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

481–490 of 520 posts

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#481

Post by thaumasiotes »

LeanderK wrote: post #477
thaumasiotes wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 se…

The comment I responded to explicitly states that "discrimination for _any_ reason is illegal".

That doesn't work and can't work; it's not even meaningful. By that standard, the existence of Google is, in itself, criminal.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#482

Post by LeanderK »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #481
LeanderK wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

The comment I responded to explicitly states that "discrimination for _any_ reason is illegal". That doesn't work and can't work; it's not even meaningful. By that standard, the existence of Google is, in itself, criminal.

ah ok, then I've misunderstood your comment :)

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#483

Post by faissaloo »

scarejunba wrote: post #479
faissaloo wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No worries, good discussion.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#484

Post by mrmanner »

darkpuma wrote: post #405
apo wrote: 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…

It's not just American sensibilities that are in play. When you allow people to upload pornographic material you have to deal with the risk that they'll upload illegal material (shit that's illegal in Europe too, it should be pointed out. And we could dive into a tangent to discuss the topic of ISP-level content blocking in America and the UK if you wish..) If you're unable to effectively filter that stuff out the ne…

But still porn is only a small subcategory of the content the article was discussing, and probably most content being rejected as "adult" or "nudity" or "explicit" is very much not porn. It may be informational content about sex, or fine art with nudity, or lyrics using sexual words for shock value, or...

I think many platforms actually are uncomfortable with hosting porn not just for legal reasons, and that the problem you're describing of identifying what is what and drawing lines is rather between porn and not-porn-but-sexual than between illegal and legal porn.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#485

Post by yspeak »

To complain about Google censorship is laughable. Unfortunately there is still plenty of raunch porn easily available even with safe mode. Google Amazon Yahoo and others have always provided little or no parental controls and are glad to let extremely explicit and harmful images, products, and sites flow freely. My guess is that the actions the article complains about are solely being done for China, child porn liability concerns, and possible bandwidth issues and are drops in the ocean. Porn hurts relationships, kills love, leads to sexual addictions for many, and often involves sex trafficked subjects and sometimes abused children. Google's unwillingness to chase Yahoo's efforts to go above and beyond and drown their users with sex from the far corners of the internet in an already sex obsessed society is something that should be encouraged.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#486

Post by whack »

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.

> 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?

I would argue that individuals should be treated on their own individual merit, and not on the merits of their race/religion/nation/culture.

If you meet a Saudi person who doesn't allow his wife/daughter to drive cars, feel free to shun him all you like. If you meet a different Saudi person who does treat his wife and daughters with equality, I would hope that you would give him a fair shake.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#487

Post by perilunar »

carlob wrote: post #142
perilunar wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my perception is that the vast majority of sex workers are not doing it because of free choice, but rather because of exploitation and pressure. Your perception would be wrong. The vast majority of sex workers are doing it for the money, same as any job. > The illegality of prostitution Prostitution is not illegal in many parts of the world, and even decriminalised is some parts. > I hear of no stories where people…

> Prostitution is not illegal in many parts of the world, and even decriminalised is some parts. Nitpick: decriminalization means that something is still illegal, but it's not a crime.

No. In terms of sex work, decriminalisation means it is not a criminal offence, i.e. not a crime. Legalisation mean also not a crime, but subject to restrictions and regulations.

In NSW (Aus) and New Zealand (both decriminalised), there are no laws restricting sex work. Local councils may have zoning laws restricting where brothels may operate, but sex work itself is fully legal.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#488

Post by microcolonel »

lenticular wrote: post #431
microcolonel wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Sexual control is universally directed primarily towards women. No matter where you are in the world, male heterosexuality is far less restricted (often thought of as "conquest") whereas female sexuality is heavily restricted ("slut"). This gives a backdrop of delegitimizing women's choices over men's. I'm gay, and repressive sexual attitudes did tremendous damage to me in my youth, as I grew up in a conservative are…

> Sexual control is universally directed primarily towards women.

Is it primary, or is it universal?

> I now live in an area with a more positive view of sexuality, and this carries over to acceptance of homosexuality, gender nonconforming behavior, etc.

And I live in a society where there is just about every kind of attitude toward any one of those things represented, in every combination you could imagine. Not sure you can draw the kind of crisp black and white distinctions you'd like to, on this topic. If you take a look at more societies than the handful you've encountered, you'll have a hard time mapping your model of social attitudes toward sex and gender roles cleanly to many of them.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#489

Post by microcolonel »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #451
microcolonel wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

sex is treated as something that women give to men, sometimes in exchange for money/influence/drugs/etc. in a truly equal world, with a healthy attitude to sex, female sexual desire would be recognised too, and sex would stop being something that women give to men, and instead be something that two people (of whatever genders) enjoy together.

> sex is treated as something that women give to men, sometimes in exchange for money/influence/drugs/etc.

Sure, but if that's why, then surely sexual restraint means that women will more often use other mechanisms to get ahead. I don't get the impression that sexual restraint is what leads some women to prostitute themselves in the way you describe.

> in a truly equal world, with a healthy attitude to sex, female sexual desire would be recognised too, and sex would stop being something that women give to men, and instead be something that two people (of whatever genders) enjoy together.

What exactly makes that attitude healthy (or rather, healthier than a more restrained attitude)? I sincerely doubt there is some yet-undiscovered natural state in which men and women enjoy sex in the same way; it seems to me that women have a greater degree of control, and generally less desire, when it comes to sex.

The reason sex is "treated as something that women give to men" is that they are fundamentally in control. Ask yourself why you see Amy Schumer openly talk about how she knowingly raped an incapacitated man who she knew could not consent, and it seems to be interpreted as a comedy piece. There is a fundamental mechanical difference in how sex and sexual relationships work between the sexes, and no amount of libertinism has changed that.

I'm generally very confused about what you're trying to say. I asked why lenticular said that a lack of overt sexual imagery in media was denying women opportunities; I find this utterly confusing as a line of reasoning, and nothing I've read here supports it.

I get the impression that some here will ascribe every possible positive attribute to libertinism, and every possible negative attribute to restraint; but when it comes to backing up any specific assertion, no supporting argument is provided.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#490

Post by perilunar »

phreack wrote: post #321

I've had an idea for an adult oriented app, that many many people have told me they'd pay for and support, but it'd need push notifications to work (preventing it from working in a browser), and Apple is such a walled garden that you can't even sideload an app the way you can in Android (or any desktop OS). It's quite frustrating to see the way they get to shape culture.

You can do push notifications in browsers. See: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API
Post reply on HN