[HN Gopher] Why "go nuts, show nuts" doesn't work in 2022 ___________________________________________________________________ Why "go nuts, show nuts" doesn't work in 2022 Author : firloop Score : 267 points Date : 2022-09-29 19:00 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (photomatt.tumblr.com) (TXT) w3m dump (photomatt.tumblr.com) | jjulius wrote: | I can appreciate the second point about how app stores are anti- | porn, particularly in the broader discussion about how difficult | it is to operate a site that hosts pornographic content, be a sex | worker, etc.. Definitely worth discussing. | | That said, am I crazy (ignorant, perhaps?) in thinking that it's | irrelevant to Tumblr? Tumblr.com still works in all browsers, and | surely (here's where that ignorance of mine might come into play) | it's possible to have a very similar experience via browser as | you would via app. I mean, you can use FB and Instagram on mobile | browsers just fine for the most part, and Tumblr, too. | wmf wrote: | I guess ads in mobile apps are worth dramatically more than Web | ads. | colechristensen wrote: | There probably needs to be a "show nuts" compliance platform for | standard practices, auditing, etc. for nudity and porn on social | networks. Payment processors, app stores, and the platforms | themselves could point to these things to prove and practice good | faith so we can exit this prudish phase where in many cases less | is allowed now than was broadcast on the air tv decades ago. | compiler-guy wrote: | Anyone bemoaning a lack of porn on the internet must be using a | different internet than I am. Porn is ubiquitous in all its forms | and varieties. Anything you could possibly want is just a click | away. | | It is, however, very difficult to base a business on internet | porn. That might be a problem in some ways, but it is a different | problem than lack of access. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Not just a click away. You also need a little typing. | | Really the business in internet porn is psychological | manipulation and compromat. There's no business otherwise, it's | sex, it's bad for sex to be efficient, porn is efficient, too | efficient. No business. As a straight model I can tell you the | business is in being very close to pornography without ever | actually crossing the boundary. | | Teasing. | | Very inefficient. | | I got down to my underwear for my portfolio day 1, no problem. | Absolutely no problem. There was a girl [a very young woman | model age, like 19, I was 24, her name was Antonia] getting her | portfolio done simultaneous, she was naked too, but with | lingerie. Our agent was there, telling me just strip, don't go | to the bathroom, look at her, _esta en pelota_ she 's naked. | It's a living. Our interest in each other was purely | professional. | | Teasing. Like the Russky pop stars. That's where the money is. | softcactus wrote: | Why does this read like Chuck Palahniuk | teddyh wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=daniel-cussen | dec0dedab0de wrote: | At it's height, Tumblr porn was different. Similar to Twitter | and Reddit, yet somehow more human. | | Maybe it is because Tumblr allows wild customization, instead | of forcing a unified corporate approved interface. | | It felt like a place to explore and discover things about | yourself in the process. Much of the porn on the internet these | days feels like it's just trying to profile and exploit you . | naet wrote: | When the author sees that twitter and reddit both have iOS apps, | he handwaves it away as a mystery why they are allowed to exist | on iOS. Doesn't this go directly against his claim "no modern | internet service in 2022 can have the rules that Tumblr did in | 2007"? They are literally the direct competitors of Tumblr, and | they didn't alienate a huge chunk of their audience with strict | content policies. | | Maybe he wasn't part of the organization at the time, but Tumblr | was removed from iOS for a widely publicized child pornography | incident. They made an internal decision to axe any and all adult | content as a PR response. The app store did not mandate this. | | (edited for clarity) | kurtreed wrote: | Yeah Reddit and Twitter are mentioned in the article | hoppyhoppy2 wrote: | These points are addressed in the article. | saurik wrote: | CollegeHumor, soon before it was forced to dismantle itself, did | a sketch involving the CEO of Tumblr coming to realize just how | much porn was really on the site. This article is an amazing | sequel. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUuab1Aqg0 | PragmaticPulp wrote: | This mentality change goes far beyond porn. A decade ago comment | sections like Slashdot and Hacker News were almost unanimously in | favor of keeping the internet as unregulated and open as | possible. | | Now it seems like every headline about social media companies | attracts a lot of comments demanding regulations, restrictions, | and laws to crack down on... something. Even here on HN it's | common for threads about Meta to devolve into a lot of angry | calls for Facebook to be "banned" for kids or for lawmakers to | step in and regulate. | | Meanwhile, journalists and politicians _love_ to amplify stories | about tech companies doing harm to kids. Allowing, or even | encouraging, something like porn on your platform is an open | invitation for these journalists to put you in their sights. No | company wants to be the most lax company in the space, so it 's a | constant game of companies tightening their standards. | madeofpalk wrote: | Weird how you paint journalists spreading awareness of Bad | Things Happening as the evil here. | | Earlier this year Twitter considered competing with OnlyFans in | having a paid porn product. No company wants to be the most lax | company in the space, and twitter determined it didn't have the | ability to ensure that child porn wouldn't end up on the | service, and they killed the effort. | | > _" Twitter cannot accurately detect child sexual exploitation | and non-consensual nudity at scale" the Red Team [at Twitter] | concluded_ | | I think that's a completely valid outcome - I think it's valid | for no one to want to be responsible for facilitating that. | https://www.theverge.com/23327809/twitter-onlyfans-child-sex... | MetaWhirledPeas wrote: | > Weird how you paint journalists spreading awareness of Bad | Things Happening as the evil here. | | Counterpoint. There really is a lot of high-class clickbait | in journalism though. Most is probably well-meaning and it | might even be unintentional. My own anecdote: I like to | listen to NPR which is a great source of civil discussion and | journalism. A lot of their pieces, in the aim to be | humanistic, end up bouncing from one group of (legitimate!) | victims to the next. Every story is about someone with a | problem, and the implied question is always _what are we | going to do about it?_ When these stories inevitably drift | toward social media, that question is always directed at the | company. What is TwitBookStagramTok going to do to fix ____ | issue? These are legitimate questions. But you end up | reaching a point where the story just doesn 't end, it keeps | being brought up again and again as bad press for company | ______ and so of course, after a period of attrition, the | company eventually performs some action to curtail the | mountain of bad press. And that action is almost always | heavier moderation. And when companies don't respond the | conversion shifts toward regulation. | | And that sounds good right? But the question that doesn't get | asked enough is if the company should have just ridden out | the bad press and fought the regulation as a matter of | principle, and if that principle is good and sound and should | be embraced by our society; the question being pondered by | this HackerNews thread. That's rarely the perspective offered | by an entity like NPR because humanism is their form of | clickbait. Neither their listeners nor their producers are | much interested in that, it seems. So while "more censorship, | less freedom" might not be the mantra coming from the mouths | of NPR personalities, it's sort of a de facto result of their | tendencies. | draw_down wrote: | notacoward wrote: | > No company wants to be the most lax company in the space | | This is the key observation, I think. It's a real race to the | bottom, except that the bottom is a place where absolutely no | actual bottoms are allowed. | anyfactor wrote: | I used tumblr as my personal blog in 2022. I have never used | Tumblr before, but I felt like the platform was designed for me. | | I can't put my ideas into a tweet without creating a thread and I | despise threads. Twitter promotes a weird impulsive behavior to | write everything without thinking. | | On the other hand, I think blogging platforms like Medium has a | "commitment to read feel". You know you see the header then you | convince that is something you must read, that would be that | "commitment read thing". The content is hidden so you have to | micro-commit to click and wait for the page to load, based on a | single sentence called title. Not my thing I guess. My personal | blog is personal and thus is poorly written. So Tumblr has the | perfect design as to me it feels like an uninterrupted twitter | thread (twitter if you steal this idea, pay me). | | Obviously, the better option is to create your own static blog | site based on Github pages and Hugo. I am not sure where Tumblr | could pivot, as people who could have used Tumblr to give it's | second life now has their personal blogs and they post those | blogs into other platforms. Blogging as a writing method has | shifted to become platform agnostic. | shrubble wrote: | The domain "gonutshownuts.com" appears to be available, I have no | need of this domain, but maybe another HNer can use it? | Cyberdog wrote: | Should be gonutsshownuts.com, though that seems to be available | too. | | Not really sure what I'd do with that domain, though. A gallery | of almonds and cashews would be good for a sensible chuckle, I | suppose, but not really worth the effort. | booleandilemma wrote: | _Should be gonutsshownuts.com_ | | Should it? | | I present to you: RAISERROR | | https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/language- | element... | bohdank wrote: | Web3 Tumblr anyone? | lakomen wrote: | We had the sexual revolution in the 60s 70s. Where are we now? I | can't watch porn on Android or IOS, because the apps won't get | listed on the app stores. So companies censor themselves or ask | that you buy a dedicated and crippled set top box. | | We need a revolution. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | > I can't watch porn on Android or IOS | | Mobile browsers exist | PTcartelsLOL wrote: | Sweet summer children everywhere! | pessimizer wrote: | Judging by who is armed, organized, and has shared values that | they're willing to go to war to protect, any revolution in the | US would be more likely to result in women wearing veils than | porn everywhere. | chiefalchemist wrote: | Matt is correct. Things have chanced, and not for the better. | Having mega-international corporations dictate our morals, among | other things, is not something that should be rationalized so | easily. Is this something about being a self-proclaimed | Libertarian I don't understand? | dec0dedab0de wrote: | _If Apple permanently banned Tumblr from the App Store, we'd | probably have to shut the service down._ | | I'm not finished reading but this sounds like a bunch of shit to | me. If this is true it is only because they force people to use | the app by sabotaging their own web page. Tumblr has been dead | since Verizon took over, it's legacy is pervasive infinite scroll | throughout the internet. | kleiba wrote: | One problem that's perhaps underdiscussed is that all of this is | coming from an entirely US-centric world view. In Europe, for | instance, we are generally less paranoid about nudity, I don't | think that the notorious "nipplegate" halftime show incident back | in 2004 would have caused any uproar over here, perhaps | bemusement. | | But because the "world wide" web is really a "US-American" web at | its heart, we now have to adhere to whatever standards are en | vogue there today. | seandoe wrote: | Who's we? Who says the web has to be us-american? Make a good | fuckin website, host it in fuckin Europe, get some euro bank to | handle fuckin payments and quit fuckin complaining about how | america took your teddie bear. half-kidding there... But | really, I don't see why US puritanical issues have to be the | world's issues too. I guess if you're operating at a global | level, but if you're that big you can fuck off anyway. | [deleted] | zoba wrote: | Or, perhaps it is "whatever are most restrictive but still | societally acceptable". Europe has impacted the web by forcing | us all to accept cookies. | | Though we reject Chinese style censorship which is more | restrictive but unacceptable. | Retr0id wrote: | > If you wanted to start an adult social network in 2022, you'd | need to be web-only on iOS and side load on Android, take payment | in crypto, have a way to convert crypto to fiat for business | operations without being blocked, do a ton of work in age and | identity verification and compliance so you don't go to jail, | protect all of that identity information so you don't dox your | users, and make a ton of money. | | It's really quite sad that this is the case. What can we do, | collectively, to fix it? | [deleted] | intrasight wrote: | "Nothing to fix - it ain't broke". That's what the puritans | against porn and other vices would say. | strathmeyer wrote: | Dude is describing Fetlife. | bcrosby95 wrote: | > do a ton of work in age and identity verification and | compliance so you don't go to jail | | This reminds me. A while back, we were researching selling | something online that required age verification, and for our | system to be legal, we needed to use a 3rd party system to verify | ages. | | Which we were fine with. | | However, if the 3rd party was wrong, we were legally liable. | Which we were not fine with. Going to jail because a legally | mandated 3rd party system is wrong was not on our bucket list. | giantrobot wrote: | daniel-cussen wrote: | colordrops wrote: | > Credit card companies are anti-porn | | Why? | antonymy wrote: | It's not that they're "anti-porn" it's that they're anti-risk. | Porn sites have been getting in increasingly hot water for | years for a variety of legal reasons, and all it takes is one | major lawsuit against them trickling up to the payment process | for enabling harm to set legal precedent and then they're | getting sued for anything and everything on the basis they are | enabling almost all kinds of web content. | | It's an understandable fear. It's just a sad fact that they are | an effective global duopoly so if they chicken out there's no | alternative for people to turn to. More competition would help | with this, but the threat of the lawsuit floodgates opening | would still be there and create a chilling effect on payment | processing. That has to be handled by legislation, but that's | going down a whole other thorny road with many possible bad | outcomes. The legislation we get may introduce new problems | even worse than the ones it attempted to solve. | | But I think it's still worth trying. The present situation is | very bad for the future of an open internet. | colechristensen wrote: | "Porn" has done a historically awful job of filtering out | exploitation and abuse, and made a lot of money from it. | dllthomas wrote: | On the one hand, yes. But on the other that's also been true | of The Gap and Nike. Fruit companies have toppled | governments, and people have been shot suppressing | unionization in a host of industries. | | I am not convinced that the morality is enough to convince | the credit card companies to forgo their cut of that "lot of | money." | | I suspect that the bigger concern is the higher levels of | fraud when many participants in a market are unusually | uncomfortable turning to public courts to address disputes. | lupire wrote: | GAP and Nike abuse poor foreigners in poor countries. No | risk there. | pessimizer wrote: | > "Porn" has done a historically awful job of filtering out | exploitation and abuse, | | Has it? Does it have an actual record of abuse* that is | better than, for example, the meat packing industry, or | janitorial services? | | ----- | | [*] (I don't know what you mean by exploitation, I'm assuming | it's just an expression of disapproval) | Jolter wrote: | My guess is the risk of legal liability. There are laws in many | countries that forbid them from (knowingly or unknowingly) | financing child pornography or trafficking. The due diligence | of verifying every transaction just seems immense and perhaps | not worth the risk to them. | jfengel wrote: | They're not exactly anti-porn, but they're anti-chargeback, and | they know that sex work of all kinds has a high chargeback | rate. People do things, regret it (or get caught), and insist | that the charge is false and must be reversed. | | They're also really, really against getting caught having | anything to do with anything illegal, and there's a lot of | illegal stuff associated with porn. It may be only a small | percentage, but the last thing they want is to be sued or | criminally charged. | | So, they are very, very wary of anything to do with porn. I'm | sure they'd be happy to have their cut of that very lucrative | industry, but they'd rather forego it than having their entire | business destroyed over it. | blintz wrote: | I guess I don't quite understand why using something like a | debit card doesn't work. The marijuana companies seem to have | effectively figured how to take payments with almost no help | from the traditional players (credit card companies, banks). | jfengel wrote: | I don't know, and it's a good question. | | I wonder if it has something to do with it being (for now) | a local business. I am _extremely_ wary of using my debit | card online. The credit card comes with a lot of protection | if the information is stolen. A debit card lets them empty | my bank account. In theory, I can get it back -- | eventually. | | If somebody who has stolen a debit card tries to use it in | person, they're running a much higher risk. So the | marijuana sellers may have an easier time getting access to | that network. | | That's purely speculation, however. I know effectively | nothing about the business. | blintz wrote: | That's a fair point, although you can use a debit card | for cannabis delivery services too. Maybe a good | mitigation for the fraud concern is just using 'virtual' | or physical prepaid debit cards that have a fixed | balance. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | They aren't. | | Pretty sure if you're a vendor selling mail-order "adult" | DVDs/BDs from major publishing houses, that's a business that | you'll have no difficulty running with credit card sales. | | Where you'll run into a problem is if you're a website that | wants to charge subscriptions for access to loosely-sourced, | user-generated content. | puglr wrote: | It is notable that the first item in their list is objectively | false: | | > You've probably heard how Pornhub can't accept credit cards | anymore. | | That was only temporarily true due to illegal UGC. It lasted less | than a month. Once pornhub removed their unverified UGC they were | allowed to take credit cards again, or at least Visa. | | One would think that given the nature of this post, they ought to | have their facts straight. | | Credit cards aren't anti-porn. They are anti-unmoderated UGC | porn, for obvious reasons. | | It's understandable that this does present a problem for sites | like Tumblr. But the way it is presented is misleading at best | and in part based on a false premise. | LordDragonfang wrote: | The fact check here is important, but saying that it was just | "due to illegal UGC" downplays the fact that there are lots of | platforms with oodles of "illegal" UGC, but it's the porn | companies that have gotten the brunt of CC companies' ire. The | increasing scrutiny specifically on porn (some of which is due | to SESTA/FOSTA, as another poster pointed out) has had a | chilling effect on sex work across the whole web. | | Also, while true that CC companies aren't anti-porn in a strict | sense, credit cards really do not get along very well with sex | work or porn in general. They'll reluctantly take their money, | but it's a very strained relationship, with high fees in part | due to the high number of chargebacks, and in part because no | one is going to go to bat politically for porn sites. | | It's arguable whether the CC companies are "anti-porn", but | they are _definitely_ not "pro-porn". | controversial97 wrote: | It appeared to me that at least 99% of the porn on tumblr was not | original content, it was commercial porn upload by random people | in violation of copyright law. | | They must have had to deal with a very large number of DMCA | takedown requests. | | Even with automation that takes down every blog entry that is | reported through a web form, it seems very likely to me that just | the staffing cost of dealing with emails and paper letters would | outweigh the meagre advertising revenue from porn blogs. | intrasight wrote: | > the casually porn-friendly era of the early internet is | currently impossible | | There are plenty of porn sites. Some are even pretty good. I | subscribed to MakeLoveNotPorn after hearing about it on a | podcast. Credit cards accepted. | | I honestly don't get what is the argument or point he's trying to | make. I'm sure that he could make a new porn startup if he | wanted. There's a lot of competition but it's probably still | profitable for those that succeed. | HomeDeLaPot wrote: | If you buy porn with cash, there's no payment processor to stop | your payment from going through. | | But now that we all use credit cards, it is technically feasible | to stop your payments from happening depending on what you are | trying to purchase. And so credit card companies are under | pressure to do so. | | It's not just limited to porn. If anything is controversial | enough, then its payments can be shut down. I was just reading | this earlier today: https://world.hey.com/dhh/i-was-wrong-we- | need-crypto-587ccb0... | | What should the future be: cash, crypto, or mobile payments a la | WeChat? | bluedino wrote: | Couldn't you buy some third party credits that could be paid | for with credit cards and accepted by the unacceptable | companies? | oldpmfan wrote: | Nice article. What would Hugh Hefner say about this World (I | think it was addressed in his magazine once or twice when it was | still published). | | We are censored and controlled by (US) political correctness | World View of | | * App Stores: Google and Apple | | * Social media platforms from companies like Meta (no nipples in | IG or Facebook). Try visit Playboy IG, it's a pixel joke. | | * Payment (although Visa and Mastercard are not against porn | totally) | | * Infrastructure. Good luck running a porn site from common known | cloud providers (btw. Cloudflare is an exception in this list). | | Why it is 2022 and we are not allowed to see any nipples on Apple | or Google devices (only exception reddit and twitter) unless it's | on websites or transferred on my own on devices? I'm clearly old | enough but US companies trying to protect me by basically | enforcing CENSORSHIP here. It's nothing else. | | To this day I cannot understand to see easily violence and horror | things on all these platforms but beware we see ONE uncovered | NIPPLE. | antonymy wrote: | It's why I despair of smart phones dictating the course of the | internet. These are platforms that are locked down to a degree | that slowly strangles the rest of the internet. It's censorship | not through the heavy hand of the state arresting people and | confiscating servers, but creating a climate of fear and | uncertainty over ruinous lawsuits and chasing advertising | dollars. The censorship effect is obfuscated through so many | apparently voluntary and open transactions that the public at | large has no idea it is happening. It's extremely hard to talk | about this with people in my life without sounding like a | paranoid conspiracy theorist. | [deleted] | nostromo wrote: | It's sad to me how successful people have been sanitizing the | internet. | | The whole point was to be decentralized, and now we have Visa, | Mastercard, Apple, Google, Amazon and Cloudflare deciding what we | are and are not allowed to see, read and buy. And virtually in | lockstep, they are becoming increasingly prudish. | | I'm curious if this could be addressed with laws that force | companies to either be utilities or publishers. If you're a | publisher, you take liability for your content and can edit it at | will. If you're a utility, you do not take liability for your | services, but you cannot pick and choose which customers you | service so long as it's legal. | synergy20 wrote: | Based on this trend, maybe it's time to load up some bitcoin | for a profit down the road? | Buttons840 wrote: | Meanwhile lawmakers are focusing on regulating Twitter to give | everyone the right to post their sentence amongst the ads. | | They're targeting the wrong layer. Regulate ISPs, and maybe big | hosting companies like AWS and Cloudflare. | kmeisthax wrote: | "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around | it" is propaganda and cultural myth. | | Conditioning liability limitation on being hands-off will only | go so far. For one thing, most platforms are basically unusable | if you try to turn them into the verbal equivalent of 2b2t[0]. | You need to do spam filtering at the least, and that implies | making editorial judgments as to what users to take on. It is | also possible to use free speech as a censorship tool - say, by | harassing or doxing users as reprisal for speech. | | Even if we walked this back to "utilities must have | _consistent_ rules and users can sue for unfair application of | them ", this is still historically _lenient_ in terms of | intermediary liability. The law does not chase pointers: with | literally _any other_ field of endeavor, we don 't accept the | idea that someone can facilitate a crime without being liable | for it. That would be a massive loophole. But we accept it for | defamation and copyright law because we convinced Congress to | accept the propaganda of the Internet[1]. | | _Under current law_ , Visa and Mastercard _cannot_ disclaim | liability that Apple or Google can. This is why the anti-porn | campaigns have been so successful at killing amateurs in that | space. Apple might be prudish about not having porn in their | app, but they can at least accept filters on the app[2]. And, | as we 've seen with cryptocurrency, letting those companies | disclaim liability would be an absolute nightmare. | Cryptocurrency has been an absolute boon to ransomware and scam | enterprises that otherwise _would not be able to take | payments_. So you will never convince Congress to carve | massive, gaping loopholes in banking law the same way we did to | defamation and copyright law. | | A decade and change ago our biggest worry was that Comcast | would try to turn the Internet into a series of cable TV | packages. Now, we have forced so many people to effectively | immigrate to the Internet, that they are in a position to | demand that it _does_ actually work like cable (in that things | they don 't like can be sued into oblivion or taken down). The | old Internet cannot exist in a world where it can be used | against itself to destroy itself. | | [0] The oldest anarchy server in Minecraft. | | [1] For the record, I am not opposed to CDA 230 or DMCA 512. | But we still need to recognize that these liability limiters | have massively harmed the ability for plaintiffs to prosecute | legitimate defamation or copyright cases. | | [2] I am aware that Tumblr got smacked down for this, but this | is not because Apple refuses to accept filtering on social | networks. They got smacked down because they are absolutely | _terrible_ at filtering anything, and an app reviewer saw CSAM. | boppo1 wrote: | Copyright only hurts the small creators it was intended to | protect. Hell, I work in a creative field and in order to get | employment that isn't soliciting freelance work on a project- | by-project basis, most companies _heavily_ push creative | people to sign away all rights to the things they make on or | off company time. I 've only successfully gotten a company to | drop onerous IP language once. The other times I've walked | away from what are otherwise dream jobs. | AdamH12113 wrote: | > The whole point was to be decentralized, and now we have | Visa, Mastercard, Apple, Google, Amazon and Cloudflare deciding | what we are and are not allowed to see, read and buy. And | virtually in lockstep, they are becoming increasingly prudish. | | You can be as