[HN Gopher] Vienna museums open adult-only OnlyFans account to d...
___________________________________________________________________
Vienna museums open adult-only OnlyFans account to display nudes
Author : ClumsyPilot
Score : 199 points
Date : 2021-10-16 11:34 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| rapnie wrote:
| > Vienna's tourism board has started an account on OnlyFans - the
| only social network that permits depictions of nudity - in
| protest against platforms' ongoing censorship of its art museums
| and galleries.
|
| The only social network? How about the Fediverse? Spin up their
| own PixelFed (and a Mastodon instance too), promote it widely,
| and donate some of their public money to these FOSS projects
| based on open standards, instead of just choosing a proprietary
| centralized platform.
| jstx1 wrote:
| Fediverse is a niche thing for people who care more about
| decentralisation for the sake of decentralisation rather than
| the actual social media aspect.
| quadrifoliate wrote:
| The _Internet_ was once a niche thing for people who cared
| about decentralisation and interoperability. Otherwise we
| would be in "I can't get to HN, it's on the AT&T network" or
| "Only $5 more to upgrade to the Tech Websites Package!"
| territory today.
|
| There's no reason social media shouldn't be more
| decentralized and federated. European institutes can and
| should consider open source, federated alternatives unless
| they want to be forced to play by the rules of the big social
| media providers.
| teorema wrote:
| I can remember when a lot of widespread network platforms
| were niche. Twitter and post Twitter started this VC instant
| popularity expectation.
|
| I don't mean to advocate for Mastodon or anything else in
| particular, but these things sometimes have a way of being
| niche until they're not.
|
| I also think part of the parent's argument was that in
| encountering obstacles like this, groups of nonprofit
| institutions such as art museums could leverage their
| position to promote decentralized systems, rather than simply
| throw up their hands and go with a sensationalized move.
|
| Then again we are here discussing it. But then again if they
| banded together to post on some decentralized platform we'd
| probably be talking too.
| kradeelav wrote:
| Not in my experience, personally. There's a fair few artists
| who have art accounts on mastodon.socal and the related
| mastodon servers - especially handy for NSFW artists of all
| stripes.
|
| two examples: https://mastodon.social/@kradeelav
| https://mastodon.social/@chirart
| rapnie wrote:
| I don't know where you get this notion. Fediverse is small
| with only about 4 million accounts spread out on a couple
| 1,000 instances. Social aspects are taken very seriously
| though, and have created a unique atmosphere and culture.
| Netiquette is taken seriously, and devs take care to avoid
| building social features that are harmful.
| makeworld wrote:
| What about Twitter?
| Santosh83 wrote:
| Meanwhile we have hundreds of videos of a man being brutally
| chopped off his hand, hung upside down while he bleeds, then legs
| chopped off and finally dies gasping all over Twitter and
| Facebook, for anyone to see, even kids who stumble upon it.
| Apparently such content doesn't harm users as much as some
| Renaissance nudes.
| hairofadog wrote:
| I agree with the sentiment. My theory is that while the stuff
| you name is indeed horrifying, the issue with sexuality is that
| it acts like a drug (it changes your behavior chemically, can
| be addictive, etc.) and it's a combination of (a) kids haven't
| learned how to "handle their liquor" in that department yet,
| and (b) many adults have also not learned how to do that and so
| find it difficult to engage in that topic conversationally, and
| so avoid the topic in the guise of _protecting the children_.
| The violence you describe above is less complicated: it's bad.
| Not a lot of nuance there.
|
| I've seen people make the argument that an image of an exposed
| breast is harmful to young children (even when those same kids
| are still breastfeeding).
| samus wrote:
| (b) is entirely a deficit of the parents, or of a prudish
| culture that makes conversations about sexuality taboo. It is
| not intrinsic to sexuality.
|
| Meanwhile, mainstream culture doesn't bother to similarly
| "protect" children from alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, and
| other vices. It would look weird if parents allowed and
| encouraged consumption before a certain age (which exactly
| depends on culture), but we don't bother to hide from them
| that we consume, and pretty much accept that they will
| routinely consume at some point too.
|
| We can discuss at length how damaging each of these is, but I
| find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol,
| cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues
| caused by exposure to porn. All of these vices carry danger,
| but their acceptance in society varies. Because of this,
| issues with the more taboo ones are more difficult to
| prevent, to diagnose and to treat.
