wouldn't be? That's the very definition of being prude.

What? Violence is embarrassing -- not arousing. And like sex, I wouldn't be comfortable to casually snack on popcorn while watching movies which present detailed re-enactments of people murdering each other. And I certainly wouldn't be comfortable to watch it with anyone else either.

[deleted]

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#427

Post by house_atr »

Juliate wrote: post #364
mberning wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And that's a problem with modesty that Europe needs to work on. Not something the rest of the world needs to acquiesce to because the Nato bloc are rich countries and we should all do what they do, often at the implication of "or else".

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#429

Post by door5 »

mason55 wrote: post #380
whack wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

What’s the difference between cultural discrimination and constructive criticism? Can you complain that the Saudis don’t (didn’t) let women drive or is that cultural discrimination? Anti-FGM campaigns? I’m being intentionally obtuse but there has to be a line somewhere. Or not and people should be free to argue without fear of the label “cultural discrimination”. FWIW I have no idea what the answer is.

It depends whether your criticism is informed and empathetic. Are you criticizing to prove that another group is somehow "lesser" or "other", or are you listening to and supporting activists from within those groups? How informed are you on the issue, etc.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#430

Post by StevePerkins »

bleb wrote: post #402
StevePerkins wrote: post #294

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. To the assertion that Google is deliberately biased toward violence over sex. The " America == bad, anything I don't like about my country == also America " mindset is a disingenuous rejection of agency. There are a lot of things going on the world today.…

did they say american hegemony began post-9/11 or that google's biases are deliberate? those claims would certainly be ridiculous. i think you may have a point but i'm not clear on it. you're saying that there are other factors besides US cultural hegemony which would've contributed to the shift in sweden's media norms?

We are in a sub-thread, about Sweden's changing trends in censorship over the past 10-20 years. To claim that American hegemony is the cause, one must claim that American hegemony grew drastically stronger in that timeframe (a.k.a. the 9/11 era).

Put differently... you have to claim that the Marshall Plan and a half-century of Hollywood exports had no effect, but YouTube and Facebook did cause a reversal. I think you have to be very young with a limited perspective for such a premise to even occur to you.

If anything, American hegemony has dramatically WEAKENED over the past 20 years. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were such folly, the Norwegians welcomed Barack Obama with a Nobel Peace Prize for no tangible reason other than him NOT being George W. Bush! Disgust over Tony Blair's role as U.S. collaborator reshaped British politics for a generation. Weakened U.S. clout emboldened Russia to annex Crimea, and prevented any effective international response to the crisis in Syria. And can anyone say with a straight face that U.S. has more soft power influence on the world stage since Donald Trump's election?

Beyond political hegemony, its cultural counterpart seem weakening also. Large American films are now constructed to appease Chinese state censors, for access to their market. Back in the 1990's, it was routine in online web forums to act as if other countries don't exist. Today, that is routinely challenged.

As for the U.S. imposing sexual puritanism on the Internet... YouTube might be headquartered in the U.S., but so is PornHub. If there were really a huge market for something like YouTube, with a more relaxed TOS, then why hasn't a French startup created it? Unlike China, there is no Great Firewall in the U.S. that could squash its competition.

To answer your question, I cannot speak with certainty on why Sweden's censorship practices have shifted over the past 10-20 years. If indeed they truly have, then I might suspect immigration trends and a changing role for women (the same reasons commonly attributed to European nude beaches being in decline). I can only say that the idea of American hegemony in these past two decades growing stronger rather than weaker is absurd.

Post reply on HN