independent as you want if you don't care about | getting paid. If you want to run a small web site with | handwritten HTML hosted on a server in your house that gets a | few hundred visitors a month, you can still do that. (I'd be | willing to bet it's easier now than it was in the 90s!) If you | want to have ten million customers and a staff of full-time | employees, then you'll be integrating with the rest of society | whether you like it or not. I'm not sure that's unreasonable in | and of itself, although I do agree that the way we treat porn | (and sex in general) in the US is pretty bizarre. | IntFee588 wrote: | Perhaps this is true, but this is all the more reason why | giving social media sites the right to police free | speech/expression is too much. Public discourse today happens | online. The "uhhhh, this is a private venue, they don't owe | you a soapbox" rhetoric rings increasingly hollow when we | just went through a multiyear period when society | collectively forced millions of people to work or go to | school over the internet, often through big tech platforms. | Telling people who don't like the current state of the | mainstream web to find their own platform is like telling | people who are unhappy with food prices to simply farm their | own crops; it's not technically impossible, but there's more | likely to be civil unrest before people start sowing seeds. | | It is also very telling that when independent discussion | platforms do start to reach critical mass (4chan, voat, | wherever else) there is often collusion or pressure to take | down their hosting or stop payment processors from working | with them. | MartinCron wrote: | _The "uhhhh, this is a private venue, they don't owe you a | soapbox" rhetoric rings increasingly hollow when we just | went through a multiyear period when society collectively | forced millions of people to work or go to school over the | internet, often through big tech platforms._ | | That feels like a non-sequitur. People can both use | mainstream platforms for work/school and create/find their | own platforms for other parts of their life. | jlawson wrote: | It's fine to have to 'integrate with society'. | | The problem is that you have to 'integrate with this very | short list of megacorps, and if they don't like you you are | not allowed to operate'. | | At any substantial scale at all, these are true: | | - If Cloudflare doesn't like you, you can't have a website. | | - If Google doesn't like you, you can't get discovered. | | - If Visa and Mastercard don't like you, you can't get paid. | | We never elected these corporations; they power they wield is | illegitimate. | admax88qqq wrote: | > We never elected these corporations; | | Sure we did. We voted with our wallets. I'm not sure why | you believe it would be any different if we _had_ elected | these companies with votes. | | In the current policital landscape in much of the western | hemisphere has lots of people arguing for restrictive | policies around speech or access to healthcare. | | At least with the megacorps there is the potential to build | a competitor. If they were heavily regulated good luck | getting your account reactivated when the government | sanctioned monopoly decides it doesn't like you. | jjulius wrote: | >It's sad to me how successful people have been sanitizing the | internet. | | >The whole point was to be decentralized, and now we have Visa, | Mastercard, Apple, Google, Amazon and Cloudflare deciding what | we are and are not allowed to see, read and buy. And virtually | in lockstep, they are becoming increasingly prudish. | | I mean, yes and no. People have been successful in sanitizing | the mainstream internet, the pop culture internet, the one your | grandparents like to visit. There's plenty of internet out | there beyond what is commonly used. | karaterobot wrote: | Sure, but more of the internet is sanitized compared to 10-15 | years ago, which is likely what they meant. More restrictions | in place over more domains. Couple that with the fact that | more people spend their time on fewer sites these days than | they did in 2007, and it's hard to really argue that the | internet most people experience isn't more content | restricted. | lupire wrote: | That's good. People who don't want to be bothered aren't, | and people who want fringe stuff can enjoy it semi- | privately. | Dylan16807 wrote: | Or let me have some toggles so I don't have to seek out a | hundred different fringe sites. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | Most of this stuff used to spread word to mouth. It still | does. | | 'Funny people' on Reddit still post links to NSFW in SFW | spaces. Googling something angsty can be interpreted as a | search for XXX. Twitter isn't exactly safe either, and can | teach a few people NSFW words to get curious about. R34, | DeviantArt etc. are all alive, and anything hentai related | is far more prominent and mainstream than before. People | interact on these sites and suggest enough to instill | curiosities. | | It's not as on the nose as old flash game sites showing a | highlighted "18+" with a shitty age verification or a | random ad sending them into the rabbit hole, but it's still | very much there. | AlexandrB wrote: | > It's sad to me how successful people have been sanitizing the | internet. | | Not just sanitizing, but sanitizing to US social mores. Showing | a naked boob is considered porn and banned on most of these | platform while public toplessness is perfectly legal in many | jurisdictions worldwide. I guess it's lucky that at least these | companies are not based in an even more restrictive society | like China or we would see further restrictions become | commonplace. | largepeepee wrote: | Having grown up in an authoritarian country, then having the | internet basically force it to liberalize was a great | feeling. | | Ironically some liberties offered even less than a decade ago | are eroding away because of the new internet overlords, often | under the guise of some trumped up reason like "security" or | "social" cause. | | These day they don't even try to hide their true greedy | objectives anymore, as seen in the removal of the YouTube | dislike button or manifestv3. | Conan_Kudo wrote: | Public toplessness is also legal in most of the United | States. | | See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_the_United_S | tate... | silisili wrote: | Warning - Above link is NSFW(images of topless women). | | That said, I found it very interesting. I honestly had no | idea it was legal anywhere outside of private or 'cordoned | off' places. | mrkramer wrote: | >Showing a naked boob is considered porn and banned on most | of these platform | | Probably because a lot of kids use these platforms aka social | networks | t_mann wrote: | Is there any evidence that seeing topless women is bad for | kids in some way, or is that just a US cultural norm? | djbusby wrote: | In the USA we can show bloody violence on over-the-air | TV, guns and shooting. | | Naked humans are too scary for us. | uni_rule wrote: | I mean legally they shouldn't be with COPPA and all that, | otherwise there are far more regulations in relation to | their privacy, the two ideas of toning it down for children | and not following children's privacy standards would | visibly contradict each other. Doesn't stop children though | since the most blocking then from registering for most web | sites prematurely like that is a text box that might as | well say "I am above 13 or willing to claim I am". A more | cynical person would say that's by design but there really | is no unintrusive to verify that either otherwise such a | thing probably would be enforced for legal reasons. | quest88 wrote: | I would argue it's laws that make them behave this way. Of | course profit-seeking companies would like to profit off | everything. But they also don't want to risk be sued or | investigated. | jmcgough wrote: | A lot of these laws are being pushed by religious-affiliated | anti-porn groups that rebranded as anti-sex trafficking | because it's more effective for them to make that argument. | bawolff wrote: | > It's sad to me how successful people have been sanitizing the | internet. | | Not just in a porn way. Looking back at archives of the old | internet just seem way more risque. For example, take the | hacker magazine phrack. Maybe its a bad example because a | hacker mag is always going to be out there, but the early | issues included all sorts of stuff around making improvised | bombs. Its hard to imagine anything like that on the semi- | mainstream internet now a days. | lupire wrote: | So, non mainstream stuff still isn't mainstream? | bawolff wrote: | But was it actually not mainstream back in the day? Or even | if not mainstream, your average user was still highly | likely to encounter it, well going about their mainstream | day which isn't true anymore. | spookie wrote: | I believe you're right. In part, I blame the shift of the | internet's target audience. It had a serious pull of that | fringe of society in the early days. | | Nonetheless, content sanitization has become more and | more prevalent. It's disturbing to think, of the | influence of social bubbles, and algorithmic driven | content proliferation. How much of this mix of content | moderation + appealing to a bigger audience affects our | own thoughts/opinions. | | I understand that a lot of it should be sanitized. But | this thought is terrifying. | fknorangesite wrote: | I think you might be overestimating the pervasiveness of | hacker culture - even now, never mind ~25 years ago. | SiempreViernes wrote: | Look to Hackers (1995) for an proxy of how well hacker | culture was understood at the time. Pretty sure the | sports in Space Jam (1996) got a more accurate | representation than hacking got in Hackers. | naniwaduni wrote: | I mean sports is ... _very_ mainstream. | ethanbond wrote: | I struggle to see how that's a bad thing. Most people | don't need to be coincidentally picking up bomb-making | information. | q-big wrote: | > Most people don't need to be coincidentally picking up | bomb-making information. | | And because they _don 't need to_, we should censor this | kind of information? | AngryData wrote: | I struggle to see how it is a problem, a free and fair | society should have no qualms with people having such | information. And anyone dangerous would have no problem | finding it out anyways. Its not like we can scrub | chemistry knowledge out from public access. Not to | mention most "bomb making" knowledge is also applicable | to many other fields and uses. | | I find the mechanics of guns and firearms fun and | interesting, that doesn't make me any more dangerous than | someone who has no idea how guns work. | ethanbond wrote: | But what's being discussed here isn't _blocking_ that | information, but sadness over the fact that it's not | something you're likely to stumble upon today. