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

381–390 of 476 posts

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#381

Post by yamtaddle »

Zetice wrote: post #375
yamtaddle wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Maybe when you “blah blah” someone’s whole argument, that should be a sign you aren’t engaging in a great way…

Engaging with what, the several sources (not "someone's whole argument") I was encompassing in that "blah blah"? Have you engaged with sources related to this topic? If you're aware of some strong argument for natural rights that I've missed, please, point me in the right direction.

AFAIK they can stand up, kinda, if you have some foundational rules at the bottom that you're taking as divinely-revealed and unquestionable. Otherwise, not so much.

They're a good rhetorical tool and a nice shorthand for "thing we care about a lot", but I'm pretty sure it's a mistake to treat them as for-real real, to any greater degree than anything else we guard with laws and norms. Again, if you've got info that might change my mind, do share—it'd be really handy if they were real.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#382

Post by mejutoco »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #331
mejutoco wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I was the OP you are responding to. I don't like the words "manufacturing consent" to refer to astroturfing, mostly because of the link to sexual consent, but also because they lack precision (Chomsky's book talks a lot more about propaganda as a tool of "top-down" media rather than "bottom-up" media). A lot of other people who talk about the phenomenon also use "consensus" instead of "consent" when referring to…

Oh. In that case I must admit you know better what you intended to say :P

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#383

Post by 3nf »

DanTheManPR wrote: post #328
fenomas wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This was already happening (as early as 2019), but on a forum-by-forum referer ban for hotlinked images.

Imgur support wouldn't respond to forum owners.

https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2912540

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#384

Post by AlecSchueler »

w4ffl35 wrote: post #352
AlecSchueler wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I don't know who that is, sorry. I'm not in the US so I don't follow American politics so closely and I'm unsure what point you're making or how to respond.

I'll be more clear: eshoo's argument is that there are photos of Asian females being beaten generated by Stable Diffusion posted to 4chan and thus the NSA needs to step in and do something to stop Stable Diffusion. These arguments are ridiculous. These are fake images generated with an algorithm. Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world. Fake images means someone's eg…

> These arguments are ridiculous.

These arguments aren't mine. You're attempting to colour my words by associating them with someone else's who they apparently "sound like."

> Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world.

Yes, they are. I hope real images of abuse are treated with the gravity they deserve.

> Those same fake images could be generated with Photoshop. AI just makes it easier.

Yes, many of the things we achieve with me technology could previously have been achieved with more effort using earlier technologies. Airplanes are still world changing, though, even thick we already had cars.

> Banning AI doesn't solve the problem.

This is a strawman.

> Additionally, you implied that I am exhibiting some sort of Hacker News group think, I am not.

I simply meant that HN is a predominantly male space and that men are less likely to be victims of faked pornography, so the discussion here will inevitably take a more detached and theoretical point of view on these matters than if potential victims were more included in the conversion.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#385

Post by rabuse »

celsoazevedo wrote: post #374
pmoriarty wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

paid-only no thanks

I don't have an opinion about the service, but that's why image hosts always die or end up like this. They have ongoing costs and almost no one wants to pay.

The best option for that would be a more broad platform generating its revenue from multiple means, and then offering an image hosting service as a loss leader.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#386

Post by dormento »

I've been seeing more and more "fringe-content" websites having billing issues currently, with card processors declining their business due to "safety" concerns (really, a blanket term for "I don't wanna do business with you for whatever reason, but I'm not going to say").

Does anyone know what may be happening?

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#388

Post by arprocter »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #98
slg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this the cardinal sin of an image host? They are partially killing links in a way that wasn't previously communicated. And to make it worse, it directly targets what was previously the primary strength of the site, easy and accountless uploads with only a few clicks. Why would anyone use them as an image host again? I wonder if they are hemorrhaging money. This decision gives the impression that they simply don…

If they want to monetize that old stuff, couldn't they just serve up an ad instead of an image for those ancient images, then display the full image if you visit the actual imgur page by deleting the .jpg extension? Or they could do what Facebook used to do (still does?), and put them on Blu-ray disk cold storage, then load them into one of those giant jukebox-esque machines that grabs the Blu-ray disk whenever someo…

They recently changed something - if you follow a link to an image it now loads their page containing the image, and not just the actual file

Presumably this was done to show ads on the page

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#389

Post by 93po »

coldpie wrote: post #296
glanzwulf wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

something something blockchain

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#390

Post by w4ffl35 »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #384
w4ffl35 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be more clear: eshoo's argument is that there are photos of Asian females being beaten generated by Stable Diffusion posted to 4chan and thus the NSA needs to step in and do something to stop Stable Diffusion. These arguments are ridiculous. These are fake images generated with an algorithm. Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world. Fake images means someone's eg…

> These arguments are ridiculous. These arguments aren't mine. You're attempting to colour my words by associating them with someone else's who they apparently "sound like." > Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world. Yes, they are. I hope real images of abuse are treated with the gravity they deserve. > Those same fake images could be generated with Photoshop. AI jus…

> These arguments aren't mine. You're attempting to colour my words by associating them with someone else's who they apparently "sound like."

I didn't say they are. You stated you didn't know what I was talking about, I explained. No one is attempting to color your words as anything. You made a statement regarding the harm AI is doing to women and I'm saying that it echos the sentiment of a congresswoman who I deeply disagree with.

> This is a strawman.

no, it isn't a strawman when that is literally the issue on the table. Congresswoman Eshoo as I stated wants to use state power to ban Stable Diffusion, and she's using the same argument you're using. The entire world is in a moral panic and it makes me embarrassed to share the same oxygen as these people.

Post reply on HN