Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

X has new rules that officially allow porn

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 147 posts

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#61

Post by joseda-hg »

atonse wrote: post #9
SassyBird wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a world we live in that allowing NSFW content is seen as desperation, while monetisation through ads isn’t.

But it does change the whole feel of a site and make it not palatable to large swaths of users. Because it's one thing if you can say "I just won't follow porn accounts" – it's a whole other thing if the feed is also algorithmic. So now there's a non-zero chance that scrolling through will result in something pornographic? For the record, I have no issue with that type of content, but there's a sense of "time and pla…

You have to specifically show NSFW on twitter, assuming the filter works, at worst you get the blurred edges of an image

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#63

Post by freedomben »

arandomusername wrote: post #55
shagie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing BYU as a source is the issue as any other conclusion of a paper would run counter to the code of ethics for faculty there. https://policy.byu.edu/view/rank-and-status-policy > Expectations of Professorial and Professional Faculty > 2.1 Faculty Standards > BYU is a private university with unique goals and aspirations rooted in the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a faculty membe…

It was one of the two sources I linked. I also linked more in another reply. Feel free to disregard byu, because plenty of other studies agree

was the NIH link there at the beginning or did you edit it in?

Either way is fine, but it would be good for you to disclose that as it has an impact on the downvotes and the other comments are received.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#64

Post by arandomusername »

randomdata wrote: post #59
arandomusername wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think a 14 year old should be regularly viewing porn? Is that really the argument you are trying to make?

[flagged]

14 year olds can date other 14 year olds, but it also damages their relationships in the future.

Porn is an addiction that is damaging.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#65

Post by seadan83 »

pavlov wrote: post #47
freedomben wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be a fascinating development to watch actually. Made much more interesting too by the fact that Elon has a lot of business in states like Texas and Florida. X is also increasingly viewed as a "right wing"[1] place, which might make states like Texas a lot more sympathetic to their "free speech" position because they won't feel like it's a "left wing" tactic to poison minds. [1]: I'm not saying it is a righ…

Are dedicated porn sites like PornHub and friends considered somehow left wing? Or is it just that their NSFW freedom of speech isn't significant because it's not to the benefit of a billionaire that these politicians happen to like.

I think the arrow of causality is perhaps the other way. Recall the "moral majority", Jerry Fallwell, etc. It was a big right-leaning effort to ban porn starting in perhaps the 70s. Probably earlier. The republican party used to have religion as the main ideological component, and immoral porn was a plank in that platform - the party of "family values."

That campaign to ban porn never really ended AFAIK, but my impression is the priorities of the party really shifted about 10 years ago to the point it's no longer an open policy (the word pornography no longer appears anywhere in the Republican party platform [1])

Remnants of the anti-porn part of the party can certainlystill be seen in the republican party, eg: Mike Johnson extolling his use of "covenant eyes"

Thus the arrow is flipped. The anti-porn cause was very active against printed pornograpghy and continued into the internet age. A right-wing/conservative movement and efforts both predating the internet.

[1] https://prod-static.gop.com/media/Resolution_Platform.pdf

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#66

Post by freedomben »

talldatethrow wrote: post #60
pavel_lishin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any studies from non-religious sources?

[flagged]

You find it weird that different religions have different views on the morality or lack thereof? Christianity has a significant amount of stuff layered on top that differentiates it from pre-New Testament. Also plenty of Jewish people identify as atheists, so I'm not sure why their Jewishness would be meaningful to Christians when evaluating the morality of it.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#67

Post by dotnet00 »

freedomben wrote: post #46
SassyBird wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

App Store allows and contains plenty apps with NSFW content.

Are you sure about that? Is it a recent rule change? I know a person whose app got permanently denied because it had "adult content" in it. It's definitely possible that there is more nuance that I'm not aware of, or that they changed the rules

IIRC Discord gets around this by having a setting that needs to be enabled from another device/browser to be able to access NSFW servers on iOS. I think Pixiv (maybe Reddit too?) has something similar.

So I'm going to guess the workaround is that Apple requires NSFW content to not be accessible as a default, but does not get in the way for the content being accessible via some form of external switch. The 'external' requirement makes me think that maybe it's about shifting some sort of perceived liability? X might have to add a similar option I guess.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#68

Post by arandomusername »

arandomusername wrote: post #55
shagie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing BYU as a source is the issue as any other conclusion of a paper would run counter to the code of ethics for faculty there. https://policy.byu.edu/view/rank-and-status-policy > Expectations of Professorial and Professional Faculty > 2.1 Faculty Standards > BYU is a private university with unique goals and aspirations rooted in the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a faculty membe…

It was one of the two sources I linked. I also linked more in another reply. Feel free to disregard byu, because plenty of other studies agree

/u/freedomben @freedomben for some reason I can't reply to your comment so replying here,

I did not edit any of my comments.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#69

Post by SassyBird »

freedomben wrote: post #46
SassyBird wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

App Store allows and contains plenty apps with NSFW content.

Are you sure about that? Is it a recent rule change? I know a person whose app got permanently denied because it had "adult content" in it. It's definitely possible that there is more nuance that I'm not aware of, or that they changed the rules

You just need a toggle to comply with the rules, so that the user decides what they’ll see. One example is Flickr. Another is Tumblr. They both have toggles for explicit content.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#70

Post by shagie »

arandomusername wrote: post #55
shagie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing BYU as a source is the issue as any other conclusion of a paper would run counter to the code of ethics for faculty there. https://policy.byu.edu/view/rank-and-status-policy > Expectations of Professorial and Professional Faculty > 2.1 Faculty Standards > BYU is a private university with unique goals and aspirations rooted in the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a faculty membe…

It was one of the two sources I linked. I also linked more in another reply. Feel free to disregard byu, because plenty of other studies agree

The link to the NIH paper in the commented I replied to is from the surgical wings of various hospitals in Lahore.

In other comments USU extension is Utah State University... which while not BYU has similar influences.

The impartiality of these sources is to be brought into question.

I would also note there is a significant cultural difference between Utah, Poland (the sources for two other links), Lahore, and the US at large that may more than slightly influence the agendas of the authors.

Post reply on HN