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

441–450 of 460 posts

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#441

Post by fuzxi »

tomc1985 wrote: post #410
fuzxi wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sex is free. We are all equipped with the necessary hardware. Barring health issues it costs nothing. Why does it need to have "value"? Everyone is equipped with the necessary hardware to work in my factory. Barring health issues it costs nothing. Why does your labor need to have "value"?

If you could make them think about and want to work in your factory the way they think about and want sex, you'd have a full roster every shift and would be turning people away. Such an oversupply would naturally see the value of that labor drop to near nothing.

If this were true, prostitution wouldn't exist because no one would be willing to pay for sex.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#442

Post by GoblinSlayer »

pksebben wrote: post #370
Torwald wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You basically say that rebellion can never be successful.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#443

Post by Chris2048 »

worik wrote: post #437
Chris2048 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes.. anything useful to add?

Very useful to tell feminists what they are doing. We are useful by default. They have to prove themselves

Hard to tell what you mean.

Talking about feminists then "We are useful", I might assume you are a feminist, but switching between 1st and 3rd person.

Or, you say "We are useful by default" as if from the other perspective (i.e. mine). If so, hard to tell if you are responding to me specifically, or some "HN crowd" generally; in either case, yes, feminists have to prove themselves, or specifically their ideology. And no, I haven't said anything about "useful by default", that's your strawman.

I think you're being sarcastic, in which case your whole post is just a bad-faith, low-effort dismissal. It'd be useful if you'd respond less cryptically.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#444

Post by bsder »

bongoman37 wrote: post #413
bsder wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the moralistic argument makes much more sense. I find it absurdly laughable that you think that there is any moralistic response from Silicon Valley VCs who have funded outright theft and lawbreaking--and who also funded YouTube when it was primarily a porn distribution system. People have made lots of money from porn over the years. The porn tech conference used to occur at the same time as CES--and often…

Given the huge variance in what different OnlyFans stars charge, clearly they are not completely fungible.

Sure, we have porn examples like Kim Kardashian. Apparently people don't consider her fungible--God knows why. And we obviously know that a sitting President pays about $100K for sex with a Playboy centerfold.

Simple question: Who was the most popular porn star 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

Most of the past porn stars lament how much the ubiquity of porn has reduced their escort/stripper revenues which were way more than their porn revenues ever were.

Just like everything that goes online, your customer base goes global but so does your competition. And the customer base is mostly men in developed rich countries while the competition is a lot of very pretty young women in very poor countries.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#445

Post by tomc1985 »

fuzxi wrote: post #441
tomc1985 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could make them think about and want to work in your factory the way they think about and want sex, you'd have a full roster every shift and would be turning people away. Such an oversupply would naturally see the value of that labor drop to near nothing.

If this were true, prostitution wouldn't exist because no one would be willing to pay for sex.

Prostitution exists because of the things I've described, not in spite of it. Yes if sex were truly free and easily available then sex work wouldn't be as lucrative as it is today. And, as you say, there'd be no need for it because everyone's already getting their rocks off.

One can dream...

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#446

Post by cbozeman »

Johnjonjoan wrote: post #435
cbozeman wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, according to Keynes we were all supposed to have 15 hour work weeks by now... makes you wonder what exactly went wrong.

Keynes forgot about greed. He thought after making workers 2.5x more efficient the machine would be happy with still making 1x the product.

I really hope this isn't the ultimate answer, because if so, that's extremely disappointing.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#447

Post by worik »

Chris2048 wrote: post #443
worik wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very useful to tell feminists what they are doing. We are useful by default. They have to prove themselves

Hard to tell what you mean. Talking about feminists then " We are useful", I might assume you are a feminist, but switching between 1st and 3rd person. Or, you say "We are useful by default" as if from the other perspective (i.e. mine). If so, hard to tell if you are responding to me specifically, or some "HN crowd" generally; in either case, yes, feminists have to prove themselves, or specifically their ideology. An…

It is important to explain carefully to feminists exactly what measure of feminism they can actually maintain as satisfactory.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#448

Post by Chris2048 »

worik wrote: post #447
Chris2048 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to tell what you mean. Talking about feminists then " We are useful", I might assume you are a feminist, but switching between 1st and 3rd person. Or, you say "We are useful by default" as if from the other perspective (i.e. mine). If so, hard to tell if you are responding to me specifically, or some "HN crowd" generally; in either case, yes, feminists have to prove themselves, or specifically their ideology. An…

It is important to explain carefully to feminists exactly what measure of feminism they can actually maintain as satisfactory.

Hmm, sorry, are you talking to me?

None of what you say follows from my post at all. Unless you think "responding cryptically" is a form of feminism.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#449

Post by industriousthou »

mbrodersen wrote: post #420
jjeaff wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be right, but it seems plausible that men are also much less likely to understand the potential for and existence of abuse that happens to women in the porn industry. So it may not be that they don't care about women. Simply that they don't understand and recognize the harm to women.

I think that the harm, abuse, maiming and occasional deaths happening to millions of factory workers is well understood. However we are doing very little to seriously address it. I haven’t heard any stories of woman loosing their arms, legs, or lives shooting porn in the porn industry. Have you?

Dude, the labor movement has been around for over a hundred years. We've made mind blowing progress on workers' rights. There hasn't been anything close to this for sex workers.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#450

Post by vladTheInhaler »

lanternfish wrote: post #425
mbrodersen wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand it correctly, porn actors are adults, working under signed, legal contracts that specify, in extreme explicit details, exactly what they will be doing during a shoot. If they were actually forced to do it, then it would be a criminal act of rape, something that would very quickly bring down producers responsible for it. Do you have any evidence that porn actors in general are forced to work?

Check out Doe vs. Girlsdoporncom. The decision finds that the company used manipulation and intimidation to force young women into signing contracts they weren't supposed to understand which were contrary to spoken agreements. This company was big (maybe still is) and isn't an outlier in the space.

Actually that company is now dead, and one of the owners is an international fugitive.
Post reply on HN