| Santosh83 wrote:
| Violence can be addictive too. It frequently is, judging by
| the amount of gore (simulated or real) sites and rape-
| fantasy/BDSM porn out there. The addiction to violence
| actually (IMO) works a more vicious evil in your brain than
| plain sex/porn addiction, though that is damaging in its own
| way too.
| hairofadog wrote:
| I agree! However, I think when violence becomes addictive
| its because it gets linked to sexuality. Mostly I'm just
| saying I agree.
|
| I read an interesting essay years ago from a psych-educated
| person (leaving that intentionally vague because I don't
| remember) who was urging moviemakers not to reduce the
| amount of sex or violence in movies, but to separate those
| scenes in movies by some amount of time like 5 minutes: ok
| to have a sex scene, ok to have a murder scene, but please
| no sexy murder scenes.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Twitter and Facebook are full of this stuff, but what Hollywood
| puts out isn't any less gruesome, though probably more
| realistic in the sense that they tend to make sure that all the
| gory stuff is in good close-up instead of just overview shots.
| Santosh83 wrote:
| Yeah, although at least with films you know it is make-
| believe. The real stuff is also pervasive on social media and
| that can be terribly damaging for a young person to stumble
| upon. In my opinion, more so than stumbling upon even
| hardcore porn. Arbitrary censorship is worse than either
| totally locking down everything or being completely open.
| With the latter two you (as a user/consumer) know what to
| expect and can be prepared.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| You know it's make believe, but part of the point of movies
| is to suspend your disbelief and for a short time believe
| that it's real. That distinction is even harder for
| children, which is why the violence of movies for your kids
| is problematic.
| watwut wrote:
| Hollywood movies go out of the way to make violence look and
| feel unrealistic. It is effectively cartoon violence that
| makes you chill, but never makes you feel bad.
|
| Hollywood in particular is not even interested in gruesome or
| realistic or effective depiction of violence.
| astura wrote:
| Twitter allows hardcore porn though.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Links
| Santosh83 wrote:
| https://twitter.com/goyalsanjeev/status/1448953085770960899
| https://twitter.com/along_live/status/1448896904520077320
| https://twitter.com/adolitics/status/1448906467558387713
| https://twitter.com/ColVKChauhan/status/1448894875118624769
|
| There are hundreds of them (just search by hashtags in the
| posts above). Of course same set of videos/pics repeated over
| & over, but my point is that such stuff is present _all over_
| Twitter & FB and anyone accessing those platforms can
| stumble upon them. Twitter doesn't even seem to put them
| behind a "Violent/NSFW" click-through.
|
| I don't see how nudity can be more damaging or pernicious
| than such content.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| > Twitter doesn't even seem to put them behind a
| "Violent/NSFW" click-through.
|
| For the first link I see this: "The following media
| includes potentially sensitive content. Change settings"
|
| I don't have an account, so you may have changed your
| settings
| wbl wrote:
| And the papers printed a nude nine year old girl getting
| burned alive by napalm. Some events are worth depicting
| even if they are shocking or horrifying and political
| murder is one of them.
| riffraff wrote:
| There's probably a potential difference in intent, in the
| sense that a kid will not buy the new York times but they
| might be exposed to random things on Twitter.
|
| I'm not sure of the "kids will suffer because of violent
| images" idea tho, we were shown a crap ton of terrible
| imagery from WWI/WWII/Holocaust/Vietnam when I was in
| middle school, and if anything I thought it was a good
| thing.
| watwut wrote:
| Gentle reminder that you was shown carefully selected
| footage. You was not show random pictures nor worst
| emotions causing pictures.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Just go watch the latest batch of Hollywood movies.
|
| I'd suggest starting with 'Law abiding citizen' and 'John
| Wick'. Note that an 'R' rating means that children under 17
| are not allowed to watch these without a parent or a guardian
| present. But that's different from 'adult-only', after all,
| technically it is still allowed. The proper marker would be
| 'X' if it was to be compared to 'adult only'.
| 323 wrote:
| Source is probably Mexican narco torture videos.
