Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Instagram is deleting the accounts of hundreds of porn stars (bbc.com)
99 points by mastazi 10 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 127 comments





tldr; because some vigilantes keep reporting them, and Instagram's content moderation team is massively inconsistent.

Seems dumb.... I though reporting e-girls to the IRS was the most effective play if you're prudish?

I don’t know what an e-girl is, but I can assure you pornstars pay taxes. Income earned is reported to the government by the studio.

That's my point, the target is wrong. If you want to be a general dick online there are better ways to go about it.

Paid ads for violent conspiracy theories are fine but god forbid you use an eggplant emoji.

Porn is not advertiser friendly. Hence the need for a decentralized web and decentralized payments.

There is no actual pornographic content posted by these accounts - they're being banned because of who they are.

It doesn't matter for advertisers whether they actually post porn or not : the image of the actor is 'tainted' by their professional lives, and could taint the ads next to it too.

I'm not supporting this, just trying to explain why not actually posting porn is no workaound to satisfy the ads company.


Presumably advertisers don't want their content interspersed in the middle of a porn stars instagram story, whether the actual content is pornographic or not.

Then it should be enough to flag those accounts, and only show ads which are explicietly ok with showing it there. This even is an advantage, because some products who already work on the border of sex-ads would surely be very happy to be shown in that context.

Once you are notified of a possible SESTA/FOSTA violation, you are required to act.

Isn’t so that only porn consumers recognise porn stars, and/or follow them? So why is it a problem for advertisers? End user gets their ads in the context that does not offend them.

They are temp de-activated because an IRC channel with a 100 or so bored kids mass-reported them. No one at Instagram looks at these accounts and goes: let's ban them for who they are. If you really think that, you got tricked.

It appears to be permanent not temporary?

They are being banned for who they are, even if the decision is being delegated by Instagram to angry members of the public.


The mentioned cases in this article all talk of re-activation, the others I assume legit broke guidelines meant to protect its younger users.

For instance, the article mentions Cinderella Jewels, which has a new account showcasing her "pole journey". NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/p/B4xM_b4AtC-/ and her Youtube banner: https://yt3.ggpht.com/L6jM6xMK_QBRZieP8x8f8_f6x1BYQi30_K7WGL...

Here is Bloggeronpole showing "body positivity", while complaining they won't let her post a video of her working out in a bikini NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2td-HPgzDP/

Here is Ginger Banks' instagram, who claimed in the article: "I've never posted explicit images on Instagram. But even a picture of me wearing leggings could be extremely provocative to someone, and worthy of being reported": NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/thegingerbanks/ and here you can support her art, for just 100$ a month you can help end the stigma that is surrounding sex and view art that makes you question yourself: https://www.patreon.com/GingerBanks (NSFW).


One of the many reasons why "surveillance capitalism" is terrible for humanity.

Once the wealthy and powerful know everything there is to know about you, they can take any arbitrary decisions they want against you - in all places, online or offline. They can effectively "ban you from society" just because you did something they may not like.

Worse yet, that "something" may be decided by an "AI" they created and there will be no recourse (people dealing with Google/Facebook "support" probably know what that means).


Don't be naive, most of them are escorts looking for affluent customers which would get Instagram into hot water wrt SESTA/FOSTA once they are notified about it. Instagram is doing the right thing; moreover, Instagram/Snapchat is facilitating tax avoidance from "premium services" so there must be pressure coming from IRS as well; it's better for Instagram to ban those "models" than to rat them out to IRS and get bad rep.

I keep hearing that, and yet "sex sells" is ever so persistent and prominent in actual ads.

Both are a consequence of sex being taboo. We seek it, yet society reprimands you when you are explicit about it. They go hand in hand with anything that is forbidden.

See also The Apple.


I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of many of those advertisers. If it even is the advertisers themselves and not the facebooks and googles and apples themselves who only use "generic advertiser" as a scapegoat.

They are mostly Pointy-Haired Bosses. They breathe hypocrisy.

Sex is taboo? Where is that? Maybe in sharia oriented societies - but in the US with it's prudish attitude they don't differ that much in this regard.

> Sex is taboo? Where is that? Maybe in sharia oriented societies - but in the US with it's prudish attitude they don't differ that much in this regard.

