Yes, actual issues of abuse against the actors, not pearl clutching about "objectification". I'll bet most of this verbal and physical "violence" they mention is fairly vanilla rough sex, a harmless thing that a massive amount of the population already do in their own beds (often at the request of a woman). Yes, that even includes consensual non-consensual role play, which is a surprisingly common fantasy (and again, harmless, and again, often coming from women)
And that's not even getting into "proper" BDSM, which is subject to monthly "think of the women!" outrage; always by people who've no interest in hearing from the actual women involved
I'm quite certain the people performing this "study" had already made up their minds before loading the first video
> I'll bet most of this verbal and physical "violence" they mention is fairly vanilla rough sex
It sounds like you've also made up your mind before reading it. How about taking a look and making some counter arguments to their findings so that people who disagree can argue on that basis rather than the basis of your speculation?
Yes I have read the journal article, and while their table for physical violence (as one example) does contain words like "kidnap", it also contains "pound" and "spank". Even for the "genuine" cases, I still maintain that the taboo fantasies of adults are not worth clutching pearls over. Just like with every moral panic about evil corrupting media throughout history
Are we clutching pearls? 90% of the popular porn videos show taboo fantasies centered around--at the very least--spanking women. Is that not interesting? We don't need to clutch our pearls to make note of that and to discuss what it means. Pornography is very taboo as you've alluded to, but HN is for me a place where we can discuss anything that we find intellectually stimulating.
I find it very interesting for sure that depictions human sexuality is apparently almost always in some small way also depicting violence against women. I find it disappointing that so many here want to write off the simple mention of that fact as "moral panic" and discuss it no further.
I guess I'm part of the contingent you speak of. I wouldn't call myself anti-porn but I would certianly consider myself porn-critical.
Do you have any points to make that could be argued against or do you just want to scaremonger? I could equally well say "There's a large pro-porn contingent on HN" and then leave it at that, but instead I've shared an article and some reasearch that I'm happy to discuss.
Well, the fact that the title is "90% of online pornography" but from the actual study, it talks about 90% of the top 50 watched videos, so we've gone from "90% of pornography" to "45 videos".
> I could equally well say "There's a large pro-porn contingent on HN" and then leave it at that
> we've gone from "90% of pornography" to "45 videos".
Yes, the 45 most watched videos. They also analyse the metadata of millions of related videos. The headline is of course not the whole study. This is very common with studies. Any time you see "X% of children exhibit Y behaviour" or even "Mice respond A to stimulus B" it's implied that they have a limited sample size due to the nature of what is practical.
Altneratively: What do you think might be a better headline? I would welcome a debate on the basis of that one.
Personally I don't see the significant material difference between 90% of the 50 most popular videos depicting violence against women and 90% of all porn videos depicting the same. I'm happy to hear why you might disagree though.
Which represents what percentage of pornography watching? Or rather: what fraction of a percent of pornography watching?
> Personally I don't see the significant material difference between 90% of the 50 most popular videos depicting violence against women and 90% of all porn videos depicting the same. I'm happy to hear why you might disagree though.
Well, "90% of pornography" is millions of videos. So at the very least, the material difference between them is again, literally millions of videos.
> Altneratively: What do you think might be a better headline? I would welcome a debate on the basis of that one.
It's a 200 page report written in French. I have no idea.
> Personally I don't see the significant material difference between 90% of the 50 most popular videos depicting violence against women and 90% of all porn videos depicting the same. I'm happy to hear why you might disagree though.
i don't think you've established a rationale for the discussion you are hoping for.
It's not like this is some new occurrence. Just made easier by what's out. Anybody that will take the time to do these things would put the time into it through another medium. Just more AI fearmongering.
And of course... only mentioning women as victims. Right.
Sorry, but when you dropped "The US gov is behind the private sector in computing software and hardware by over a decade (and has been for a while)" you lost all credibility. This is just completely inaccurate. Why even have classified programs if they're DECADES behind? Furthermore, I'd take a closer examination on who is funding the academics and reaping the benefits of the research. What an armchair comment.
Aye, there are a lot -- a LOT -- of well paid IT types around DC. Lots with clearances, and fancy pedigrees.
Isn't an accident NoVA, Southern MD, and the greater DC area are tech hubs.
Entirely a separate discussion from if the US DoD can handle drone swarms. They've spent the last 2 decades occupying two middle eastern countries and have been hemorrhaging money away in the process. That money could have gone towards civilian needs, but even if it didn't and the $$$ stayed with the military, the opportunity cost of going hard on counter-insurgency as a national strategy for 20 years is now clear.
Wow. Not only DoD have drone swarms, they have been at the forefront of research, invented the concept of drone swarms, and have been testing them for at least 15 years. Search for DoD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030
> This is just completely inaccurate. What an armchair comment
I assume you are actually fully in the armchair, and have no idea what you're talking about.
> Why even have classified programs if they're DECADES behind?
So your enemy doesn't know what you have. Same as it has always been? In areas where the private sector cannot profit outside selling to the military (e.g. missiles/radar), then obviously the government is ahead because nobody else is really working on them. But perhaps you've watched too many sci-fi movies. We don't have a SHIELD with flying aircraft carriers.
Pretty obvious here people. Supply and demand. There's more poor people looking for affordable housing than there is rich paying for extravagant rentals.
Above FL60 is uncontrolled airspace. That means the NOTAM covers UP TO 60k. They can easily traverse higher without issue as they are not required to file a NOTAM for above that altitude. I think a lot of people are missing this point.
If you want to trust that go ahead. There's been quite a few changes within the past year and a half that lead people to believe otherwise. All their servers are also US based. Remember Lavabit?
