Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Internet Is for Porn

themargins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 460 posts

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#301

Post by googlethrow3134 »

jstummbillig wrote: post #284
rubicon33 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to 2020 where identity politics is the name of the game. It seems everything these days can be explained based on your race/gender and yet this is supposedly the most "woke" time ever. Cue the downvotes.

I want you to know that any downvotes might have less to do with 2020 or identity politics and more so your sloppy style of conversation. Throwing out a wildly undifferentiated blanket statement and ending on a passive aggressive "cue the downvotes" is bad content in my opinion. It enjoy being subjected to different views. I hope we can uphold a certain standard for expressing them around here.

Your meta comment is also boring and unoriginal. GPT-3 itself could’ve generated it

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#302

Post by nullsense »

Kalium wrote: post #210
anchpop wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OnlyFans seems to have disrupted the porn industry in an ethical way I think. Profit obviously isn't always closely aligned with ethics, but being ethical is usually a good idea all other things being equal. People are more likely to support your company if they think you behave ethically (it helps if they believe in your mission), and if you have a history of acting honestly you can maybe derive gains from the fact…

Has it? It seems to me that OnlyFans is going to quickly create a winner-takes-most environment, where much like in music most people put in a lot of work for not a lot of pay. Atop that, there's a toxic parasocial aspect to it where consumers pay for semblance of an emotional connection. I don't know if an system that's so exploitative by design can really be called ethical. Or if a company that does it can be calle…

Enter the Power Law Distribution

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#303

Post by googlethrow3134 »

vsareto wrote: post #57
zthrowaway wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only investment being that they're selling their body for money, and generating a negative presence online that doesn't help their future career aspirations. I don't think this is a good thing to encourage young people to do.

There's way more work that goes into making and maintaining that presence than just showing up with a body or personality. A lot is marketing, but it's not like traditional marketing you'd be taught at a university. They're figuring a lot of it out by trial and error, which is some amount of risk of getting it wrong. And popularity can swing quickly and dramatically so you can get fired by the internet mobs (more ris…

It’s a negative presence because it presents the moral degeneration of society.

Do we really want to hold sex work in the same regard as being an entrepreneur or doctor? What kind of signal do you think that sends?

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#304

Post by rubicon33 »

jstummbillig wrote: post #284
rubicon33 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to 2020 where identity politics is the name of the game. It seems everything these days can be explained based on your race/gender and yet this is supposedly the most "woke" time ever. Cue the downvotes.

I want you to know that any downvotes might have less to do with 2020 or identity politics and more so your sloppy style of conversation. Throwing out a wildly undifferentiated blanket statement and ending on a passive aggressive "cue the downvotes" is bad content in my opinion. It enjoy being subjected to different views. I hope we can uphold a certain standard for expressing them around here.

I want you to know that my "blanket statement" (as you label it) was itself a criticism of "blanket" generalizations we see all too often in this era of identity politics. How telling that you had nothing to say about the rampant use of identity politics to target and discredit people, but did feel it important to express your discontent with my "content".

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#305

Post by xg15 »

syshum wrote: post #262
bawolff wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> classical debates that have no end like guns and abortion. I think this is a pretty american centric point of view. These debates don't have anywhere near the same back and forth in other countries (thinking of canada in particular) that they do in USA. I imagine how taboo porn is is also very much a cultural phenomenon that varries a lot place to place.

Largely because the extreme end of one side already "won" the debate on those other nations, and actively suppresses and/or oppresses any dissent

Where is there active suppression of debate on gun control in western nations?

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#306

Post by xg15 »

kodah wrote: post #186
throw0101a wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Porn always reminds me of other classical debates that have no end like guns and abortion. The camps of folks in the middle who are cognitively capable of making a difference can't because the outsized voices on either side of them are screaming for either total freedom or total shutdown. Conservatives and progressives/liberals have completely different world views: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(b…

Precisely. The culture of our main groups is what drives the loud voices. In the end, American culture is useless for solving these kind of problems, at least for the time being. There are people who buy into politics but not culture though (eg: it is possible for one to be politically liberal but then be more culturally free rather than culturally constrained). These people, in the sense of sex work and the porn ind…

I mean, this is all well and good - if those people wouldn't actively consume porn and take the services of sex workers, as the OP points out. The "yuck" factor seems to only apply if this stuff is discussed in the open.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#307

Post by Tade0 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #294
ericbarrett wrote: post #277

Plenty has been written in this thread about the article's take on SV attitudes on sex workers. For the most part, I think the article is right. But there's another reason why tech orgs and banks don't want porn, which it completely ignores: the sheer quantity of bad actors around the industry. Chargebacks, disputes, hacking, spam, money laundering, content theft, stalking, child pornography, and so forth are all end…

While what you say about bad actors is true, I just don't buy your argument. SV prides itself in solving "hard problems" (whether that's actually true is another issue entirely), so are you honestly saying that the issue with high chargeback rates or illegal content is too difficult to solve? I mean, SV can create advanced electric cars, launch rockets into space, serve millions of queries a second, but porn spam is…

Considering what the original idea behind Facemash was, I don't think the type of industry to achieve success in matters.

Porn spam is difficult in the same manner filter-evading YouTube clips are - it's human intelligence applied at scale. With highly motivated humans at that. It really is harder than all the things which you mentioned.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#308

Post by staticman2 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #180
navdb wrote: post #14

For those looking to escape porn: https://nofap.com/

I find it funny that there is a movement on every side of the political spectrum against touching yourself. On the left? It's more of a fetish type thing (chastity) but it's one of those lifestyle long-term fetishes that someone might notice at a party. In the middle? No nut November, which started as a joke but has a very serious reddit presence. On the right? no fap. None of these 3 groups have any overlap with eac…

I don't think no fap is right wingers- it's just people who think they are healthier not faping. I'm not saying they are right or wrong (For all I know it could be true for them but not for you?), but it's more like a fad diet than a political thing.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#309

Post by not_really »

googlethrow3134 wrote: post #301
jstummbillig wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want you to know that any downvotes might have less to do with 2020 or identity politics and more so your sloppy style of conversation. Throwing out a wildly undifferentiated blanket statement and ending on a passive aggressive "cue the downvotes" is bad content in my opinion. It enjoy being subjected to different views. I hope we can uphold a certain standard for expressing them around here.

Your meta comment is also boring and unoriginal. GPT-3 itself could’ve generated it

Your throwaway username that was created 3 days ago is also boring and unoriginal. GPT-3 itself could’ve generated it

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#310

Post by ofthreadtw2020 »

julianmarq wrote: post #156

This article's main point left me deeply confused. Isn't mostly men behind OnlyFans? And also aren't male performers in general paid significantly less than female performers in porn? I feel like things like that were deliberately left out of the article because they didn't contribute to the narrative it tried to build.

> This article's main point left me deeply confused. Isn't mostly men behind OnlyFans? And also aren't male performers in general paid significantly less than female performers in porn? I feel like things like that were deliberately left out of the article because they didn't contribute to the narrative it tried to build.

Have to use a throwaway lest my skeletons get attached to me.

> Isn't mostly men behind OnlyFans?

Yeah. The irony to me of this wave of the 'sexual revolution' is that the message is that it's OK for Women/Men to sell their bodies as such on the internet... And the end result is a bunch of white men who were in many cases already rich are getting richer via their 'cut'. OnlyFans/Manyvids/Etc are just like the Apple or Android store. They provide some level of legally required and/or percieved need (Verification, APIs and docs, etc) and then get a cut for doing not much else.

Post reply on HN