Wasn't sex outside marriage a felony in Utah until recently? Pretty sure the sharia wasn't applied there…

My point is that the American puritan roots are still alive and kicking, both in conservative circles obviously but also liberal circles with people getting "distressed" at the sight of any kind of eroticism in art or entertainment.


Until struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003, Sodomy laws existed in some US states. These targeted not just same sex couples, but often all couples and prohibited acts such as oral or anal sex even for married couples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat...


Yes, that's what I said?

In some areas of the US, we still teach kids (especially girls) that they are damaged if they have sex outside of marriage. That is instead of teaching about safe sex practices and things like that. We don't always take rape seriously - for either sex. Don't show a nipple on TV, especially not on "public" broadcast or during certain times of day. Certainly never, ever show a penis on these channels - that's especially vulgar.

These are all clues that sex is taboo. We can't even have honest conversations about it and it causes a bit of obsession with it devoid of healthy attitudes.


From where does it come from? I guess also from so called religious values or at least from what some of the Churches make out of it. I believe the polytheistic are much open minded regarding sexuality than the monotheistic ones - or maybe as Islam sprung from Christianity and Judaism and Christianity from Judaism it is only this specific strain that has a problem with sexuality.

The virginity thing comes from a time where women and girls were considered property, first of the family then of a husband, and potential husbands usually want(ed) a pristine product not a "used" one.

> believe the polytheistic are much open minded regarding sexuality than the monotheistic ones

Not really, it depends on whatever religion. Hinduism, 3rd largest of all religions and largest polytheistic religion, makes a big deal about premarital virginity of women, at least in all the major branches/sects of it.


So maybe it is probably the enshrinement of "I want to make sure that the woman only makes kids with the copies of my genes" into religious doctrine.

I agree. It probably got fixed into our instincts and our culture a long time ago.

How many places is it legal to have sex in public?

In a few European countries for instance, including Germany.

Though, taking Germany as an example, you might run into legal troubles if you make a nuisance of yourselves knowingly or on purpose. [1]

Americans are considered pretty prude, uptight, and christian fundamentalist when it comes sexuality here, while US citizens can have quite the culture shock and think us crazy. The laws surrounding sexuality are really just the tip of the iceberg.

[1]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__183a.html


I don't really want random people fucking in the streets, that's not even about the taboo aspect of it. Get a room.

That's exactly the taboo aspect of it.

Replace word “fucking” with any other activity and you’ll see how taboo it is. Hint, try “laughing”, “hugging”, “playing”

A softer facet is kissing in public, or PDA's how they're called by some. I find it ridiculous some people are offended by this, but maybe I am extremely shameless.

Definitely in the US, Europe not so much.

How long did the drama over a nipple being shown during the egg ball final last?


Drama only lasts a long time when there’s people on both sides arguing about it though.

This is what these “grand unified theories of American prudery” miss — the US isn’t a uniformly prude nation; it’s just a very large and diverse one. It contains people who are very prude as well as people who are the opposite — it contains people who write in to the FTC to complain about not-quite-nipples on TV, but it also contains the sort of people who thought that showing a 40 year old woman’s saggy boob during an afternoon football game was a good idea in the first place. It contains people who complain about porn, but it also contains most of the global porn industry.


I don't think it does anymore. For example, superhero movies/movies in general don't even do kissing scenes anymore, even if they have a really big budget. This shows that it's seen as less and less important to the sales of a movie.

Counterpoint - J-pop and K-pop groups often have contractual obligations to not enter into a relationship, since that would mean that they become less attractive to their fans. So "no kissing scenes" might just mean "we want to let the viewers imagine that they could eventually date this person" or whatever.

Sex != Porn.

There is a fine line between what is somewhat accepted and what not. And porn usually is on the other side of it.


...I'm pretty sure that "sex sells" as a general statement has been debunked a while ago, though of course sex sells when sex is relevant to the product.

Proof or it didn't happen.

You can see all of this. the "sex" has to walk a line so as not to become vulgar .... but a run-of-the-mill piece of art will get more attention if it is being modeled by a pretty woman or shirtless man than if shown alone. Or if it is of a nearly naked woman (but a nearly naked man is vulgar).


> Proof or it didn't happen.

I don't know, the first two pages of Google if you enter "sex does not sell"? I could have linked contents, but I think I'll let you do the homework.