|
| Warning, extremely disturbing content:
|
| https://elblogdelnarco.com
| zpeti wrote:
| America was founded by Protestants and it shows. Nudity and
| sexuality is basically the most cardinal sin, above any type of
| violence even.
|
| As someone outside the Anglo Saxon world I'm amazed how Puritan
| it is. Like seeing a nipple or kids seeing a nipple really
| isn't the end of the world. But Americans can't even get over
| public breastfeeding.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| America was founded by Europeans, and it shows.
| captainredbeard wrote:
| > But Americans can't even get over public breastfeeding.
|
| Highly regional / generational.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Also, I'm not sure how much of the hullabaloo about breast
| feeding in public is about the breast, and how much is
| about the idea that women with children should be at home,
| under the guise of it being about the breast. It could be
| more sexism than Puritanism.
| 8note wrote:
| I don't think the sexism is separable from the
| Puritanism. The sexism built in to the religion and in
| the practitioners of it are reinforcing each other
| watwut wrote:
| That is gross oversimplification of both American history and
| present. Can we not?
| jliptzin wrote:
| Yea I never understood why there's such a crusade to go after
| people with pictures of nude children on their phones/computers
| but no one seems to give a shit about someone who collects
| footage of people (children included!) being brutally tortured
| and murdered...if we're assembling lists of people we don't
| like I feel like that should also make the list.
| watwut wrote:
| First, in order to produce child porn you have to abuse real
| child. At least that is what I think you talk about.
|
| Second, who exactly is cool with collection of child torture
| videos? Or collection of murders? Because when I came across
| discussion about such finding, the consensus was that people
| were horrified, scared, seen it as red flag and seeked to
| classify kid ones as child port (and hence call authoritirs).
| It was on reddit.
| samus wrote:
| I think we all agree that media involving children always
| forces strong reactions, no matter if it is violence or
| porn. But I'd guess it would create less of a ruckus if a
| video showing an adult being beheaded is discovered on a
| child's phone than an adult porn video. People would get
| upset about the former and the child's environment would be
| investigated, but it won't necessarily lead to a scandal
| with news coverage, criminal investigations and resignation
| of the school principal.
| leppr wrote:
| I don't live in the US but I doubt that's true in most
| places given that adult porn is way easier to access than
| gore. "Pornhub" is a household name, on the other hand,
| assuming they're not particularly interested in gore,
| chances are most people can't cite the name of a site
| specializing in distributing real gore.
| [deleted]
| yosito wrote:
| I find it a bit sad that we've become so Puritan that even art is
| considered "adult".
| nsonha wrote:
| I think the whole concept of art is adult. Kids are less
| pretentious.
| ravenstine wrote:
| I'm not sure it's Puritan so much as it's modern society's
| strange desire to sexualize everything while also keeping
| sexuality _behind glass_ , figuratively speaking.
| Stampo00 wrote:
| Or is this a clever art installation in itself commenting on
| ideas like censorship and views of the human body in modern
| society? I think this is ridiculously clever!
| mdoms wrote:
| Unfortunately the tech platforms are controlled by American
| companies with American values.
| microtherion wrote:
| There is definitely a lot of art that is "adult" for one reason
| or other. If I walked into my kids' daycare to see a
| reproduction of [0] on the wall, I'd definitely raise an
| eyebrow, and even [1] is probably enough to scare smaller
| children. We've kind of grown numbed to the iconography, but
| even as an older teenager I was fairly shocked by a closer look
| at [2].
|
| The distinction between "art" and "pornography" is also
| somewhat artificial. It's hard to argue that [3] was not meant
| to be prurient when the model (underage, by today's standards)
| shortly thereafter became a mistress of the King of France,
| based on him having seen the painting. And some stuff that was
| painted might get you banned from OnlyFans even today, e.g.
| [4].
|
| But the problem, it seems to me, is that the internet has
| turned into a place where (1) _everything_ has to be "safe for
| children" and (2) said safety standards are defined (through US
| influence, I strongly suspect) to be highly permissive of
| violence, but super strict on nudity.
|
| [0] https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-
| war/CwHM2HdTO3l2...
|
| [1] https://www.wikiart.org/en/max-ernst/the-angel-of-the-
| home-o...
|
| [2] https://www.wikiart.org/en/matthias-grunewald/the-
| crucifixio...