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | Ahh.. and this is where it gets fun. You are | automatically assuming that you know better how a given | person should spend their time. Person might be | fascinated by how a given formation absolutely hates | being squeezed. You see a bomb, but he sees a rare | material property. How do you decide ( and who does | decide ) what information is 'sanitary' enough for the | public to handle? I thought we were supposed to be our | own arbiters? Or is it just imaginary freedom on | increasingly more restrictive guardrails? | | I genuinely dislike the current trend. I personally | played with all sorts of chemicals in my dad's garage ( | he was a mechanic ) and these days my interest would be | at best seen with suspicion. | ethanbond wrote: | No one (in this thread at least) is suggesting that | information shouldn't be available to people who are | seeking it. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | <<I struggle to see how that's a bad thing. Most people | don't need to be coincidentally picking up bomb-making | information. | | I might be misreading this, but to me this sentence reads | as 'this information does not belong anywhere where | normal people roam'. It is possible that "shoulnd't be | available" is making me read it this way. | watwut wrote: | First, it was not mainstream. Second, I run into literal | nazi propaganda randomly and into literal behading videos | with one search (after random find suggested it exists). | | I also randomly run into write up a out how to steal cars | and how to put spyware into someone else's phone. | | None of that stuff is hard to find. It is just that | mainstreami mainstream is not interested and it would be | absurd to blame them. | [deleted] | [deleted] | atat-aura wrote: | to take a less extreme example, if you search for "shop- | lifting techniques" on google, or any other modern content | provider, you'll - exclusively - find moral anodised stuff | about catching criminals. if you go on old internet portals | or archives, you'll find edgy indie websites telling you | naughty secrets | BlargMcLarg wrote: | >you'll - exclusively - find moral anodised stuff about | catching criminals | | I can confirm this is false. First page Google already | showed naughty secrets. | samatman wrote: | Magic of the algorithm, the poster you're replying to may | be in a different legal regime which takes that sort of | thing more seriously than your own. | | The black-box nature of search becomes less and less | satisfying as time passes. | mfer wrote: | > It's sad to me how successful people have been sanitizing the | internet. | | It's far more complicated than that and looking at the | complicated details is useful to understand the bigger picture. | | Here are some examples... | | 1. It's now that far more things are on the Internet than there | used to be. Some things that used to be huge are now a smaller | percentage in an immensely larger space. In some cases they are | bigger now than they used to be. | | 2. Sex slaves and porn are a thing and a problem. There's both | more of it and more awareness of it. In many places there are | laws about this that companies who process money have to take | in to account. | | 3. Kids and the Internet. About half the 10 year olds I know | (which is more than a few) have phones with no filters on them. | Kids running wild. If more things were more easily accessible | than the culture around screens and handling that with kids | will need to change. Kids are ready for different things at | different ages and the way they view things during their | formative years impacts the way they view and treat others. | | I use these to just illustrate that it's more than money, | power, and control by the wealthy. Sometimes (like in the case | of #2) it's about the most vulnerable. | Manuel_D wrote: | > Sex slaves and porn are a thing and a problem. There's both | more of it and more awareness of it. In many places there are | laws about this that companies who process money have to take | in to account. | | Citation needed. Unless you're taking about CSAM shared on | the dark web, I seriously doubt that sex slaves account for | any significant portion of pornography. The only way I can | see this being true is with a very wide definition of "sex | slave" that includes someone doing porn to pay for rent. | | #3 was no less true in the 2000s - I can attest to that | myself. | sneak wrote: | I used to have your view, then I learned about the amount | of porn production that happens via organized crime that | traffics young (17-22) girls for this express purpose. | | It looks the same as "normal" stuff. You can't tell from | watching it. | stuckonempty wrote: | You also can't tell if what you're saying is factual | because you've provided no source | mrkramer wrote: | I assume you speak about East Europe and perhaps South | America but most of them are lured into porn not forced. | Manuel_D wrote: | > I learned about the amount of porn production that | happens via organized crime that traffics young (17-22) | girls for this express purpose. | | I know of one instance [1] of criminal porn production, | and it involved deception and fraud rather than | kidnapping women - which, to be clear, is still terrible | and should be prosecuted. And it ended with the people in | charge getting convicted and imprisoned. | | I am not at all convinced that a substantial portion of | legal pornography involves organized crime. Again, the | logistics of producing content that also serves as video | evidence of a crime is difficult to overcome. If there is | evidence that this is more widespread, it'd be good of | you to share it. | | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GirlsDoPorn | spookie wrote: | Come on now... Do you really think some of the pr0n out | there was consented upon by all parties? | | Let's be real. Even the largest pr0n sites have had a shit | ton of cases come to surface, which should've put them out | of business for good. And yes, some of it is about sex | slavery. | | The pr0n industry is all rotten. Great to see legit, humane | alternatives gaining traction, don't get me wrong. But, | most of it, is just pure misery. | Manuel_D wrote: | What is the motive to producing non-consensual | pornography? The risks are large: you're literally | recording yourself committing a felony and publishing | evidence of the crime to the world. Most porn production | companies are looking to make a profit, not land | themselves in jail. In the US, there's regulations to | ensure all actors are of age and consented to recording | [1]. | | 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 | chiefalchemist wrote: | Does "female presenting nipples" === porn? It was a SCJ who | said, "I'll know it (i.e., porn) when I see it". Also, it's a | double-standard to say men can have free-will to present | their bodies as they see fit but women can not. | bluedino wrote: | Did you have internet access when you were ten? | cowtools wrote: | > Kids and the Internet. About half the 10 year olds I know | (which is more than a few) have phones with no filters on | them. Kids running wild | | And whose responsibility is that? People start treating the | internet like TV and radio, so we have to start sanitizing it | like TV and radio? | Spivak wrote: | Yes because the internet, really the web, is a shared | public broadcast medium. What makes it any different than | radio? Don't say logins because sites where basically | anyone can join is essentially public. | q-big wrote: | > 3. Kids and the Internet. About half the 10 year olds I | know (which is more than a few) have phones with no filters | on them. Kids running wild. If more things were more easily | accessible than the culture around screens and handling that | with kids will need to change. Kids are ready for different | things at different ages and the way they view things during | their formative years impacts the way they view and treat | others. | | Honestly, this was not different in my youth. When we found | access to the internet, we of course looked for weird stuff | (for those who remember: for example rotten.com; I was rather | disturbed by it and learned my lesson that you shouldn't | click on every link that you see on websites). | | I can tell how this transformed me: if you have seen the | early free spirit of the early web in your formative years, | you become deeply suspicious of the political attempts to | censor the internet - for example to protect the children. | This is what the authorities really fear: that people don't | believe that this is all for their best. | Griffinsauce wrote: | > "About half the 10 year olds I know (which is more than a | few) have phones with no filters on them." | | This is on parents (and how they are educated around | parenthood) IMO. Notice the comment about Reddit, even with | all the sanitization it's ridiculously easy to find very | hardcore (in every sense of the word) stuff. | | In the same way that you hold hands when you walk past a busy | street, you cannot expect the internet to be a safe place. As | a parent you have the responsibility here. | Damogran6 wrote: | I felt it was better to teach them that 'there's stuff out | there you can't unsee', because I realized they were one | sleepover away from getting around any filter I could put | in front of them. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | This is how it worked for us. Parents did what they could | to block PC access, but me and my brother managed to | break them all to do what kids do online. At certain | point, you have to actually talk with your kids even if | it is the kind of 'smoke that cigar until you are sick' | approach. Naturally, my dad being my dad, took a | different tack. He just picked the PC and took it to his | shop. | | Different times. Needless to say, I don't think I will be | able to try the same approach. | Cr4shMyCar wrote: | It's like the infinite monkey theorem, but faster. Give a | bunch of tweens long enough and they'll find their way | around any internet filter. | Hermitian909 wrote: | > This is on parents | | Growing up my father believed playing the GTA would be | detrimental to my development. He banned them from our home | and told the parents of my friends not to let me play those | games at their house, if they said they wouldn't enforce | that rule I wasn't allowed over. | | Didn't matter, I played the games to completion at friend's | houses because _their_ parents didn 't really give a crap. | | Looking back, I think the only way my father could have | reasonably stopped me from playing these games would have | been to isolate me from my friends and wreck our | relationship. Now luckily, we're pretty sure no harm was | done in this case, but the point is that there's not | actually that much parents can do to limit access to | content if other parents aren't similarly vigilant. | mrkramer wrote: | >Growing up my father believed playing the GTA would be | detrimental to my development. | | Almost all parents think that, COD included. But I think | recent studies said that video game violence does not | influence kids and teens to commit real life violence. At | least kids and teens today play Minecraft and Roblox | which are to lesser extent violent than GTA and COD. | watwut wrote: | You don't hold 10 years old hands when crossing the street. | At that age, they are going through streets alone when they | go to scool or club or visit friends. | jacobr1 wrote: | > At that age, they are going through streets alone when | they go to scool or club or visit friends. | | In the united states, this stopped being socially | acceptable sometime time in the past 20 years. Letting | your kids walk to school before high-school (13/14) is | considered child abuse by many. Not everywhere, not | everyone. But there has been a huge shift in views around | what kind of out-of-the-home-unsupervised activity is | seen as normal. | Spivak wrote: | It's crazy to me that "just exercise complete control over | what your kids do and see" is touted like it's not the | start of a black mirror episode. | | > In the same way that you hold hands when you walk past a | busy street | | This logic isn't scale dependent and I know you have a line | somewhere before "it totally fine to have landmines in | random patches of grass -- parents responsibility!" Where | is it? | jlawson wrote: | Isn't "just have megacorps exercise complete control over | what everyone can see" even more of a terrifying Black | Mirror episode? | ok123456 wrote: | It's not complicated. It never is. | | Either you believe in an open internet or you don't. Either | you're with us, or you're against us. | lovich wrote: | I would be surprised if the number of people who believe in | a truly open internet like that are even a 10th of a | percent of the population. | _gabe_ wrote: | It's complicated. Unfortunately real life is never binary. | There are several gradations between open internet and | dystopian closed internet that only allows you to see what | the governing powers want you to see. Most people are | somewhere in the middle, as with all things. | ok123456 wrote: | Nope. There is no middle ground. It. Is. Not. | Complicated. | | Either you think of the internet as a utility where | everyone is equal, like a telephone, or you think people | should be "nudged" into harmonious behavior, where it | takes on the worst aspects of a broadcast medium. | | The problem with "nudging" people is there's an equal and | opposite reaction through the cybernetic system. For | instance, adding fact check labels to every sensitive | topic, COVID vaccines for instance, will lead people to | think that it's all part of a larger conspiracy and | they'll get a hit of dopamine when they "follow the | qlues." | lovich wrote: | Even utilities have limits on the behavior you can use | with them. Granted you gotta really go out of your way to | trigger those limits but there is no society wide system | in existence that follows that level of openness | ok123456 wrote: | Doing actual actual crimes or committing a fraud using | the phone, computer, fax, telex, or whatever other | electronic means generally falls under wire fraud. | | The phone company doesn't de-platform "literal nazis" | simply for being "literal nazis." | Spivak wrote: | And if the literal nazis we're actually using a private | person to person (can be through a service) communication | medium like a phone the number of people who want them | deplatformed would drop to basically zero. | | Your argument has to account for the fact that Twitter is | more like public radio than a phone and that WhatsApp is | more like a phone than radio. | lovich wrote: | You are correct, but now you are getting into shades of | grey more nuanced than | | > Either you believe in an open internet or you don't. | Either you're with us, or you're against us. | ok123456 wrote: | The distinction is between perfectly legal speech, and | specific acts fraud or things that are direct, | actionable, and credible threats to physical safety | (e.g., bomb threats). This isn't a complicated blah blah, | where we need a technocratic meta-god to put his thumb on | the scales. The existing legal pre-computer legal | frameworks cover these cases. | boppo1 wrote: | >Most people are somewhere in the middle, as with all | things. | | And they're wrong. I'd agree that perhaps there should be | guardrails, but for those who want to leave the safe- | zone, it ought to remain without filters. | | It's about the same argument as general computing. Should | it be illegal to have root access on your devices? Do you | think it's a fair compromise in order to be able to have | convenient streaming entertainment? | | I rooted my android phone and now I can't access Netflix | (well, not without putting in effort I don't care to). | Fair trade for me, I prefer to actually have control over | my devices. | bawolff wrote: | For 3 - kids have been on the internet for a while now. If | anything there was much more of a moral panic about it in the | 90s. | | I think point 1 is key - the internet is a bigger place, | which also means things get more specialized and separated. | You dont stumble across specialized content as much anymore, | you have to go looking instead. | lupire wrote: | > Sex slaves and porn are a thing and a problem. | | They are two different things. Did you mean "sex slaves in | porn"? | | Also, any kind of slave is a problem. You don't need to | qualify it. | boppo1 wrote: | I think he meant human trafficking. There's a lot of videos | out there of women under duress. | jedberg wrote: | > If you're a utility, you do not take liability for your | services, but you cannot pick and choose which customers you | service so long as it's legal. | | Unless you have an ironclad way to verify the identity of every | poster, you'll get a bunch of illegal stuff anyway. And if | you're a "utility", then who is responsible for removing that | from your service? | | What you're really suggesting is "common carrier", but the | difference is most common carriers carry the content in a point | to point way, not publicly (FedEx, UPS, your telephone | provider). For the common carriers that do have public | broadcast (radio, TV, cable) they either have to moderate all | their content and _are_ responsible for it (TV, radio) or they | have to provide an unmoderated but public access section where | they know exactly who the content provider is (cable TV, who | gets to choose which channels to carry as long as they have a | public access channel). | bilbo0s wrote: | That's the part people forget about "utilities" and | "carriers". The reason they were indemnified, is precisely | because they know the exact identities, (and even locations), | of all of their users. The cops can handle things themselves, | they just ask the "utility" or "carrier" who X is? And who is | X connected, (or even connecting), to. | | We have to think up an entirely different model for the newer | technologies we are using. | tsavo wrote: | Your points sound awfully close to Net Neutrality. | IntFee588 wrote: | Freedom of choice aside, there is also a shocking lack of | awareness that a major factor in the rise of the internet is | that it wasn't like traditional media. There were memes, blogs, | video content, music, etc. that would never gain traction with | the legacy entertainment industry. There is no point in using | youtube or twitter if it's all just clips from mainstream tv or | shittakes from established pundits that I can see on repeat on | cable all day anyways. | mrkramer wrote: | >There were memes, blogs, video content, music, etc. | | Aka user user-generated content. | vlunkr wrote: | I don't really see how cloudflare fits on that list. There are | dozens (hundreds?) of other DNS services. 