"sex sells art" gives a different sort of thing. Some of the google results for "sex does not sell" are headlining with things like, "Sex Doesn't Sell -- at Least Not in the Conventional Sense." and "When sex doesn't sell". These aren't exactly stellar endorsements.

It is pretty obvious that it does at times, even if we are aware of the biases. Of course, getting it wrong hurts and there is lots of nuance.


> It is pretty obvious that it does at times, even if we are aware of the biases.

...well gee, let's look what I wrote...

> ...I'm pretty sure that "sex sells" as a general statement has been debunked a while ago

See that bit about "as a general statement"? I never wrote that it _never_ sells.


Just watch a music channel on TV. Half of the videos look like soft porn. Is that relevant to the music?

...maybe that's what the artists wanted to make. Also, "sex sells" is such gospel, and posting sex is such an ego thing to many execs, that I don't think the reality of its marketing efficiency matters much for network decision.

Why is porn not advertiser friendly? Does anyone see an advertisement near pornstar picture and decide "gross, i'll never buy this product"?

> Why is porn not advertiser friendly? Does anyone see an advertisement near pornstar picture and decide "gross, i'll never buy this product"?

No, but one just has to take a screenshot of exactly that and send it to brands for brands to pressure Instagram and co to drop pornstars. Most brands have very clear policies when it comes to ad space. These are the kind of policies that triggered the "adpocalypse" on YouTube a few years ago, where prominent advertisers dropped YouTube after being made aware (by the main stream press, the irony of this news article), that their products were advertised in the middle of sexually suggestive videos, terrorist videos and what not…

So it's funny the BBC is complaining about individuals reporting content they don't like on Instagram when outlets like the BBC did the exact same thing against YouTube a few years ago.


Particularly someone following the said star.

If companies are concerned about their image they should not use ads, especially those annoying full screen interstitial things.

And now they are censors too.

> Porn is not advertiser friendly.

Is it really? We see this often said but usually no one links to any data.


isnt that discrimination?

This taboo against sex, one of the most natural acts of almost all lifeforms, is THE single most bizarre facet of human society.

Porn stars and sex workers should be celebrated instead of being ostracized.

There aren't many other professions who contribute as much to reducing stress and fulfilling the fantasies of so many people across the world. Most sex workers do it without any thanks and barely make enough from it to survive. Not only they have to brave a constant risk of disease and violence, they have to carry this outdated stigma throughout their lives, not only for themselves but also their families, even after they quit.


>This taboo against sex, one of the most natural acts of almost all lifeforms

We're not talking about just 'sex', we are talking about the creation of entertainment media were a person is paid to have sex with another person/persons. I wouldn't call it a 'natural act'.

I used to be totally fine with porn, and to some extent I still am, however I do see it as a problem as well.

First off I think that the ease with which really hardcore porn is increasingly accessable today means very young kids are able to get their first views of sex being extremely warped. This creates expectations of what sex is that many are likely uncomfortable with, but will perform because porn has made it 'the norm'. Add to this how most porn turns sex into something borderline mechanical and/or centered around a fetish, which makes perfect sense from a 'product standpoint', but it also means that practically all porn sells the whole idea of sex as merely people using eachother to 'get off'.

The second problem I have is with the industry and its employees, I can't recall any ex-porn worker having anything good to say about their previous profession, instead what I've seen described comes across as a really shitty situation, where many turn to drugs in order to make it through 'shoots' and then again to forget.


>the ease with which really hardcore porn is increasingly accessable today means very young kids are able to get their first views of sex being extremely warped. This creates expectations of what sex is that many are likely uncomfortable with, but will perform because porn has made it 'the norm'.

Instead of blaming porn, easily accessible or not, we could mention the role of parents or even schools that could be more involved with sex education.

>I can't recall any ex-porn worker having anything good to say about their previous profession, instead what I've seen described comes across as a really shitty situation, where many turn to drugs in order to make it through 'shoots' and then again to forget.

Well, maybe if this population was not constantly vilified and ostracized, things would go better for them.


> The second problem I have is with the industry and its employees, I can't recall any ex-porn worker having anything good to say about their previous profession, instead what I've seen described comes across as a really shitty situation, where many turn to drugs in order to make it through 'shoots' and then again to forget.

This can be said about the "mainstream" showbiz industry as well. Remember all the child stars with ugly adulthoods?

