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

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#91

Post by wkat4242 »

arandomusername wrote: post #20
wkat4242 wrote: post #8

Kinda nice actually. This is like the one thing Musk has done at Twitter that I agree with. I think sexuality is a normal part of life, we shouldn't be so fussy about it (within consent obviously). It's not even always for money, many people just enjoy it sharing their content. However it should be behind a filter of course. Just like reddit does. So those who are interested can view it and the rest can avoid it.

Pornography is damaging to society/to those that view it. https://news.byu.edu/intellect/pornography-use-at-any-level-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922938/

Considering most of the world views it and society is fine, I think I can posit the contrary.

And think of all those hippies from the 70s that would have sex parties in the park. They're all grown up now. Don't see them running around raping and murdering. Might run into them at the swinger club though :)

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#92

Post by seadan83 »

verticalscaler wrote: post #31
coolbreezetft24 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall anyone on here saying the site will just go down forever. The general consensus here was that there'd be more bugs/glitches and a general degradation in quality. This seems to have panned out

[flagged]

Can you provide citations/links and references?

Though, I'm afraid this will be hard to quantify for you. You will also need to satisfy the burden of proof that those links/citations are prevalent ideas and constitute a representative sample of more than just a few individuals.

What's more though, such a representative sample only just informs us about the population of HN commentators. I don't think that is a particularly interesting sub-population, very little (if anything) can be extrapolated other than: "there were a lot of comments on HN stating Y." Doesn't really mean much for me - to be blunt, nobody really cares what random groups of HN commentators think. It doesn't represent very much.

On the other hand, perhaps we can look at actual studies that use statistical techniques to in fact make somewhat more interesting inferences, eg:

- https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2023/06/07/17-studies-plus-...

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#93

Post by arandomusername »

wkat4242 wrote: post #91
arandomusername wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pornography is damaging to society/to those that view it. https://news.byu.edu/intellect/pornography-use-at-any-level-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922938/

Considering most of the world views it and society is fine, I think I can posit the contrary. And think of all those hippies from the 70s that would have sex parties in the park. They're all grown up now. Don't see them running around raping and murdering. Might run into them at the swinger club though :)

Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc.

Ofcourse, correlation does not imply causation. But personally I do think pornography contributes to some of the above in some ways.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#94

Post by arandomusername »

randomdata wrote: post #87
arandomusername wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your implication absolutely disgusting. Please stop projecting. I also don't think 14 year olds should have access to smokes/vapes. What do you make of that?

It is your life to live, but if your actions disgust you, why be that person? I had no interest in smokes/vapes at 14 years old (or now, for that matter). What would I have gained by seeing restrictions on them when I was 14 years old?

Again, please stop projecting. I am not the one who wants to expose 14 year olds to sex.

I was not sexually trafficked when I was 14 year olds, so what would I have gained from sex trafficking being illegal, right? Your line of thinking makes no sense.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#95

Post by randomdata »

arandomusername wrote: post #94
randomdata wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is your life to live, but if your actions disgust you, why be that person? I had no interest in smokes/vapes at 14 years old (or now, for that matter). What would I have gained by seeing restrictions on them when I was 14 years old?

Again, please stop projecting. I am not the one who wants to expose 14 year olds to sex. I was not sexually trafficked when I was 14 year olds, so what would I have gained from sex trafficking being illegal, right? Your line of thinking makes no sense.

> I am not the one who wants to expose 14 year olds to sex.

You indicated that it would be a future relationship, so nobody was previously under the impression you would be exposing a 14 year old to sex. Of course, now that you have suggested it out of the blue...

> I was not sexually trafficked when I was 14 year olds, so what would I have gained from sex trafficking being illegal, right?

No. That does not logically follow. I would not have wanted to be trafficked at 14, so any circumstances that prevented that from happening would have been valued. The question was: What would I have gained by being restricted from accessing something I already had no interest in accessing?

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#96

Post by dotnet00 »

seadan83 wrote: post #79
dotnet00 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dedicated sites have the issue of being targeted from all sides, right wing hates them for porn, left wing hates them for not being able to filter out exploitation, revenge porn etc and then they also have to fight payment processors who, for some ridiculous reason, are still allowed to screw with any business with zero accountability. I think all those factors combine to make them have to be kind of politically neut…

I think you might be drawing a false equivalence. Left wing solutions to things like porn, gambling, drugs, sex work, abortion - is to regulate them so that they are "safe" (harm-reduced) & then find ways to reduce those activities in first place & provide support for people to get out of those activities. Left wing considers these as social problems - not legal. In contrast, right wing views these as problems to be…

I'm mainly going off of the story of how IIRC a couple of years ago, PH was forced to wipe most of their site due to left-wing activists pressuring payment processors into threatening to block PH's basic means of doing business if they didn't meet the somewhat absurd demand of filtering out all harmful/unethical material.

