
The casualization of the pornography industry - ryan_j_naughton
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/05/29/the-uber-ization-of-porn/
======
eatonphil
Interesting article, but I am having a hard time understanding how the title
connects. And I'm actually not sure what the main thesis here is either - a
little-known description of those who end up in porn nowadays? I'm not sure
what I was supposed to take away.

~~~
dang
The title is just typical sensationalism. We changed it to a more
representative sentence from the article.

------
monksy
Why is this listed on Hacker News. It does not appear to be related to
technology or startups.

My issue with this article is: This article attempts to paint the individual
web cam-ers as people that are hurt. They are people who are attempting to
engage in a business that is extremely cut-throat, and that is on low margins.
(Also, happens to be "socially unacceptable" in many cultures.. that's another
story, but it's used to abuse the reader) Additionally these people cut out
larger businesses whom are highly regulated for a few more dollars.

I wish that the article would have reported on the people who did this, some
of the problems they faced, and left it at that. I'm tried of seeing stories
that paints these people as "we need to fix this ill".

~~~
tzs
> Why is this listed on Hacker News. It does not appear to be related to
> technology or startups.

HN is not exclusively about technology or startups. From the Guidelines:

    
    
       On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find
       interesting. That includes more than hacking and
       startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence,
       the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's
       intellectual curiosity.
    
       Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime,
       or sports, unless they're evidence of some
       interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls
       or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd
       cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
    

The fact that you went on to read the article, and evidently put some thought
into analyzing its content, indicates that it at least aroused your
intellectual curiosity. Assuming you are a "good hacker", that would be a
point of evidence toward the article being on-topic.

Note that for many things, they arguably fall under both on-topic and off-
topic based on the guidelines, so could probably go either way.

~~~
monksy
The thing is that it didn't raise an intellectual curiosity. (The article was
meant to invoke outrage/emotion)

------
tzs
For more comments see the earlier, dead, discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10133379](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10133379)

~~~
dang
That one was flagkilled, as was this one. We've unkilled both so everyone can
see them and so they don't stay closed for discussion.

~~~
PopeOfNope
_We 've unkilled both_

If it was flagkilled twice, why bring it back?

~~~
dang
In the case of the current thread, because when there's an ongoing discussion
it seems sporting to let it continue.

In the case of the previous thread, so people who click on tzs' link (and
don't have showdead turned on) will be able to see it.

~~~
tzs
I had no idea that links to dead threads did not work for people without
showdead turned on. I had always assumed that dead threads were just not shown
on thread index pages, but if someone clicked on a link to one they would
always see it.

Now I wonder what other things I've mistakenly assumed about how HN works.

------
swagv
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10133379](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10133379)

