I think this  is the People's Daily article referenced. If so, the quoted language has been scrubbed.
People's Daily . Not sure if it has an English translation.
Zero results returned, and a standard note about violent and sexually explicit content being censored.
Thought that was odd.
If there is no sexual content in the photo, what would be the difference in a picture of a gay or straight man? They would look the same.
By specifying sexual orientation you are by definition requesting sexual content.
(though it's culture-dependent. I heard that in some Arab countries it's common for straight men to hold hands between friends)
In many countries this is not considered gay. (Saudi Arabia comes to mind)
First off, your statement is false. There are quite literally millions of people globally who both support gay rights and do not think promiscuity is good. You might be confusing “finding promiscuity bad” with “condemning promiscuity”, which are obviously two distinct concepts. Even if they were considered the same, it’s still obviously not true.
Second, it’s clear that—generally speaking—developed western societies no longer “regard homosexuality as dangerous to harmonious society”. Otherwise there would obviously not be widespread support for same-sex marriage. That feeling isn’t universal yet, but it’s unlikely to be terribly long until society generally stops worrying about it.
Why should they even consider it? Their opponents usually dishonestly represent homosexuality as one of the worst forms of promiscuity (by the volume of their concerns, worse than nymphomania, cheating, pedophilia, fetish addiction, polygamy, etc.).
The answer to promiscuity is 1. Non of your business, 2. education.
Do you have many gay friends?
How about you take a look at any of the studies that have debunked it?
More to the point, a homosexual that adheres to traditional family values (ie: one partner for life, moderate sobriety, responsible adult) is much more appealing than one that exists outside of traditional family values (ie: promiscuous, heavy drug and alcohol use, other irresponsible behavior). In this instance (and numerous others), the basis of opposition to homosexuality is that acceptance invites degeneracy and destruction of harmonious society.
> Homosexuality and promiscuity are closely intertwined, my argument is that they must be disentangled for homosexuality to be generally acceptable.
So why don't you quit entangling them? The only reason homosexuality and sex positivity are entangled is because of the thousands of years of murdering homosexuals, oppression of women, oppression of polyamorous, etc.. the thing they have in common seems to be a series of hateful bedroom laws enacted by a wannabe theocracy.
Do you think a majority of Americans have not had premarital sex?
The average American has 7.2 sexual partners over their lifetime. 
There are thousands of bureaucratic federal or local government branches can start an Internet crackdown.
The whole "anti-gay" nonscence might came from a office clerk smashing his head for April KPI campaigns and baidu'd for random shit to block and passed through the chain of command. That's it.
Are you saying this article does that? I don't see anything in it that does. Can you quote me anything in it that does?
> There are thousands of bureaucratic federal or local government branches can start an Internet crackdown.
You seem to be wanting to imply that this precludes the existence of attempts that come from a higher level.
They do exist, but 80% cases you see online is not. There's big rule is 属地原则 which topics online must be traced back to its geographical local agency to manage. Actions taken by central government exists but just rare. e.g. 严打.
Profitable, lucrative, serious business. Every branch of government want its own little kill-switch button. e.g. 舆情系统. Lobbyist plays a key roll in all this.
Censor muscle daddies and slash fic? To the streets!
All it seems to say is "backlash happened".
Submitters: rewriting titles like that is a violation of the site guidelines. If the facts have changed since the article was written, you can explain that by posting a comment about it to the thread, or by finding a more up-to-date article and submitting that.
On another note: a username of the form "recognizable_person_is_evil" crosses into personal attack, which isn't allowed on HN. You may not owe better to billionaires, but you owe better to this community than to break its rules with every post. So I've banned this account. Account renaming, which we'll have soon, would be a more elegant solution, but it's not ready yet.
That's awesome! Years ago the suggested solution was to create a new account, which I didn't want to do. I'm quite happy there's a nicer solution now.
Yes. Modern society says that as long as your actions don't harm me, you should be able to do what you wish.
There are some edge-cases, caveats, and exceptions - but that is the essence of modern liberalism.
> How are we supposed to have a stable society when there are no standards by which to live
You are assuming stability is a good thing. Progress is made through instability.
You also assume that stability occurred back when society had standards. A quick look through history doesn't show any evidence of that.
You also assume that stability doesn't harm people. It clearly does. When a society says no deviation is acceptable, the deviants are punished for the "crime" of existing.
> Why shouldn't we discriminate against bad behavior and provide positive feedback for good behavior?
Who decides what is good behaviour and what is bad? Allowing women to receive an education was considered bad behaviour in many societies. But society changes.
Why should my behaviour be punished if it doesn't hurt anyone? Who I love is none of your concern.
No, modern law may strive for this ideal, but society doesn't. Society itself has a social aspect that goes beyond some modern liberalistic ideal. Since people are social and tribal, society will always have standards by which we live by. For example, people walking down the street naked will always be interpreted as crazy, regardless of any harm committed against other people.
> Progress is made through instability.
This depends entirely upon your definition of "progress." I personally don't think of the complete degradation of social standards as a good thing.
> You also assume that stability doesn't harm people. It clearly does.
Real life has winners and losers. Life is a system of inputs and outputs, and social pressure guides people into frameworks that lead to productive behavior in our society. Can they be taken too far? Sure. That, however, does not mean that _all_ social pressures are bad. For example, if a person is shamed for constant novelty-seeking through drinking, partying, and obnoxious behavior, a sense of shame may guide them into a mindset that allows for longer-term planning and goal seeking instead.
I mean sure someone can say this but you can build an ethical existence around things that we believe to be right.
This will exclude certain people. For example it might exclude arms manufacturers. It might exclude the Weinsteins of the world. But that's the point!
If your ethical standard doesn't exclude behavior it's hard for it to have much teeth
As far tech goes I think best would be to follow Stallmann's ethics. They are directly relevant to our work.
This is nonsense. Attorneys, doctors, accountants, and other professions have long had ethical codes. This isn't some impossible task, programmers just don't want the responsibility.
Just its existence is not enough to guarantee that anyone knows or cares about it.
Recent history continually shows that advances in military technology causes improvements in combatant/non-combatant casualty ratio. The smarter the bombs and missiles are, the less civilians they kill. Also, operators who only risk drones and not their own lives aren't nearly as trigger happy as pilots. And finally, a conflict between two countries is always more prolonged and bloody when the gap between their technological development and military prowess is smaller. Not to mention that MAD doctrine have prevented cold war from going hot.
So yes, working on all these technologies helps you mention helps humanity and saves lives.
Why are you assuming people's positions on those topics? I've seen people bring them up.
Also, unlike doctors, who are explicitly trusted with human health, programmers are not in any way different from anybody else and it's silly to try to impose a special moral code on them.
There's an argument to be made that modern weapons help keep the peace, exactly like MAD did between the USSR and USA.
This is an example of YouTube taking positive social responsibility which is fantastic. And no, “positive” is not subjective in this case at at all.
Many Americans value their first and second amendment rights. PS I'm gay.
Google, Twitter and friends also censor Islamic fundamentalist content and discussion, along with other subversives.
Subreddits about drug use are removed often. Talking about using drugs isn't a crime.
Also I would like to have one (1) example of "western services" (you mean non chinese?) centralized service that fights censorship.