As for spawning fetishes and promoting unrealistic expectations, again, you can say this about a lot of mainstream media too.

Critics of porn seem to ignore other industries with the same problems when singling out porn for these criticisms, because !!sex!!


Sure, but sex is something practically every human will engage in, and typically starting at a young age.

I don't know exactly what the fetishes/unrealistic expectations you say mainstream media is promoting, but I doubt they have as direct impact as porn does.

As for mainstream showbiz, I certainly don't hold it in high regard either, but I do think it does better than the porn industry. Basically I would be very hesitant about my kid going into showbiz, meanwhile I would do anything in my power to dissuade my kid from going into porn.


Porn is a huge world of a bajillion sites. Some are good, some are meh, some aren’t.

Coming from Australia, I find the whole anti-nudity-sex view of US extremely bizarre.

One one side Netflix and friends have figured out that Booms, Bullets, Bucks, Boobs and Butts are a golden formula. Like most HBO series involve some form of nudity.

On the other side the big media mafias are heavily censoring totally normal things.


> I don't know exactly what the fetishes/unrealistic expectations you say mainstream media is promoting

Toxic masculinity and macho-isms, submissive femininity and repressed sexuality, hard-to-maintain body types, glamorizing hazards like fast cars and wreckless driving or acting like an asshole.

Much has been said elsewhere about and against these topics.


Nobody is trying to make a different depiction of sex because sex itself is taboo, not hardcore porn in particular. No reason to spend effort only for the result to be slandered by snobs for being lewd.

> I can't recall any ex-porn worker having anything good to say about their previous profession,

Thats just due to ignorance. Watch the two documentaries of After Sex ends.


I don't think all forms of shame is induced by society and is party intrinsic of human sexual behavior. Most see intimacy as contrarian to overly public display and see it devalued by the perceived vulgarity.

And I think there can be some truth to that. Culture often was defined by the absence of anything sexual, since it was believed to adhere to higher forms of aesthetics instead of intrinsic sexual urges.

I think everyone should decide what constitutes the correct balance for themselves. It is just that these transgression of shame are mostly attributed to sex workers to their disadvantage.

But there aren't only happy sex workers and I think it isn't difficult to comprehend why people might want to refrain from engaging in intimacy with sex workers at all. Because to them intimacy cannot be reduced to stress relieve or their own fantasies. I don't think it is that bizarre.

But it is a huge problem if sex workers get penalized because they transgress your own personal boundaries.


> I don't think all forms of shame is induced by society and is party intrinsic of human sexual behavior. Most see intimacy as contrarian to overly public display and see it devalued by the perceived vulgarity.

I'm from a highly religious, Middle-Eastern culture. In the backwaters of this backwater, it's unthinkable for a male and female to even hold hands in public, let alone have a friendly greeting with a peck on the cheek.

Nobody would think even once about such acts in Western societies.

Now consider violence: people, in every culture, generally don't feel uncomfortable about depictions of violence in media.

Violence is presented as glamorous as soon as children are conscious of their environment. Through toys, comics, cartoons. But none of them dare to show even a kiss or a romantic relationship.

Why do you think that depictions of injury and death are considered more socially acceptable than the depictions of love and the act of creating life?

Can it not be reversed?

> Culture often was defined by the absence of anything sexual, since it was believed to adhere to higher forms of aesthetics instead of intrinsic sexual urges.

Imposing communal rules upon sexuality is more likely a form of control over mating rights:

By denying potential competitors' access to mates, we hope to increase ours. Almost all animals do this, we just codify it into our social constructs.

And this fact is very apparent when you consider that the ruling classes of cultures which repress sex, never really follow their own rules.


Not only that, the legal repercussions from that stigma means they have to operate in the shadow, leaving them an unprotected worker class. The SESTA/FOSTA bills were terrible in this regard.

It's not so much a facet of human society as it is a facet of the influence of Christianity and Judaism on Western culture.

Other cultures have their own taboos regarding sex, of course, but it seems only the Judeo-Christian religions regard sexuality (in particular, female sexuality) as inherently evil or corrupting, certainly more so than violence, which is often seen as noble because it's linked, Biblically, with divine justice.