|
| [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Francois_Boucher_-
| _B...
|
| [4] https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/girl-
| with-a...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| TBH I think 0-2 would pass as completely fine depending on
| the context. #1 could probably be put anywhere and would only
| scare the most easily scared children. I could definitely
| expect to see stuff like #0 and #2 at maybe not the corner
| street daycare but maybe a prestigious private catholic
| school's daycare would have that _nearby_.
|
| #3, #4 would just seem out of place because of their nudity.
| Most sane people would realize it is art but it would still
| seem weird.
|
| Part of the US's double standard involves being exposed to
| stuff like the crucifixion and the concept of torture at a
| very young age. The concept that nudity can be appreciated or
| even expressed outside of a sexual context is not really a
| thing in the US. The issue is that the only use cases for
| nudity in movies & TV is going to sex related 99% of the time
| because if you are going to show nudity you might as well use
| it to suggest or depict sex.
| microtherion wrote:
| I agree that #1 would be considered harmless by most
| people, and except for the fact that it's still copyrighted
| would not be subject to a takedown anywhere. As you say, #2
| would probably be widely accepted due to the religious
| context, even though objectively it is quite gory.
|
| I disagree with your assessment of #0. It is extremely
| gory, repurposes religious imagery in a secular context,
| and was considered such a menace to society that it could
| not be shown in museums and had to be hidden for 15 years.
|
| And I think #3 and especially #4 were not meant to depict
| nudity devoid of a sexual context. With Fragonard, there is
| often an acknowledged voyeuristic element, even in
| paintings where there is no nudity, such as
| https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/the-
| swing-1... (cf also the original French title).
|
| But it's kind of twisted that we consider it less weird to
| look at a person nailed to a cross than one engaged in a
| prelude to a reproductive act.
| stavros wrote:
| Why would 4 get you banned? There doesn't appear to be
| anything remotely sexual there, at least to me, just implied
| nudity.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Because automatic content detection suck really bad, and a
| kid in that position might be detected as child porn by a
| bot
|
| I've had multiple pics flagged by discord as "graphic" even
| though none were graphic, the last one was a close up
| picture of a coin held between my fingers
| stavros wrote:
| Ah okay, that makes sense. I thought it was somehow
| offensive to a human and was wondering why.
| bongoman37 wrote:
| Hands and fingers always trip up NSFW detection models.
| We use them for automoderation and a lot of people
| demoing nail art, close up shots of someone painting etc
| get classified as NSFW. My guess is that fingers kind of
| look similar to legs to a CNN model and it appears like
| naked legs.
| microtherion wrote:
| Nudity in proximity to an animal... not that I've tested
| this, but I wouldn't stake an account on it.
| stavros wrote:
| Nudity in proximity to anything is potentially bad if
| your conception of nudity is "uh oh, sex imminent, which
| is bad".
|
| Maybe it's a cultural thing, but naked kids aren't
| uncommon here. It's seen as a natural thing.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| The girl is holding the dog in a position where the wagging
| of its tail directly stimulates her genital area.
| x14km2d wrote:
| What the...?: [1] Artworks of Max Ernst are not aviable in
| your country on copyright grounds.
| https://i.imgur.com/LHeQimw.png
| codetrotter wrote:
| Classic Germany
| [deleted]
| b3orn wrote:
| The link works fine for me.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| yep every time I head to gutenberg.org I'm reminded that
| it doesn't get any more ironic. The guy was German for
| gods sake, we invented the printing press and here I am
| 600 years later getting owned by copyright
| manquer wrote:
| Gutenberg making the _movable type_ popular[1] is one of
| primary reasons Statute of Anne(1710) and copyright was
| created. It shouldn 't be surprising that you are seeing
| the effects of that.
|
| With movable type printing, the market for books could be
| widened, suddenly writing and printing presses could go
| professional, before that it was largely academic.
| Printers and distributors and writers both became
| professional and needed their rights balanced and became
| economically influential enough to get legislature to
| enact laws to protect both groups.
|
| [1] He was the first in Europe, he didn't invent it first
| in the world.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > The guy was German for gods sake, we invented the
| printing press
|
| The printing press was hundreds of years old by the time
| of Gutenberg.
