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

391–400 of 476 posts

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#391

Post by Auracle »

w4ffl35 wrote: post #322
AlecSchueler wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With Stable Diffusion + controlnet, it is pretty damned easy to make nudes of people - and if they're wearing something tight-fitted, it's probably quite accurate as far as overall body shape.

Of course, you can make a model of someone with ~30 images and have them wearing and doing whatever you want.

On the flip side, that means if your real nudes are leaked you have plausible deniability. What might have been a career ending incident can now be dismissed as someone generating those images instead.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#392

Post by Macha »

causi wrote: post #249
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…

Frankly I'm surprised they haven't dropped off already. I revisited them recently and it's now 90% self-fellating political posts.

Reddit has been all over the spectrum politically over the years. It started out with techno-libertarians, then edgy internet atheists, then was arguably the home of donald trump's alt-right campaign (and similar r/european), and then when they got banned some of them spread into other subreddits, so some are surprisingly right wing political, and some of them went off to voat and truth social etc.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#393

Post by AlecSchueler »

w4ffl35 wrote: post #390
AlecSchueler wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I didn't say they are

This started when you said I was echoing her.

> no, it isn't a strawman when that is literally the issue on the table. Congresswoman Eshoo...

I am not Congresswoman Eshoo. I said nothing about a ban. I was making my own points from my own perspective and you've begun arguing against something that someone else has said and put me into their camp by saying I'm echoing them.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#394

Post by w4ffl35 »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #393
w4ffl35 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I didn't say they are This started when you said I was echoing her. > no, it isn't a strawman when that is literally the issue on the table. Congresswoman Eshoo... I am not Congresswoman Eshoo. I said nothing about a ban. I was making my own points from my own perspective and you've begun arguing against something that someone else has said and put me into their camp by saying I'm echoing them.

i really don't care. this conversation is going nowhere.

Safetyism is for the weak, AI safetyism even more-so. "Think of the women" is a stupid argument.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#395

Post by badwolf »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #355
bigDinosaur wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a satirical comment? One of the big issues is how incredibly loosely defined 'hate' has come to be by a significant number of people. This is not without precedent in other areas, look at the differences in what is considered obscene in say, Sweden, vs the US to see how loosely defined such concepts can be and how dangerous it is to say things like 'as long as you stay away from [loosely defined and extremely…

I wonder how the upvote ratio would look on HN if someone posted about wanting to decrease taxes on entrepreneurs? That;s a pretty standard Conservative position that I think would be well received here.

It's weird how people will sea lion about how "conservative views are being deplatformed" while refusing to admit that the "conservative views" that are in question are their beliefs that entire groups of human beings shouldn't exist.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#396

Post by Arrath »

fenomas wrote: post #30
ndiddy wrote: 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.

I've used imgur to host many images over the years, never once have I bothered to make an account. Goodbye, old forum post contents.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#397

Post by survirtual »

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.

It is not unsolvable.

People with the money, time, and luxury just are not capable of solving it, as they exist in ivory towers far away from real problems, and can not fathom investing in people outside their circles with solutions.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#398

Post by q7xvh97o2pDhNrh »

chrisan wrote: post #203
segasaturn wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imgur has been lousy for a while, redirecting direct image links to their awful js-heavy reddit clone site. They've been due to be replaced for a while but this will definitely accelerate that. Also, the irony of the Tumblr comparison is that Tumblr has become my default social image hosting provider now that they allow soft porn and have a paid ad-free subscription. The tables have turned!

> redirecting direct image links to their awful js-heavy reddit clone site Are you perhaps copying the wrong thing when trying to share? I've never had this happen. Even copying an image link from their homepage at the time of this post works as expected https://i.imgur.com/v052wgb.jpeg (some starwars cartoon) or https://i.imgur.com/VT1B7fn.mp4 (some cat with a pineapple)

Oh, that is weird. I just clicked on the direct links you posted, and it did indeed redirect me to their awful JS-riddled UI. It definitely didn't do that back in the day.

Thanks for the pineapple cat, though. Big fan of that part.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#399

Post by jandrese »

nemothekid wrote: post #364
hbn wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there's enough demand for a good, free image host that someone could make one that ran completely on community donations. There are plenty of podcasts on Patreon that pull in tens of thousands of dollars per month just from like $5-$20 monthly pledges. That should be enough to not only cover costs but pay devs. Could even give some perks to backers if it was some incentive.

There is a huge graveyard of image hosts - it's not for lack of trying. There are all the pomf.se clones that are community supported (like catbox.moe) which don't even break even from patreon. The problem I see is that once you get even to the scale of a 10th of size of imgur your hosting bills (storage + bandwidth) will cross into the 10s of thousands per month, which would require you to be in the top 1% of Patreo…

Patreon isn't the most reliable income source either. They suspend accounts all the time because someone reports that they were able to find incest, gore, or similar content from the creator. Credit card processors won't give you time of day either. There is a concerted effort from activists to shut down all forms of payment for immoral industries, and they have been very effective at influencing credit card companies.

Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content

#400

Post by samus »

hbn wrote: post #369
nemothekid wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge graveyard of image hosts - it's not for lack of trying. There are all the pomf.se clones that are community supported (like catbox.moe) which don't even break even from patreon. The problem I see is that once you get even to the scale of a 10th of size of imgur your hosting bills (storage + bandwidth) will cross into the 10s of thousands per month, which would require you to be in the top 1% of Patreo…

Well I was going off what the above parent comment was saying, that recent advances in compression + cheaper hosting should make it more viable. I don't know much about what any of those costs cause I've never run anything that needs a lot of serving costs at scale. So I'm guessing even with that it's still too expensive? On the other hand, I think Imgur also pushed way more traffic upon itself by trying to make itse…

As a pure image hoster, you don't earn much money, and if you're any good and fast, your traffic will go up and eventually eat up any amount of donations that content creators can muster. Content creators won't chip in more as your bills rise, because all those views don't necessarily translate to sales, and eventually something will give. And if you start to charge, and your price exceeds the cost of self-hosting, content creators will leave.
Post reply on HN