> the Judeo-Christian religions regard sexuality (in particular, female sexuality) as inherently evil or corrupting

I'm not sure where you read this but it's terribly wrong. There's an entire book devoted to the beauty of marital relations (Song of Songs), and Paul explicitly commands married husbands and wives to give themselves to their spouse (that is, sex).

I'm aware of at least one instance where a puritan wife in the 17th century went to the congregation with a complaint that the husband was not having sex with her. The husband was rebuked for it.

Christianity regards sex as intimate and reserved solely for marriage; beautiful within that boundary and wrong outside of it.


The Song of Songs was adapted from Egyptian love songs. The ancient Egyptians elevated the woman and her sexuality. It is a bit out of place in the Bible, which mostly warns against the power of female sexuality (Christianity written by men and all).

Female sexuality is seen as responsible for the fall of humanity. The first wive of Adam was evil and did not listen, and Eve corrupted Adam into biting the apple. After that, female sexuality and will was something to be contained and cleaned:

> But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

> Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

> When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean.


>The Song of Songs was adapted from Egyptian love songs

It's generally bad form to parade speculation as fact.

>The first wive of Adam was evil and did not listen,

The first wife of Adam according to the Bible is eve. Perhaps you're referencing some work of Jewish mysticism, which would be totally irrelevant in a discussion on the Bible and what Christian's believe.

Your post is a bit of a mess of misconceptions and misinformation. Ritual uncleanliness occurs in the OT for a huge number of things, including for male emissions, birth (both male and female), skin infections, and generally contact with blood / any bodily fluids... It's concerned with whether one has been involved in things of the world, which is improper for one wishing to approach an entirely otherworldly God.

But such context tends to be lost when is more concerned bashing religion than with understanding the text.


>Christianity regards sex as intimate and reserved solely for marriage; beautiful within that boundary and wrong outside of it.

Christianity regards all forms of sexuality except one to be sinful, and that exception only counts if consecrated by ritual. That's equivalent to considering sex to be sinful by default.


What's wrong with having rituals around things like sexuality? Rituals are part of every society, a human universal. They promote humaneness, benevolence and proper conduct. And proper sexual behavior needs these things.

We could ask women who, historically, felt compelled to stay in abusive marriages because of the Christian belief that divorce is a sin, or or any of the LGBT population ostracized, tortured or killed because they loved someone of the "wrong" gender, and who until recently couldn't even publicly marry in the US. Is that the humane, benevolent or proper conduct that marriage is meant to promote?

We're not discussing "rituals around sex" in the general case anyway, absent any historical or cultural context. We're discussing the Judeo-Christian complex, specifically the way its rituals have influenced Western cultural beliefs about sexuality, and how those rituals have encouraged the demonization of perfectly healthy and natural forms of sexual expression.


As soon as you say the word "proper" you mean "What -I- think you should do"

As soon as you start with the idea that absolute right and wrong exist, the automatic implication is that some things are wrong.

And as soon as you assume intention and purpose behind the creation of things, it is a given that some actions and uses will be deviations from those intentions.

The Bible lays out restrictions on sex because it starts with grounds above and claims that sex has a purpose higher than just the fulfillment of the individual(s) involved.

You can claim that these are just man-made restrictions for whatever ignoble purpose, but that's begging the question somewhat by dismissing the fundamental and crucial claims here without engaging them. IF the Bible is correct regarding God and creation, such restrictions are logical implications.


Just for the sake of being the devil's advocate - I think this is highly debatable.

One, you have the not-so-uncommon addiction to porn. Because of the wide and free availability of porn content today, it's very easy for a person that's susceptible to addiction to fall into a vicious hole.

Secondly, it can lead to spreading aggressive, potentially dangerous fetishes. I might be wrong about this, but I think a lot of the dangerous fetishes wouldn't necessarily exist (or at least wouldn't be so popular) if it wasn't for them being so readily available on the internet.

Sex workers would be an entire discussion topic on its own - but I think it's safe to say that the information available on the dark net crosses all lines - from legal to human rights.

I'm not suggesting we should shun it or disallow it completely - but I think celebrating would also be an extreme that's not worth the consequences.


> One, you have the not-so-uncommon addiction to porn. Because of the wide and free availability of porn content today, it's very easy for a person that's susceptible to addiction to fall into a vicious hole.

You can say this about anything. Movies, video games, the internet, alcohol, sugary foods, fast cars, social media upvotes.