Sure, they technically didn't use the legal system, they just used the technicality that payment processors hold the same power over internet-dependent companies as a government.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#97

Post by shagie »

arandomusername wrote: post #93
wkat4242 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering most of the world views it and society is fine, I think I can posit the contrary. And think of all those hippies from the 70s that would have sex parties in the park. They're all grown up now. Don't see them running around raping and murdering. Might run into them at the swinger club though :)

Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc. Ofcourse, correlation does not imply causation. But personally I do think pornography contributes to some of the above in some ways.

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-release...

Why are we limiting this to western countries?

This is clearly a problem with (checks list) Bhutan, Maldives, Puerto Rico, Nepal, South Korea, Saint Lucia, Taiwan, Carbo Verde, Djibouti, and Bosnia. I'm missing the list of "most western countries" there in the most critical ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility#Caus...

Is the reduction in fertility possibly more influenced by things like... https://www.statista.com/statistics/259518/birth-rate-among-... https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/02/why-is-th...

Or https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/05/07/family-...

> The more education a mother has, the fewer children she will have on average in her lifetime. While fertility drops somewhat with each additional level of education, the biggest fertility gap occurs between women who lack a high school diploma and those who have completed high school.

> Moms ages 40 to 44 who lack a high school diploma have about 2.9 children in their lifetimes, on average, while those with a high school diploma or some college have about 2.4 kids. Mothers at the end of their childbearing years who have a bachelor’s degree or higher have about 2.2 children on average.

Though I would certainly not say that one should be encouraging teenage pregnancy nor hindering the education of women in an attempt to boost the fertility rate.

Blaming the declining fertility rate in western nations on pornography seems to miss the more obvious causes.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#98

Post by tzs »

shagie wrote: post #50
antegamisou wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man this being downvoted seconds after being posted speaks volumes about how ubiquitous porn sickness on a site supposed to satisfy iNtElLeCtUaL cUrIoSiTy So man cooomers ITT it's just sad.

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…

Are you suggesting that when BYU faculty or grad students do a study and come to a conclusion that counters Church teachings rather than simply not publishing the study they instead would falsify the study to make it come to the opposite conclusion and publish that?

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#99

Post by randomdata »

arandomusername wrote: post #81
thriftwy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that general dating is skewed against men, but also against older women; just watch that one of 14 year old boys. It is a minor miracle if you date at 14 years old. Just about everything is stacked against you. As a 39 years old I believe that this experience has irrepairably damaged my expectation of interactions. It's completely OK if you're content with not having any romantic life at 14! But what if…

> just watch that one of 14 year old boys. If you're in a mixed gender school, you're basically in a building with hundred of potential candidates. > It is a minor miracle if you date at 14 years old. Just about everything is stacked against you I disagree. Your only competition is other 14-16(hopefully not higher) year olds, none of whom have careers! > It's completely OK if you're content with not having any romant…

> If you're in a mixed gender school, you're basically in a building with hundred of potential candidates.

And if you are in a professional sports venue during a scheduled professional sporting event you are basically in a building with hundreds of thousands of potential athletes.

> Your only competition is other 14-16(hopefully not higher) year olds, none of whom have careers!

None of them? I had my career at 14. Still at it many decades later.

Regardless, I suspect at 14 the biggest competition you are up against is that which you have failed to mention: Nobody. It is not down to either you or someone else. The romantic interests involved can easily choose to not get involved with anyone.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#100

Post by wkat4242 »

arandomusername wrote: post #93
wkat4242 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering most of the world views it and society is fine, I think I can posit the contrary. And think of all those hippies from the 70s that would have sex parties in the park. They're all grown up now. Don't see them running around raping and murdering. Might run into them at the swinger club though :)

Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc. Ofcourse, correlation does not imply causation. But personally I do think pornography contributes to some of the above in some ways.

> Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere.

Are those bad things? I think it is great for the population to shrink a bit for environmental reasons. It's not like humanity will go extinct tomorrow. We have way too many people on this planet competing for scarce resources already. And that's with more and more poor countries rising in welfare and wanting their microwave ovens and fridges too.

> Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc.

It's just that we have more freedom. Couples that married young and were forced to stay together to appease the community were super common in the 50s. We don't have to anymore. And I don't think divorces are a problem as such. I don't think marriage is important. I've had a more than a decade-long relationship and we never thought of getting married.

And kids are just difficult to have now. These days it's necessary for both partners to work and that doesn't fit well with having kids. It's a big hassle. I never wanted them in the first place and I'm glad I didn't. That doesn't mean that people don't have sex.

I see a lot more sexual freedom too. Swinging, sex-positive parties, polyamory etc. Many couples I know share their intimacy, as do my partner and I. I don't think this is due to porn but rather due to a more relaxed attitude to sexuality, which I consider a really good thing. These things can strengthen bonds as well. I know several married couples that would have not been able to stay together if they weren't so liberal to let off steam once in a while.

Post reply on HN