8chan and kiwifarms | have found different providers. | beaconstudios wrote: | they're fairly unique in their free DDoS protection. They | provide a LOT of security and uptime services for free that | you just don't really find elsewhere (at least, the last time | I checked; I'm sure they have reasonable competitors by now). | | Even if a monopoly is not legally enforced, it can still | dominate through quality or market forces or numerous other | avenues. | elil17 wrote: | Right - Visa, Mastercard, Apple, and Google are walled | gardens and should, in my personal opinion, be held to a | somewhat higher standard in terms of free speech (Yes, I know | that the first amendment doesn't apply to companies. I'm just | saying how I think things ought to be, not how they are). | It's unreasonable to expect consumers to get a new credit | card or buy a new phone to use your service. But companies | routinely choose alternate DNS providers and lots of people | buy things that aren't on Amazon. | AussieWog93 wrote: | I've got a teenage cousin with a dark sense of humour. | | The shock stuff, edgy humour and 4chan-line shenanigans are | still out there, even on mainstream social media like TikTok. | It's just that most of 30 year-olds don't know about it any | more because we're out of the loop. We're square. | boppo1 wrote: | >The shock stuff, edgy humour and 4chan-line shenanigans are | still out there | | It's different now. I've been on 4chan a long time. It's a | more sinister and hateful place than it was when I was a | teenager. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | The majority of the net is easily accessible porn. If there is | anything here showing how easy it is to decentralize and stay | alive, it is probably porn. | | The big boys make it harder and squash the heads sticking out, | but people are acting like you won't find ungodly things the | moment you turn off the safety filters and pick your words a | little recklessly. | | Including Google. | lupire wrote: | Most of the commerical porn on the net is run by very few | companies with many many brands. It's hard to run your own | porn business if you don't rely on a major company. | bambax wrote: | If you search for porn images on Google you get much more | porn _without ever leaving Google_ , than you could have | dreamed on all of the specialized forums in 1997. | Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: | > It's hard to run your own porn business if you don't rely | on a major company | | It's hard to run your own porn business even if you are a | major company. | | People act extremely sensitive about their fetishes and | think they are connoisseurs. but the reality is that 1000 | porn movies in the 70s and 80s could satisfy jackoff habits | of the whole global population for the forseeble future. | | The marginal value of more porn being produced is | essentially zero | | OnlyFans is very present in culture and has a monstre | evaluation, but if you look at revenues you'd be looking at | the sum of some 300 big gas stations. Also OF is not a porn | website it's an online GFE service. | bliteben wrote: | When will we reach the optimal number of books or | mainstream movies? | | How many programming languages is optimal? | | Marginal value lol | compiler-guy wrote: | By this standard we don't need any additional media of | any kind. No new movies, books, or tv shows. | | 99% of everything is crap. Most new movies or books are | awful or entirely pedestrian and completely unoriginal to | boot, and most don't turn much of a profit. | | But people still make them for a huge variety of reasons. | compiler-guy wrote: | OnlyFans has its struggles, and is distasteful in many | ways, but plenty of folks have their own businesses built | on that. | Dylan16807 wrote: | So, relying on a major company. | compiler-guy wrote: | It's a very rare business indeed that relies on no | vendors, or only small vendors, if that is your standard. | toss1 wrote: | Sure there is all kinds of stuff out there. | | Seems the main point of the article was that it is being made | highly impractical to build any system that allows you to get | paid for it, short of using crypto, which (15 years later) | still has an abysmal UX. | | Seems like an opportunity for some ShadyBank to make a new | payment scheme, with KYC (not get busted), small transactions | only (not attractive to money-laundering), and transfer from | customers to vendors, but building the anti-fraud infra from | scratch would likely kill it. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | Or just post teasers and redirect to OF. It's so obvious, | several well known female streamers are doing it. | | People are way overthinking this. | helloworld97 wrote: | nonameiguess wrote: | This isn't true, though. Porn makes tremendous money, using | normal payment methods like anything else. All of the | repression is on user-generated content hosting platforms, | not porn in general. So sure, direct performer to consumer | without a studio is difficult to monetize, but that has | always been the case. It hasn't become harder. User- | generated content platforms largely didn't even exist a | decade ago. Porn on the classic Internet people are pining | for was still mostly studio-produced and stars needed | agents. | bergenty wrote: | Even porn websites are sanitized. Pornhub purged all their | user content sometime ago and the parent company owns all the | other major streaming sites. The only non sanitized stuff is | torrents as it's always been. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | There is an immense gap between 'major streaming sites' and | torrents. If you're a bit unlucky, you'll find stuff | straight up illegal to create through rather innocent | searches. | | Whoever did the 'sanitizing' of the web should get charged | a fine for doing a shoddy job. | vkou wrote: | > The whole point was to be decentralized | | Why do you say this? | | The whole point of the internet was for distant parties to be | able to communicate. That's it. Parts of it were implemented in | a decentralized fashion because neither the nodes, nor the | links between nodes were considered reliable. | | You can still do all that communication in a decentralized | fashion, you're just unhappy that all the value-add services | built on top of that substrate don't share the initial design | constraints of the network. | version_five wrote: | Isn't this some variation on the idea that as something gets | "successful" it becomes shitty? I'm sure there are private | corners of the internet where lots of people are going and | showing nuts, that by definition most people don't know about, | allowing more people than in 2007 or whatever to share what they | want. But the internet is also now completely dominated by the | blandness of success, so what we see are the successes that have | been forced to sell out to the complainers and pearl clutches | (there's an associated name I can't remember). | | (Incidentally, this is a reason I've argued that the facebook | metaverse will suck. It is never going to have some halcyon days | as a cool site before success ruins it. It's coming out of the | box with people worrying about "groping" and whatnot in a way | that will force it to suck by design because everything will be | about "safety" and the like, before anything good takes hold. See | also the Zune) | shadowgovt wrote: | I can't tell one way or the other if people have forgotten that | SESTA/FOSTA passed in 2018. | | All of this is consequence of that law working as intended (not | as described; it's supposed to stop human trafficking, but those | supporting it made no bones about their position that if it | chilled all online pornographic content, they didn't care). | | All of these companies pivoted hard because hosting previously- | legal content may now be a federal crime, and nobody wants to get | dragged through the mud of that legal case. Until and unless that | changes, this is the new status quo in the United States (and | therefore, much of the Internet). | | Matt on Tumblr seems to have missed that even if a company does | all the things on his list, their owners could _still_ end up in | prison if they are aware that _any_ pornography on their sites | was "facilitating sex trafficking," which is an extremely broad | category (is someone using racy pictures as advertisement for | face-to-face meetups? Oops, go to jail; Section 230 protections | were specifically stripped out for that case and if it violates | state law in the state you're operating in, the state the poster | is in, _or_ the state the viewer is in, you 're now liable as the | site operator!). | elliekelly wrote: | When WordPress bought Tumblr I was hopeful the ridiculous "female | presenting nipple" nonsense would finally go away so I'm relieved | to hear that's in the works. I understand and appreciate the | compliance difficulties associated with "go nuts, show nuts" but | I _do_ hope Matt & his team will be