> Secondly, it can lead to spreading aggressive, potentially dangerous fetishes.

Again, this statement can also apply to things like violence in movies and games. And much has been said against that kind of reasoning :)

> I'm not suggesting we should shun it or disallow it completely - but I think celebrating would also be an extreme that's not worth the consequences.

I didn't mean literally celebrating like parading them around on a palanquin, but treating them with respect at the very least.

Create an environment that at least allows some discussion about it, instead of indignantly shutting these topics down upon hearing the first syllable.


There is nothing natural about porn. Watching other people paid to have sex with strangers via a long chain of technological and market devices is about as far away from nature as you can get.

Porn has existed since the first parchment, and even cats and dogs and seals and dolphins kind of masturbate.

What about movies, music, books, games, sports?

Why do you think porn stars should not be treated like any other actor, artist, author, musician, developer, sportsperson?


Out of the entertainment categories you just listed (porn, movies, music, books, games, sports) I think the porn can have the worst side effects on your life because it directly interfere with a relationship with your partner (many people go for porn rather then for sex with partner) or can demotivate one from searching for real relationships because porn is easier. And that can ultimately lead to worsening one's quality of life.

Do you have any credible, not thoroughly debunked research on this? I don't think anecdotes would be helpful here since most couples I know regularly commission porn of their characters and seem quite happy together.

Oh this actually brings up a whole other can of juicy worms: Forced monogamy.

Almost every culture guilts people into remaining in unsuccessful relationships and makes people feel like a failure if they have to break off a relationship.


Professional sports strike me as the same kind kind of aberration. People engaging in no physical activity while watching paid professionals playing sports via a long chain of technological and market devices. It even lacks the communal experience of actually going to an event.

A lot of the things we do and consume are poor, distant derivatives that barely resemble the real thing. Pornography is easily among the worst offenders.


> watching paid professionals playing sports via a long chain of technological and market devices.

Again you bring technology into it, when spectator sports have existed long before the first Colosseum.

> Pornography is easily among the worst offenders.

How? Why?


I bring in technology because neither pornography nor professional sports as we know them today would exist without it. Colosseum was a rare thing, and it hosted live events with the communal aspect of it.

If you go your school league game, you're not doing sports but you hang out with people from your community. Modern professional sports are much like pornography: completely empty in both regards.


> Modern professional sports are much like pornography: completely empty in both regards.

Again, why do you think they're any different from movies, music, books, art, or any other form of entertainment you approve of?

Surely you find joy in something? Why do you believe people should not find joy in sports or porn?


Books and movies retain their core purpose: storytelling. While pornography and professional sports don't.

It's like asking someone how can they approve of steak and disapprove of marshmallows. As if they were the same thing because they both provide some calories and can be eaten.


> While pornography and professional sports don't.

So this is a story to tell:

Rush - Theatrical Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XA73ni9eVs

Conor McGregor: Notorious - Official Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syOgWwz2fiE

But when I watch it play out in real time it's not a story?


> Books and movies retain their core purpose: storytelling. While pornography and professional sports don't.

Porn has storylines. And I suggest watching WWE :)

> It's like asking someone how can they approve of steak and disapprove of marshmallows.

It's like a connoisseur of steak condemning the consumption of marshmallows for made-up hypocritical reasons.


Porn isn't about storytelling. It's about sex. Otherwise it's just a story with gratuitous nudity and sex. And yet it lacks actual sex and intimacy. Making it a poor, distant ersatz.

Same with marshmallows. They're food, technically, but a poor, distant ersatz of a real meal. Both in taste and nutrition.


I hope you realize that the stories in books etc aren't the real thing either, but a hollow facsimile, an ersatz marshmallow.

I think the occurrence of autogynephilia and other dysfunction that can be traced directly to porn consumption.

>> "autogynephilia"

Saying this will make people, including any trans friends you have, go "hmm" at you if you're not careful.

There are probably cisgender people with this as a kink, but the concept is almost exclusively promoted by people who fear trans women and think transitioning is all about sexual gratification. Which is complete nonsense.

Besides...it's just another kind of transformation fantasy even for those hypothetical cisgender people. It's harmless. It's not a dysfunction unless you're some kind of weird prude who thinks sexual fantasies are dysfunctional. Go off and imagine yourself as some fantastical creature being gently, consensually railed by a dragon. It's fun.


