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

471–480 of 520 posts

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#471

Post by crazygringo »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #415
crazygringo wrote: post #329

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…

> 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. The solution for this is to have a cookie to show NSFW content or not, and if you have it set then the content is still there but you get a box in front of it saying "you have chosen not to see this", so that you actually know there is something relevant there that you're…

1) Google already has that cookie, it defaults to SafeSearch but you can turn it off.

2) Sex workers don't need to display sexualized nudity to organize. I'm talking about not wanting to see explicit hardcore stills from pornos in my search results by default. I would never argue against anyone's right to organize and be heard, and I don't think many other people are arguing for that either.

3) There's no evidence that what happened to Tumblr is a systemic problem of the internet as a whole. Digg and Reader also shot themselves in the foot -- sometimes companies make dumb mistakes, that's all.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#472

Post by crazygringo »

saagarjha wrote: post #347
mberning wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to know in which cultures a teenage son watching soft core porn with their mother is perfectly comfortable or possibly even celebrated.

If you consider nudity to be in that category, then many European countries.

I don't think too many people are confusing general nudity (like the nudist lifestyle, totally non-sexual) or a few topless advertisements with softcore porn. They're completely different things.

So no, I don't think Europe counts as an example here.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#473

Post by stevenicr »

kkarakk wrote: post #163
pasta1212 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Heck people put google.com into the box and search for it rather then enter a url and hit ctrl-enter. Not even that. They google directly from the address bar. Once you could google without going to google.com, anecdotally I started to notice most people would google everything, including URLs they obviously knew

remembering urls is not a trivial task. it's the reason why we have bookmarks and history functions in browsers. a good search engine like google abstracts that away. i couldn't remember the name stack overflow for quite some time(i always associated stack with hay in my mind) just typing in "hay code questions" would get me to stackoverflow in google. not so in bing/yahoo search(at the time)

Indeed there are likely many good reasons for making the url bar become a search bar under certain circumstances (I would bet the money google pays mozilla for these kinds defaults was actually touted as 'make things better for the users' )

and it certainly can make things better in some ways, and likely for a majority of people.

I for one however was appalled the first time I found not typing my url properly sent that data to google to find a suitable alternative.

(also disturbed when I see cell phone carrier give me a "you may be looking this-and-that list of links when a 404 or similar is detected - helpful maybe, doing it for the monetization? probably. Stealing privacy at the same time? Maybe.

Providing a curated version of available resources? Yes. That is often censoring more and more these days. Google does not provide the internet options to end users that it did 7 years ago.

I have seen people go to the url bar type "google" and hit enter - which on many browsers default searches google for google.

Whatever the reasoning for these issues, the result seems to be that most people think they need to use google to get to parts of the internet and don't know any other way.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#474

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

dathinab wrote: post #165

Sometimes I wonder how (un-)realistic it is to fill a complain with the EU of google misusing it's quasi monopoly on search to actively discriminate against: - People with open opinions about sex (e.g. down ranking there blog posts etc.). - People which had been victims of sexual violence (and similar) by making it harder for them to inform them self/get help. - Sex workers. - etc. (note that this is a unordered list…

Regarding your first three points: open opinions about sex; victims of sexual assault; sex workers.

Have you tested any of these on google.com recently?

I have and I do regularly. There is definitely no shortage of results when looking for information / blogs about any of these three.

I'm in Australia, but the results appear to cover the Anglosphere in general.

The search term blogs about earning money with porn appears to be an industry in and of itself, and well represented on Google search results.

So, in response to your initial question, I'm going to go with: exceedingly unrealistic.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#475

Post by yesenadam »

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.

>I wouldn't be comfortable to casually snack on popcorn while watching movies which present detailed re-enactments of people murdering each other.

Check out the IMDb top 250 - the vast majority of movies near the top of the list fit your description.

https://www.imdb.com/chart/top

(..not to mention the huge popularity of first-person shooter games.)

