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

Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

imgurinc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 476 posts

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#291

Post by judahmeek »

sizzle wrote: post #240
mjr00 wrote: post #5

Tumblr 2.0 incoming? It's a not-so-unspoken fact that a lot of social media platforms are popular because they have tons of pornography. Reddit, Twitter, OnlyFans (more openly) and (until now) Imgur all have massive communities around explicit content. Even Twitch and YouTube are hugely successful as ways for OnlyFans creators to drive users to their explicit content. Going to be very interesting to see if imgur drop…

I mean the site is ad infested and slow as hell to load, such a fall from their former grace when they were seen as an internet darling next to photobucket type sites when options for uploading and hotlinking were limited due to bandwidth constraints. I think Reddit started hosting their own content or whatever the redgif site is seems to have taken over Imgur for a while now and the images/vids load lightning fast i…

This trend has been previously described as "enshittification": https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/

HN thread on the above article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34480479

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#292

Post by ceejayoz »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #289
ceejayoz wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the problem with NSFW? Why discriminate and demonize this kind of content? The usual answer is that advertisers don't want their ads appearing next to it.

turn them off on NSFW posts?

Tumblr tried that. No NSFW voluntary tagging nor automated detection is ever perfect, so many advertisers treat it as all-or-nothing.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#294

Post by hexage1814 »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #220
Joker_vD wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? How do they even distinguish those cases?

The Accept header tells you whether the browser is expecting a web page or an image.

In fact you can make the page to send you the damn image, and it supposed to be, if you use some extension to modify your user agent and lies to imgur your are using curl something.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#296

Post by coldpie »

glanzwulf wrote: post #186
yreg wrote: post #174

How far have we come from "My Gift to Reddit: I created an image hosting service that doesn't suck."[0] I suppose it has lasted longer than anyone expected. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7zlyd/my_gift_t...

Time for someone to create an image hosting service that doesn't suck part 2?

More like part 2,000,000. It's an unsolveable problem. To Imgur's credit, it lasted longer than I thought it would.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#297

Post by biztos »

chongli wrote: post #288
sizzle wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the site is ad infested and slow as hell to load, such a fall from their former grace when they were seen as an internet darling next to photobucket type sites when options for uploading and hotlinking were limited due to bandwidth constraints. I think Reddit started hosting their own content or whatever the redgif site is seems to have taken over Imgur for a while now and the images/vids load lightning fast i…

the site is ad infested and slow as hell to load, such a fall from their former grace when they were seen as an internet darling This is the cycle of a lot of ad-driven businesses. They start out sleek and quick to load because they’re ad-free. They grow insanely fast and burn runway. Then they begin loading the site down with ads to monetize the users. This leads to a gradual exodus and eventual death (or death in t…

I wonder: if you know this, and expect it will happen, is that kind of company still a good investment?

It could be that Imgur has already more than paid back its acquisition price to MediaLab[0] and now they are willing to risk killing it in order to not have the NSFW hassle with their banks.

Or not, but it seems like this happens enough that the money people should understand it by now.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28674883

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#298

Post by local_crmdgeon »

causi wrote: post #259
mrjh wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the content took a HARD turn to the left in the last few years. I don't remember it being anywhere near as political even as recently as 5yrs ago. That suggests either a dramatic change in audience, or some algorithmic change that pushed that content more. I'd love to know what actually happened.

It was always rather left but at least it was clever left. Now it may as well be copied from some octogenarian's Facebook profile. "Like THIS if you think Donald Trump should be in JAIL!" Frankly, hearing grade-school versions of my own opinions parroted back at me ad nauseum is more annoying than if the posts were coming from other end of the spectrum. At least you can make a useful comment on something you disagree…

I've said for a long time that it's much easier to discredit an argument by ^^^ than it is to be persuasive.

My own turn to the right came from discomfort with the IFLScience and NowThis set

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#299

Post by mejutoco »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #277
mejutoco wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP is probably confusing it with "Manufacturing consent", a book by Noam Chomsky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Adapting it. "Manufacturing consent" is a good book on the phenomenon, but sounds kind of odd (given how we use the word "consent" today).

The word consent can be used in many contexts, not only sexual. I see nothing odd about it.

Consensus is a different meaning. Going by how odd "a consensus" sounds I would simply assume the writer mixed both or misremembered, and I do not read further intent. Just my opinion.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#300

Post by local_crmdgeon »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #283
Gigachad wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s more likely that hosting sexual content involves having to deal with loads of abusive material which is hard to detect and process, and which requires great haste in dealing with. It’s hard to have an army of dirt cheap outsourced moderators sort out regular porn from revenge porn. If you take too long dealing with regular spam, not much happens. If you take too long dealing with this kind of content, yo…

This is the thing entirely. So much of the NSFW content is abusive. The HN crowd is mostly safe from such attacks so this is a real blindspot.

That's why I only use OnlyFans these days. The industry that produces free porn for pornhub etc is incredibly abusive.

Disintermediation here removes a lot of scumbags

Post reply on HN