Your parent says _sex_ is "one of the most natural acts of almost all lifeforms", not _porn_.

While responding to an OP about porn stars and concluding that "porn stars and sex workers should be celebrated instead of being ostracized."

I believe companies should be free to set their terms of use and/or whom they provide services. Like in a real life, if you don't like someone or you don't follow her/his ideas, you are free to not answer his questions or concerns, why it should be different in corporate world?

If you think company does wrong, just fight with them in a same way.

In other words, why I should demand from local bar to serve me a kosher beer? They feel like it is not profitable for them to serve all kind of minorities (or even some majorities depending on type of bar) and I should be ok with that.


You can always go to another bar which does serve what you want. Name an alternative to Facebook/Instagram/Twitter that has similar reach. It's not a very good analogy IMHO. It's all well and good to say that companies should be free to set the terms and conditions of use but when said companies have such a large impact on people's livelihood and have a near monopoly, I'm not sure.

I agree with grandparent analogy. If Starbucks doesn’t serve your need, you can go to other cafe. But you will never have the same experience. The same thing for Instagram/Facebook. You will find the alternative, PCMag listed 9 alternatives in their website.

It seems that even HN has censored this topic. I couldn't see this post on any page without searching for it.

it is insane that people let FB regulate their lives and communication . encrypt and decentralize is the ultimate solution

Lets remove all moderators! Free speech, yay! Racism and bulling is form of communication, too!

this isn't about free speech anymore, but about freedom of association and communication

Doesn’t really make sense if they’re not posting porn. They might as well ban the BBC...

When you do everything right, and follow the platform rules, and still get banned after all your hard work

It's just a manner of time until this platform will fall.


And the Media Goblin shall rise from the ashes

just let these platforms die.

[flagged]


There was an HN article recently linked that talked about one of those religious based charities. They hired the women on as house cleaners, paid minimum wage, deducted room and board. The poor matriarch of the program had to "deal" with the profits from the cheap labor and fund raising.

One could make the same argent about mill or mining work. Maybe even the military? I don't think the adult entertainment industry averages 22 suicides a day.

But those professions are OK because they're reputable?


Why are you a better person to make these judgments than the people it actually affects?

When you start making rules for/against certain activities "for their own good", you need to be extremely circumspect, especially when these are consenting adults. Just because you feel strongly about something being bad for you doesn't mean it's your place to make the call for someone else.


I am not doing judgment, I am trying to prevent consequences like these:

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49757600

This was linked in the original article. Do you have any better solution?

I personally know two originally fashion models I had photoshoots with that later turned to porn and subsequently to escorting and now they are shadows of their former selves and I don't think they will make it through the next 5 years. If you didn't see what happened to them you probably could be indifferent or be even "enjoying it".


yes I do: let adults make their own decisions.

if you feel that strongly about it, then spend your free time educating people about it.

but activities which don't affect anyone but the individuals who are choosing to participate should not be regulated by the state.

the article you linked has a tragic outcome, but I suspect you're not in favor of ending military service, law enforcement, long-haul trucking, underwater welding, or working in an oil field (all of which have meaningful risks). Let's pass laws to keep industries safe, but it's hypocritical to prohibit one of these and not the others based on some paternalistic notion of what's best for the individuals involved.

* I think your last paragraph was an edit, and I'm sorry about your friends' experience. It sounds genuinely terrible. But without more detail it's impossible to speak to those circumstances. There are people in all walks of life who are predatory, and the individuals have to be protected by the law when they say "no!", but it's an overreach to say that because some people wish they said "no" when they didn't then we need to prevent others who might have been happy with that choice from having the option. By that reasoning, we would have to ban all employment, because a boss manipulated you into trading your youth for a dead-end job at $15/hour.


You're not accounting for the fact that (so) many porn performers are victims of sex trafficking, coerced into doing porn when not even or barely 18, and/or unable to escape the profession (because they fear for their safety, or the fact that they are unhireable into many professions with only porn on their resumes).

They're not the ones making a decision at all and what I describe is exceedingly common.


Unfortunately, many of them do it on their own without any external influence, even coming from good families, consider it exciting and are proud of it. Rebellious teenager phase (exploration/exploitation), not realizing what's the likely outcome, then coping with consequences using drugs/alcohol/crazy behavior later when their beauty disappears. It should be regulated the same way as alcohol consumption and every effort made to prevent kids and susceptible teenagers from finding it online if we want any kind of good future for kids.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Hollywood and the recording industry there.