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#476

Post by greymeister »

Mirioron wrote: post #17
bad_user wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that platforms and web hosting services are engaging in censorship too. The article gives Cloudflare as example. Hosting porn content, even if it is art, can get very expensive because most services have an explicit no porn policy. Also without Google Search and without presence on a big social network, you’re essentially invisible. The situation for mobile apps is even worse, as Apple doesn’t allow po…

I think you bring up some very good points and frankly, it's quite depressing. A decade or two from now the internet will be exactly like cable TV.

jwz predicted it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q7FTjhvZ7Y&t=53m36s

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#477

Post by LeanderK »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #187
dathinab wrote: post #165

Sometimes I wonder how (un-)realistic it is to fill a complain with the EU of google misusing it's quasi monopoly on search to actively discriminate against: - People with open opinions about sex (e.g. down ranking there blog posts etc.). - People which had been victims of sexual violence (and similar) by making it harder for them to inform them self/get help. - Sex workers. - etc. (note that this is a unordered list…

> if they operate in the EU then they will have to follow EU law and discrimination against people for _any_ reason is illegal This is totally incoherent. Lack of discrimination is the problem that Google solves . Search results can't all be first; that would be the same thing as not having a search engine at all.

i don't agree. Google ranks, but shouldn't be allowed to treat one group unfairly. For example, google shouldn't be allowed to downrank one ethnicity and prefer another. Similiar, google shouldn't be allowed to "forcefully" downrank one's blog, just because it doesn't like some thoughts about sexuality (I don't know if it does though).

It's not that google has the total freedom to adjust the search-ranking like it sees fit.

I don't know how the law is implemented, but I bet they have a good definition what illegal discrimination actually is. For example, I don't think google would be allowed to rank results (or, as you say it, discriminate) based on gender.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#478

Post by faissaloo »

scarejunba wrote: post #468
faissaloo wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets assume so, why specifically would these these rules be useful in controlling people?

I don't know if you're trying some Socratic method thing here. Mind just telling me what your favoured hypothesis is, if that's the case? It's obvious that religious beliefs have poor epistemological backing and (to me) idiotic to hold. But I'm curious if you've got some novel hypothesis for their existence.

I'm religious, but speaking within the materialist framework I'd say that the uncovering of oneself is part of a mating ritual, and that by giving such a signal one without the need one is in some way being dishonest, abusive (i.e: to harass or take advantage of) or even enroaching on the relationship of another. If a person were to be exposed in front of a child it would point towards that person having certain desires for that child.

As for why uncovering oneself is a reasonable mating ritual, I believe it is similar to how in the same way that if you have a gun and are going to shoot someone you would indicate as such to ward them off by pulling your gun out of its holster.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#479

Post by scarejunba »

faissaloo wrote: post #478
scarejunba wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you're trying some Socratic method thing here. Mind just telling me what your favoured hypothesis is, if that's the case? It's obvious that religious beliefs have poor epistemological backing and (to me) idiotic to hold. But I'm curious if you've got some novel hypothesis for their existence.

I'm religious, but speaking within the materialist framework I'd say that the uncovering of oneself is part of a mating ritual, and that by giving such a signal one without the need one is in some way being dishonest, abusive (i.e: to harass or take advantage of) or even enroaching on the relationship of another. If a person were to be exposed in front of a child it would point towards that person having certain desi…

I see. Thank you for sharing your ideas with me.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#480

Post by taurath »

rpiguy wrote: post #343
taurath wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a religion thing primarily.

It is not. China, India, and most of Asia have similar or more restrictive attitudes toward nudity as the US and there is no God decreeing that you can’t have sex or be sexual. The lack of real analysis demonstrated in this topic, the western centric thinking (US vs. Europe), and broad generalizations are just disappointing for a forum full of supposedly smart people.

Thanks for the implication that I’m not smart - I’m sorry to have disappointed you.

More nuanced version of my post - cultural memory is frequently anti sex in many situations almost anywhere you go. Confucianism has tons of taboos around sex. Hindis have fewer but Indian society still has a lot of leftover laws from when the Protestant UK was determining social policy.

The places you see sex positivity and a lack of taboos over nudity are much more secular on measure.

Post reply on HN