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

361–370 of 460 posts

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#361

Post by toyg »

donquichotte wrote: post #102
kodah wrote: post #29

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. They actively fear monger people out of action so no real progress is made. It prevents the best coders and business people from w…

> virtually anything sex related, apart from toys, cannot be purchased with credit or debit cards So after all those years, we have finally found a use case for cryptocurrencies!

If performers could actually buy food and shelter with digital currency, rather than having to go through an exchange with wildly oscillating prices from one day to the next, I reckon they would switch very quickly. But they can’t, so they won’t.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#362

Post by vmurthy »

The tl;dr for the article for me was that the actors were getting a bigger cut of the revenue and the platform OnlyFans has more or less eliminated a slew of middlemen. I'd like to think this is a good thing for the actors and maybe reduces the chances that they are exploited by unscrupulous middle-men. Did I miss something obvious in saying that OnlyFans is improving the industry at-least a bit for people interested in consuming/producing porn?

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#363

Post by cbozeman »

dsohn0 wrote: post #357
cbozeman wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno... my Grandma had to pump well water and boil it to wash clothes, prep meals for Grandpa and their 11 children (would have been 13, but one was stillborn and another died as a baby). She was a tough old bird. Married at 16. First kid at 18. Last child at 44. Grandma didn't get a washing machine until 1970, if I recall. Had she not been there to take care of the kids and the farm, Grandpa couldn't have worked…

People don't look down on your grandma they just recognize she had a hard and pretty shitty life and don't want be a ox that can speak English. Stop being such a incel loser jesus.

Everyone had a hard and pretty shitty life in 1932. From the people living in New York City to the people living in rural Mississippi.

> Stop being such a incel loser jesus.

I'm not even sure how you got here, from what I posted... other than having to assume you have some significant psychological issues. Talk to someone, please. Your mental attitudes aren't healthy.

I have had plenty of women in my life judge my Grandma, forgetting she was a teenager during The Great Depression, and forgetting that women of rural Mississippi had very little avenues of fulfillment beyond child rearing and household administration available to them. Or even worse, they think they could have done anything different... failing to recognize their fathers would have essentially married them off, and their husbands would have beaten them until they fell in line.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#364

Post by dsohn0 »

cbozeman wrote: post #363
dsohn0 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't look down on your grandma they just recognize she had a hard and pretty shitty life and don't want be a ox that can speak English. Stop being such a incel loser jesus.

Everyone had a hard and pretty shitty life in 1932. From the people living in New York City to the people living in rural Mississippi. > Stop being such a incel loser jesus. I'm not even sure how you got here, from what I posted... other than having to assume you have some significant psychological issues. Talk to someone, please. Your mental attitudes aren't healthy. I have had plenty of women in my life judge my Gr…

"Or even worse, they think they could have done anything different... failing to recognize their fathers would have essentially married them off, and their husbands would have beaten them until they fell in line."

"It kind of disgusts me that a lot of modern women look down on someone like my Grandma, who built a happy home, a beautiful family, and fostered literally nothing but warm and special memories for all her kids and grandkids."

When it's your grandma who cooked for you and made you happy its a happy home but even you can realize when its not your grandma its some sad dump getting her ass kicked by drunk hillbillies. No shit modern women look down on your stupid rose tinted nonsense. You can't seem to fathom that your grandma had a really shitty and garbage life from your own description no shit people do not want that life. Stop being such a incel loser.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#365

Post by belorn »

ericbarrett wrote: post #324
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Many have tried; there are a lot of bodies on those hills. Take chargebacks. Not only does the merchant who gets a chargeback lose the money, they're typically hit with a $20-$100 fee on top. It's very common and an old trick to use stolen credit cards, download all the premium content, and redistribute on your own site. Or maybe just because your spouse found the line item on your credit card and you're embarrassed.…

The question, why does not streaming sites for music and video have the problem where someone use a stolen credit cards, download all the premium content, and redistribute on your own site?

I would even assume that this is actually happening pretty regularly with different piracy scenes. If you want to rip content with as minimum amount of traceability, identity theft (cc fraud under a different name) would be high on the list. Afterward people can just copy the copies.

The question then is why would it be different for porn?

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#366

Post by bawolff »

Torwald wrote: post #347
xg15 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For example in the media. Let's take major newspapers like _The Times_ or the _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ as examples. You will not find any article that mentions 2nd amendment rights while not taking side against gun ownership. Every time the American practice is mentioned, it is scoffed at. At least by implication.

So? make your own newspaper.

A newspaper (especially a privately owned one) not agreeing with you hardly amounts to suppression.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#367

Post by Larrikin »

cbozeman wrote: post #330
hshshs2 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure but the actors aren’t making the most money, the men running the companies are

Okay, think about the person who goes into porn. Have you seen Hot Girls Wanted ? What was the average salary of female porn talent, annually, again? Less than $40,000 if I recall correctly? If even that much? It might have been $35,000. That's $17.50 an hour. That's a line worker at an injection molding plant making car parts. And that's a job that gets you health, dental, vision, life, short-term disability, long-t…

>>they wouldn't need to do porn.

Why is it such an extremely hard to believe fact that maybe there are people out there that aren't doing it because they are desperate sluts that are failures of society and are actually doing it because its work that they enjoy.

Why is working at an injection molding plant making car parts such a better job? Seems extremely boring in comparison. The only real argument to make for it is that there are people out there who feel the need to shame people doing that kind of work and don't feel the need to do that for the person making auto parts.

The real comparison is also not the factory job, but the jobs that are like musicians and artists. Most of them know after a certain age they aren't going to get rich doing it but its work they enjoy. Some people get a little older and eventually decide to go for a different line of work but theres people that will shame the sex worker directing or doing scenes on the side (possibly even fire them from their job) but will praise the guy being in a Bob Dylan cover band with a couple of his friends.

Theres exploitation in the system that needs to be fixed but it seems like sites like OnlyFans giving the content creators choice are making steps towards that, as opposed to the others entrenched in the industry that are happy to take advantage of young people, something common in a lot of industries. Politicians, tech companies, other aspects of the entertainment idustry, have been happy to exploit unpaid and underpaid interns straight out of college. Nobody deserves to be exploited because they are young.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#368

Post by pksebben »

toyg wrote: post #360
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the implication that congressional representation should closely track percentage of the population is ludicrous. I mean, according to a quick Google search, nearly 40% of Americans are under age 30, the minimum age for a US Senator . Should we be mad none of them are Senators, or heck, that not one of the nearly a quarter of Americans who are under 18 (aka children) are in Congress?

You are trivializing what is an actual worldwide issue: even in democratic countries the young are completely not represented. Not “underrepresented”, not represented at all . It’s a massive, massive problem that very few countries actually tried to tackle. The young are the future, but governments can (and mostly do) completely ignore their needs, and simply run everything into the metaphorical ground - they’ll be g…

I don't think it's taking the point too far to say that this will be one of the horsemen when the end comes for our current form of governance. Communications technology speeds social change, and government digs it's heels in because it's run by people who "know better" because they feel like their experience is more important than actual fact.

And then we laugh at people like AOC, because nothing makes us feel better about our ignorance than demeaning smart people who want to fix it for us.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#369

Post by belorn »

Torwald wrote: post #347
xg15 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For example in the media. Let's take major newspapers like _The Times_ or the _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ as examples. You will not find any article that mentions 2nd amendment rights while not taking side against gun ownership. Every time the American practice is mentioned, it is scoffed at. At least by implication.

A German news paper like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has little reason to mention the 2nd amendment rights, because there are no 2nd amendment rights in Germany.

What most countries in EU has is gun ownership license, similar to a driving license, and thus the default right that people without a license has is no rights. Permission is given by the government, and thus the government set the terms.

In the US this power relationship is the other way around. People have a default right to bear arms, and so government have to take away rights in order to enforce gun control.

One could easily imagine a country where driving a car would be part of a constitution, in which case a driving license would be a hot discussion. How, when and where should the government be allowed to step in and remove peoples right to do with their car property as they wish? People from other countries would look at the debate and find it a bit odd.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#370

Post by pksebben »

Torwald wrote: post #347
xg15 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For example in the media. Let's take major newspapers like _The Times_ or the _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ as examples. You will not find any article that mentions 2nd amendment rights while not taking side against gun ownership. Every time the American practice is mentioned, it is scoffed at. At least by implication.

Perhaps there's a good reason for that. Not all ideas are created equal, and the proliferation of mass shootings in the states should serve as a strong signal that our gun laws are dumb.

Somehow, the conversation has stalled here because some people actually believe they're going to protect their freedoms with violence. You know, by fighting against a government equipped with stealth bombers and death drones and navy seals. With their hunting rifles.

I served in the army. The idea that civilians could put up anything of a fight is a fantasy more ridiculous than kung fury. What keeps you safe from "the government" is that soldiers are taught that they are there to serve and that American citizens are off-limits, not that they are somehow quivering in their boots about losing a fight with your cute little club of weekend warriors that play dress-up in the woods with walkie talkies.

Post reply on HN