Instagram has original content as well. You wouldn't believe how little are most pornstars paid (would you let yourself be filmed with an unknown man for $250-$1000?) unless they are superstars so they need to reach out elsewhere, using their filmed scenes as "marketing", trying to catch some rich sugar daddies or clients on Instagram. That all evaporates once their bodies can't compete with younger "models", cycle repeating itself. It's best for Instagram to pull the plug on their part of the cycle.

I am all for banning them all from Hackernews; it'd be both for the good of society as well as for them. Their "working years" are very short, many of them don't make it to 45 years of life and generally live horrible lives past age 30, likely as obese misanthropists if they weren't smart enough to enter management. I find it terrible that people are financing their disastrous choices, then moving onto new younger developers, keeping alive vicious cycle that spits out ruined persons. Talk to some therapists that have to deal with the "outcomes" of that industry...

[NSFW] https://www.redbled.com/dead-pornstars/

Look especially at "Cause of Death" and "Age". So similar to STEM folks, right?


Yes, it is similar to STEM folks. STEM folks aren't immune to disease, depression and drugs either.

And that site only lists the dead porn actors, not the ones who are still alive.


but isn't funny nonetheless ...

Why? 4chan and other assorted incels took the tactics used by the left to silence and deplatform people (mass flagging/reporting), and applied it to e-thots: women who often don't pay taxes, yet receive massive donations for sharing private pictures, often from sad young men who want to know what it is like to have a girlfriend, and get taken for a ride (they get automated "personal" messages on whatsapp, stringing them along with fake promises for more cash).

It was a bad idea when the left applied it to popular right speakers, and it is a bad idea when the right applies it in their misguided quest/troll to make society more puritan, help a brother incel escape the clutches of e-prostitution and try for a real girlfriend.

Viewed in a certain light, these accounts are nothing more than fronts for digital prostitution, all carefully made to guide people to one of their profitable monetizations. Even Youtube allows "performers" to use their suitable-for-work videos to advertise their Patreon, where kids can buy the bath water or access to lewd Snapchat of their favorite cosplayer or ASMR star.

This is not about sexual liberation, and platforms shunning porn stars. It never was. It is all about trolling/culture hacking these very gameable report buttons. It is what happens when you allow a vocal activist minority to moderate your platform. The BBC reporting it as a crackdown by big evil business (completely ignorant of the real cause, or the 1000$ per month blowjobs these stars are offering one click away) tells you we still have a way to go with investigative journalism. Big evil site owners used to pay Ginger Banks (the first time I saw her, she was live streaming her vagina from a public library PC), they love all the attention and engagement these women bring.

If the owners kick them off their platform, it is because they risk breaking the law or have their hand forced by activism/trolls. Anything else is eating into their business.


This represents an opportunity: these folks should just build their own apps which distribute content to their fans. Thats kind of what apps are for - the commoditisation of networks like Instagram and so on, is only really necessary because the technological barrier to entry is too high.

All it would take is for someone to open source a decent image browsing/payment transfer application, stick it on Github with a decent license that allows for re-use of the code, and 'services' like Instagram and Facebook will die the deserved death.

This is only a thing because the OS vendors are gate-keeping, and because they work hard to make it more and more difficult for people to write and distribute apps themselves...


Sure, developing and publishing an app or a library to be used by other developers is the easy part. What is difficult and expensive is setting up the infrastructure for hosting all of the content generated, and api-servers for handling requests. That is the barrier that stops others from implementing something Instagram-esque.

> payment transfer application

Here is where things break long term. When Visa and Mastercard decide to not do business with you it is time to start your own payment system.


I feel like you're confusing advertising (what they're doing on instagram) with distribution (what you seem to think they're doing with instagram). They already distribute through other channels since Instagram doesn't allow porn, but how do they find new people to sign up for their service if not by advertising where people already are?

You'd never get an app like that onto the iOS App Store - you can't distribute NSFW content.

The app store is full of violent games, which personally I'd regard as far more NSFW than anything referring indirectly to porn.

This is currently done using Kik, Snapchat, and something called "onlyfans" which is what Twitter would be if you could charge people to follow you.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: