Live data from Hacker News

Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

imgurinc.com

321–330 of 476 posts

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think that all the recent technological advancements (compression, cheaper hosting etc) would make a difference here. To me it seems like it's not necessarily budgeting issue but natural greed kicking in. I'm sure imgur people are not tightening their belts over this.

You can't host something like Imgur for free. No technological advancement can get over the fact that even electricity still costs money. And at their volume, they have nontrivial expenses. I have no idea how or where they're hosted, but my hobbyist hosting budget tops out around $20 a month. Beyond that, either pay me or leave.

Take google for example. I think they got big at first for 2 big reasons. 1 their landing page was tiny I think the whole thing was maybe 20-50k on first load and 1k on second. It was fast to load. Then on top of that their search results were better. But that tiny front page made the thing look amazing. Remember this was at a time when their nearest competitors had ad laden bloated home pages that took a minute to render. That also helped them keep their costs wildly low at first. As network/hosts/drives/people costs money. They threw all of that out later on though as they took over the ad network. Starting off with 'fast loading ads'.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

probably AI porn fears

And more and more legislation against revenge porn. There have been so many subreddits dedicated to non consensual intimate media and most of their content was hosted on imgur. People are framing this as an attack against sex but in reality our automated moderation tools can't know if consent sas given by the models and human moderation is too costly. The rise of AI porn is giving more power than ever to people who w…

> AI porn is giving more power than ever to people who wish to hurt women

How do fake nudes hurt women?

edit: i'm guessing you mean using someone's likeness without their consent to create porn, something that was easily doable prior to AI.

AI "gives those people more power" as you put it, but it also gives defenders more power. AI safetyism (aka pantywaistism) is a joke.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#323

I'm still waiting for the day when people will stop being absurdly neurotic about sexuality and just let people share their stuff as long as it's age flagged appropriately. It's so absurd that the most normal thing on earth is put into the same moderation category as harassment or hate speech.

Unfortunately we can't have this discussion until we talk about the larger issue of society catering to people's made up fairy tale religions, which is the root of this puritanical anti-sex behavior. If I said that Earth was at the center of the solar system, up is down and the sky is green you would tell me that I'm wrong and misinformed, but if I said that I believe in a magical man in the sky who can walk on water…

Utter nonsense is people wanting to promote degeneracy in society and all of the media allowing the propagation of perversion onto children to the point that sexual exploitation and objectification is just an accepted part of life. More than faith, modesty is a value that those without it perhaps can never realize the wisdom of it.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit has also recently announced moves in regards to NSFW content[1] by limiting data access to mature content more aggressively than they currently do. It seems like an area a lot of platforms are struggling with and seem to opt for a complete ban. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/12qwagm/an_update_r...

And already now they force you to log in to an account to view NSFW content, unless you go to old.reddit.com.

Which is super annoying because a lot of non-porn things are also marked as NSFW.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#325
post #30
post #17

Imgur will also be deleting images that aren't associated with a user account. https://help.imgur.com/hc/en-us/articles/14415587638029/

This strikes me as being at least as big a deal as the NSFW bit. For 10+ years, imgur has been many people's go-to way of hosting an image they want to post to a forum or whatever. Many of those people will have paid little attention to whether or not they were logged into imgur when they posted each image. In short, it sounds like a lot of image links are about to break.

Yup!

I have used imgur numerous times thru the years when posting Stack Overflow questions, new feature pull requests on open source apps, troubleshooting reddit posts etc. Very sad to think all that visual context will be lost.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#326
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No person has the "right" to not be photographed in public." Maybe in your country, not mine.

Rights aren’t limited by geographic distinctions, if you’re a human you have rights (or don’t, as is the case here).

They absolutely are. "Right" is just a name for "freedom or protection some people decided they like a whole bunch". There's no absolute, certain standard for what they are. Absent laws and/or norms protecting them, they do not, in any meaningful sense, exist.

(yes, yes, I'm aware of the concept of "natural rights", I've read the Second Treatise, blah blah—it's a pretty idea, but it's weak, to put it mildly)

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#327
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL about FB Blu-ray disk cold storage. Thanks. https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/cloud/article/11431537/in... The blog post has a link to video from FB itself from 2014 and it has no audio. its not the first old FB video I came across that had no audio. Wonder if the cold storage has something to do with it. https://web.facebook.com/Engineering/videos/1015212866009720...

I wonder if this is actually cost effective. In my data hoarding days (as a consumer, not FB scale), I found burning media an archive tool to be much more costly (and less reliable and more physical space) than simply using multiple hard drives. Now, it could very well be that FB is able to buy burnable media at a much cheaper rate than consumers (i.e. perhaps there is more margin in media that massively bulk purchas…

At scale, you would need to factor in the durability of the media. [0] suggests that some types of bluray disks can last 20 to 50 years. Hard drives typically struggle to last 10 years. So if you need to replace hard drives 5x more than bluray disks, maybe it changes the economics.

That's a random study I found on Google, of course, I'm sure Meta has more accurate data on that.

Besides, you need to build the same kind of redundancy in both cases, so that shouldn't influence the choice.

[0] https://www.canada.ca/en/conservation-institute/services/con...

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#328
post #30
post #17

Imgur will also be deleting images that aren't associated with a user account. https://help.imgur.com/hc/en-us/articles/14415587638029/

This strikes me as being at least as big a deal as the NSFW bit. For 10+ years, imgur has been many people's go-to way of hosting an image they want to post to a forum or whatever. Many of those people will have paid little attention to whether or not they were logged into imgur when they posted each image. In short, it sounds like a lot of image links are about to break.

This is going to be incredibly damaging to forums, in the same way that Photobucket's deletions were. Old forum posts are becoming a ghost town of broken image links.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#330
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems a bit like they're saying: "ohhhhh, did you people think we were an image hosting site? Heavens no, we're an SNS and always have been. We'll update our rules to clarify this". Which seems... aspirational?

They were image hosting for reddit. Once it was obvious reddit would kill their only use case soon, they became a social media platform. A better idea than simply dying. Every platform now has its own image hosting so their service was rapidly becoming irrelevant.

> Every platform now has its own image hosting

The big ones do. There is stil the long tail of forums and legacy chat platforms that don't do hosting or have extreme limits. That is what will be most affected by this change.

Post reply on HN