willing to push the envelope | _a little_ and allow equal (re)presentation of _all_ nipples on | Tumblr. Not for pornographic purposes but for equality. | [deleted] | eduction wrote: | I think it's revealing that the founder and operator of | WordPress.com openly admits he makes content decisions based on | the values of executives at Apple and at credit card companies. | He doesn't even bother with any hand wavy pretense of having his | own core moral values or beliefs on civil liberties. Just pure | kneeling before his betters. | | At least it's honest, I guess. Really sad though. | karaterobot wrote: | The post makes it blindingly clear that he disagrees with them, | and that it's more a question of feasibility. Because Tumblr | needs to work with credit companies and Apple in order to be | sustainable, they have to play by their rules or not exist. | henriquecm8 wrote: | He raised an interesting question, why Twitter and Reddit get | away with it, but Tumblr doesn't? | jrm4 wrote: | This is the "race to the bottom" that occurs here. Because | someone trying to make a buck bought it and decided that it | could probably make more money this way. That's all this is. | nsxwolf wrote: | Twitter is jam-packed with hardcore porn. | partdavid wrote: | I'm curious too. Can you not view NSFW subreddits on the iPhone | reddit app? Quarantined subs? (I don't know, I don't use the | Reddit app and I don't have an iPhone). | noahtallen wrote: | You can view all NSFW content on the iOS app, but you have to | log into an account and click a button to say you're old | enough. I think they're trying to make it effectively opt-in. | | Another guess is that this is easy for Reddit to do (and not | Tumblr) because Reddit has the concept of an NSFW subreddit, | where all content under that sub is age-restricted. And | content on other subs would be heavily moderated most of the | time. Whereas on Tumblr, posts don't go directly to "pre- | categorized feeds" in that same way, since you're just an | individual making a post on your own page more or less. So | moderation (I'd guess) would be a lot harder. | [deleted] | tpmx wrote: | So US-centric. Meanwhile XVideos etc exist. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XVideos | | > XVideos, stylized as XVIDEOS, is a pornographic video sharing | and viewing website. Founded in Paris in 2007, the website is now | registered to the Czech company WGCZ Holding. As of September | 2022, it is the most visited pornographic website and the tenth | most visited website in the world. | donatj wrote: | What I've realized in my 25+ years of using the internet is that | letting the normies on here ruined everything. | throwaway292939 wrote: | I was following until the mention of Twitter and Reddit. They | should face every single challenge that Tumblr does regarding | porn. What do they do differently? I feel that Tumblr should be | able to overcome these issues. | lofatdairy wrote: | I was about to say the same thing. Reddit is a huge host for | pornography, and Twitter is where most sex-workers share and | network currently. Reddit certainly has advertisers and an iOS | presences, not to mention people burning money on paying for | awards. I can't speak to Twitter because I'm not on the site, | but my understanding is that neither bother with any formal age | verification either. Not sure what's different except maybe the | size of their legal team. | [deleted] | Jgrubb wrote: | It took me a minute to remember why the founder of Wordpress was | posting on tumblr. | wmf wrote: | For those who are a little slower, Automattic (the Wordpress | company) owns Tumblr now. | bambax wrote: | It took me a minute to remember Tumblr existed. | intrasight wrote: | True :) Is becoming a pretty distant memory now. Still sad | when such good things go away. | Ambolia wrote: | The real story here is how we let mobile phones become completely | closed and privative environments, and how credit card companies | got into politics for some reason. | | Seems like hackers of today have really let down the public. Even | bitcoin is 13 years old and I know nobody getting into it for | utilitarian reasons unless they are already into it for | investing. | CoolGuySteve wrote: | Mobile apps are so bloated and intrusive these days that I | vastly prefer the web app version of most social media sites | even when they're feature limited like Facebook. | | Originally I switched to using home screen bookmarks to save | some storage on a cheap iPhone but now I can't go back. | | I wonder how long it will be until a popular social media site | avoids the app stores completely due to content and payment | restrictions. | ska wrote: | It's not obvious to me that CC companies are acting out of | political leaning, it could conceivably be mostly risk based. | Symmetry wrote: | Credit card companies acting to limit risk from discretionary | enforcement of ambiguous regulations is also sort of | political. | _dain_ wrote: | trust me it's political. | cecilpl2 wrote: | I'm sure you're a nice person but I don't just trust | unsubstantiated claims I read on the internet. | aetherson wrote: | Someone asserted to me that porn purchases have a really | horrific chargeback rate, and that's the main reason credit | card companies are against them. It sounds at least | superficially plausible. | notyourday wrote: | That's not really true. I consulted for two companies that | provided payment processing services for... non family | friendly websites. They were making out like bandits | charging ~30% fees. The blended charge back rate for this | side of business was about 5%. The blended charge back rate | for the family friendly side of business was around 3% | patrickmcguire wrote: | If you look at the timing of these decisions, it's pretty | clear that that yeah it's risk based, but the risks are | political. It's only a week between this op-ed calling on the | credit card companies to drop Pornhub and them following | through on it. | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub- | ra... | | There was a flurry of congressional bills specifically citing | that article at the time. (Here's one for example: | https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-introduced- | criminalizin...) I can't find one that specifically threatens | the payment processors, most go after the sites or their | hosting providers, but the payment processors probably had | the sense to realize they were in the blast radius and that | it was best to pre-emptively self regulate. | ravi-delia wrote: | I'm certain the reason CC companies want to drop adult | services is because of the vastly increased risk of charge | backs, but I suspect they'd cast a wider net if not for | politics. Absent the risk they'd be happy to pocket the cash, | but with it public opinion gives them an out | arsome wrote: | If it were just an increased risk of charge backs, surely | they could just charge them higher fees and make it work | out. Or tell them they have to eat all the chargebacks. | PTcartelsLOL wrote: | Not really. Merchants are the one who eat the chargebck | costs plus the $20 fee for processing it that VISA/MC | charge them. That's just pure utter bullshit. | colechristensen wrote: | The credit card companies had a point. By transacting with | platforms that openly didn't care about selling access to | content of unwilling, exploited, and underage people, the | payment processors opened themselves up to liability and moral | guilt. There is a difference between well moderated platforms | and platforms that do a halfassed job and pretend that's ok. | simonbarker87 wrote: | This is also, I think, a reflection of American values and | culture on the internet and so also a failure of other | countries to own more of the internet/tech world. Other | countries (especially European) are far less bothered by nudity | and adult content. | mftb wrote: | > Seems like hackers of today have really let down the public. | | I disagree. It seems like if anything, it's the public of today | that has let down the hackers. In all honesty though, it's | probably more just, "people gonna people." | aliqot wrote: | It's a tragedy of the commons. | | You used to have to -want- to be a hacker, and connectivity | much less the processing power to receive it was not | guaranteed. I had to mow lawns to get a ride to the library | to read dusty Bell UNIX surplus manuals. You were lucky to | even meet someone other than Dewey D who knew the same words | or the nature of what you were doing. | | Consequently, when you met someone online, it didn't matter | what kind of weirdo they were. You knew that when you were in | certain spaces that anybody there had some special something | and that kinship bridged all gaps and mismatches. Those | friendships were forever and we didn't even know eachother's | names or faces. That's not guaranteed now. | | Now everyone has an apollo mission's worth of compute on | their wrist/pocket and the swill is so sweet nobody's hungry. | If you extrapolate the current situation to other events in | history, we're headed for danger and that's a good thing, we | need that struggle. | | "Crises precipitate change", Deltron3030 was right. | | p.s. don't say 'mainframe' say 'cloud', you're all set. | vlunkr wrote: | How are hackers responsible for mobile phones becoming closed? | I think that falls pretty squarely on Apple. | zaidf wrote: | >Credit card companies are anti-porn. | | False. Credit card companies are simply protecting their | business. From what? The laws and court rulings that make them | liable for damages from really terrible edge case scenarios. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-29 23:00 UTC)