| watwut wrote:
| > internet has turned into a place where (1) everything has
| to be "safe for children
|
| It is not just safe for children. Safe for work too. Safe for
| people who don't like porn in their feeds too. I think that
| these filters don't particularly care about high art, because
| that is insignificant percentage of overall nudity people
| post. Most of it is boobs and genitals.
|
| The art you posted is all tame. But not all art is tame and
| like between porn, erotic and art is often blurry.
| ghaff wrote:
| NSFW is probably quite a lower threshold than not for
| children generally. I have a couple pieces of art in my
| house that I definitely would not put up in a work office
| if I had one, a screen saver on a work laptop etc. I'm not
| sure it's even so much the case that _someone_ would take
| offence but that people would be concerned that someone
| _might_ and /or think (probably correctly) that I was
| trying to test the limits of what was appropriate for a
| work setting.
|
| That said, _someone_ will get upset at just about anything.
| User23 wrote:
| And then there's Goya[1]. Not necessarily pre-school
| appropriate either.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Kids, here's an example of what happens if you don't
| listen!
| monocasa wrote:
| To be fair Goya didn't publicly display that either. The
| Black Paintings were all painted directly on the walls on
| the inside of his house.
| jrockway wrote:
| > If I walked into my kids' daycare to see a reproduction of
| [0] on the wall, I'd definitely raise an eyebrow, and even
| [1] is probably enough to scare smaller children.
|
| I'm not sure this is meaningful. You would also find any fine
| art unusual in the context of a daycare, regardless of
| whether or not it's offensive. Your mind is trained to expect
| bright colors, letters, shapes, etc. in that context.
|
| A better question is, would you expect an art museum to have
| these paintings in a separate area that requires proof of age
| to see? And I think the answer to that is absolutely not.
| That would be weird.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > [0] https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-
| war/CwHM2HdTO3l2...
|
| That's far from what your kid can see just watching a few
| minutes of news. (And I'm not even talking about this email I
| received from the kindergarten explaining to all parents that
| kids of this age aren't supposed to watch _Squid Game_ at
| home!)
|
| > [3]
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Francois_Boucher_-
| _B...
|
| > [4] https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/girl-
| with-a...
|
| What's wrong with those two? These are innocent painting of
| naked people (also children have no sense of pudency before
| way after kindergarten so they just _can 't_ see the problem
| with this)
| shadilay wrote:
| Context is dead because AI content moderation is infinitely
| cheaper than human moderation. It's time to end the tyranny of
| centralized services.
| tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote:
| Well, they already can plug their website into the
| decentralized www. What they want is to tap into an existing
| large audience.
| shadilay wrote:
| Are you saying that an institution has to market itself to
| potential customers in order to exist and has to follow
| them to where they are?
|
| The aim here is to develop interoperability so users have
| the option of thousands of networks without lock in.
| dymk wrote:
| Other way around. Cultural changes have driven companies to
| build broad catch-all moderation because that's what the
| loudest demand.
| shadilay wrote:
| There is always a problem when you have to apply one set of
| standards globally. Ideally there would be far more
| censorship but it would only affect decentralized
| communities of ~150. Smaller groups can set rules to suit
| themselves, less so with billions of users.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| I don't know. I used to want to be able to draw like Egon
| Schiele. Back when I was in art school they had an assignment
| where you drew a self portrait in the style of another artist
| so I did Egon. Didn't do the full nude but you know. The guy
| could draw. Still wish I could draw like that but wishes aren't
| paychecks.
|
| People taking the subway to work might not want to see all
| that.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| There is difference between adult and vulgar. Adult just means
| that it might have bad influence on children, nothing else.
| yosito wrote:
| I am not sure why seeing, for example, the statue of Michael
| Angelo, might have a bad influence on Children except
| according to some perverse religion where the human body is
| somehow bad.
| tarsinge wrote:
| This is kind of what the parent comment is pointing, non
| vulgar/non sexual nude being seen as having a bad influence
| is puritan.
| sebow wrote:
| I don't think it's necessarily about being puritan.
|
| If images like these, which is by definition art, were what
| people posted on FB, Twitter, etc., then maybe to a degree they
| would be allowed on certain platforms.
|
| However the reality is that the vast majority is very hardcore
| material that should not be allowed. You either allow all or
| try to forbid everything, otherwise you end up in a mess since
| many people end up in the extremes, and the sensible content
| slowly fades away.If you're talking about the culture and
| society being puritan, I agree, but then again the access to
| information also drastically changed.To this you also include
| the fact that by definition facebook &co try to be very
| globalistic in nature, they also have to adapt to certain
| "societal norms"(thinking about the eastern ones), where people
| are way more puritan.
|
| Imo such art being displayed on OF is kind of a shame and a
| disgrace to those artists, considering the kind of material
| being posted there.
| stayux wrote:
| As an artist I avoid sharing over the internet oil nudes,
| anatomy sketches or artistic nude photography. I made the last
| attempt in early 2013 trough Instagram. Quickly realizing the
| big mistake I deleted my account and never come back. This are
| the new times. We will adapt as always.
| itronitron wrote:
| One positive aspect of that is that an artist could
| effectively prevent the sharing of their work on social media
| by including nudes in the work.
| [deleted]
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| What happened?
| disneygibson wrote:
| I'm glad that nude artwork is filtered out from the mainstream,
| because if it weren't, the art world would become even more
| faddish and attention-seeking. I can't even search YouTube for
| recipes or offgrid videos anymore, because the top results are
| always a woman in a sexualized pose.
|
| It's okay to like boundaries. Everything doesn't need to be
| blared in your face all the time. Saying this doesn't make me a
| Puritan, it makes me in line with most of the people on earth.
| djbusby wrote:
| > makes me in line with most of the people on earth.
|
| But why is your text grey?
| sp332 wrote:
| I mean, some art is adult!
|
| Anyway it's less of a moral thing and more economical. Facebook
| sells ads next to user content. Anything that advertisers are
| unwilling to risk appearing next to is on thin ice.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Nudity and sexual content was always subject to suppression and
| censorship, it's just that "fine art" got a free exception for
| nudity for reasons that I've never seen adequately explained
| but are almost certainly to do with class.
|
| (The nude-but-not-sexual viewpoint is pretty valid, but some of
| the fine art is definitely sexual once you know the context,
| and some of it was controversial in its time e.g.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_D%C3%A9jeuner_sur_l%27herbe )
| imtringued wrote:
| Boring interpretation: Artists are really good at drawing
| human bodies and it turns out that human bodies are naked
| unless you draw them clothes.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Nudity and sexual content was always subject to
| suppression and censorship_
|
| Source? To my reading, this is a decisively late
| Christian/Puritan perspective on sex and the human body.
| retrac wrote:
| As far as I can tell, every human culture has _some_ taboos
| about these things. In my readings, I 've never heard of a
| culture where the base state is nudity and this is
| unremarkable. Even in cultures where we think they're nude,
| they're still working their own modesty standards. I am
| reminded how in some traditional New Guinean cultures, the
| males wear nothing but a gourd to cover the genitalia. But
| they're very shy without the gourds. Similarly, there isn't
| a single culture ever documented (to the best of my
| knowledge) where lovers don't usually seek some degree of
| privacy.
|
| Of course, exactly what counts as nude (or public
| lovemaking) and just how draconian the repercussions for
| transgression are, varies greatly.
| ummwhat wrote:
| Also noteworthy, humans seem to be the only species
| concerned with privacy of sexual matters.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Hmm, define privacy.
|
| Some snails mate while hanging down from a tree branch by
| a thread of slime. That's about as private as a snail can
| get.
| pjc50 wrote:
| I knew I shouldn't have made a categorical statement, but
| it's been the rule rather than the exception everywhere
| with a printing press. Even the much vaunted US freedom of
| the press ran into the Comstock laws.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Nudity and sexual content was always subject to suppression
| and censorship, it's just that "fine art" got a free
| exception for nudity for reasons that I've never seen
| adequately explained but are almost certainly to do with
| class.
|
| This is true only for very unusual definitions of "always"
| and/or "fine art"; history is more than Victorian England.
| teddyh wrote:
| _He knew in his heart that spinning upside down around a pole
| wearing a costume you could floss with definitely was not
| Art, and being painted lying on a bed wearing nothing but a
| smile and a small bunch of grapes was good solid Art, but
| putting your finger on why this was the case was a bit
| tricky._
|
| _"No urns," he said at last._
|
| _"What urns?" said Nobby._
|
| _"Nude women are only Art if there's an urn in it," said
| Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added:
| "Or a plinth. Best is both, o'course. It's a secret sign,
| see, that they put in to say that it's Art and okay to look
| at."_
|
| _"What about a potted plant?"_
|
| _"That's okay if it's in an urn."_
|
| -- Thud (2005), Terry Pratchett
| ahazred8ta wrote:
| "The Ankh-Morpork Fine Art Appreciation Society, hem hem.
| It's just men paintin' pictures of young wimmin in the
| nudd. Some of them don't even have any paint on their
| brushes, you know. Shameful." -- Guards! Guards! (1989)
| tisthetruth wrote:
| Haha the end result of being conditioned to wear shorts to the
| beach.
|
| In the future people won't even look at each other anymore. It
| will be taboo.
| kome wrote:
| We who? it's the Americans.
|
| Those puritan standards for art are far from universal. In
| fact, they don't even cross the Atlantic well.
|
| That's what cultural imperialism is about: projecting one set
| of values as universal and natural, when it's really not.
|
| And that's the problem with having a big media/technology (de
| facto) monopoly, all located in one hegemonic country.
| vmception wrote:
| well Austria / Europe hasn't
|
| Its just the platforms in a country populated and founded by
| ideological and religious extremists kicked out of Europe
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Austria is fairly Catholic for European standards, but
| Vienna, the capital, is a major exception. It had a "sexually
| liberated", freethinking and bohemian reputation already in
| the 19th century.
|
| Much like the USA, Europe does not fit into neat boxes made
| of stereotypes.
| vmception wrote:
| I was waiting for this comment
|
| What I was really trying to do was mention the areas of
| Europe that _are_ either "sexually liberated" or apathetic
| to sexuality and equally wont bother anybody or weakly say
| "it's not my opinion it's the advertisers!" because the
| advertisers don't care either
|
| I wasn't aiming to imply or say the entire subcontinent is
| like that
|
| Not sure a better way to do that, even with your
| observation
| [deleted]
| matt_morgan wrote:
| Laws in Europe are different in the US. I used to work at the
| Metropolitan Museum of Art, where I published the entire
| collection online. I got calls from colleagues in Europe amazed
| that we didn't worry about kids seeing stuff they shouldn't. We
| think the US is puritan but the decision that anything with merit
| can't be judged obscene actually protects us.
| vmception wrote:
| protip: _nothing_ gets judged as legally obscene in the US as
| nobody wants the actual decisive court case. Supreme Court has
| left a carveout that things can distinctly be considered
| obscene, but nobody has gone that far. they made _new_
| carveouts for child sexual depictions even it not passing the
| obscenity test. More recently, a man was sued under copyright
| laws for pirating pornography and their defense was that
| because the work was obscene it could not be have any copyright
| restrictions, of course since the law firms suing over piracy
| are just spraying and praying, they don 't want an actual
| trial. This area is not resolved and likely won't ever be.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _nothing gets judged as legally obscene in the US as nobody
| wants the actual decisive court case_
|
| There are a lot of court cases on obscenity, some of which
| hold decisively [1].
|
| > _a man was sued under copyright laws for pirating
| pornography and their defense was that because the work was
| obscene it could not be have any copyright
| restrictions...since the law firms suing over piracy are just
| spraying and praying, they don 't want an actual trial_
|
| Nonsense. Porn companies regularly go to court to protect
| their IP [2]. (To your example, in which venue was your
| defendant defending himself if not in a court?)
|
| [1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prose
| cut...
|
| [2] https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/porn-piracy-forbidden-to-
| set...
| vmception wrote:
| Everything in your [1] source says obscenity itself gets
| further and further diluted, and that the judges decisively
| say "obscenity exists" but are not trying cases themselves
| on obscenity grounds. and then stops before the year 2002.
| that is a laughable source as it doesn't even know what
| happened in the final court case mentioned and then lacks
| 20 years of data. this is a chronology, on this topic the
| relevant cases being the later ones, even in your article.
|
| I mentioned one specific court case where one specific
| defendant was sued over one specific piece of content,
| where one specific plaintiff didn't move forward with the
| case after being presented with a defense, because they are
| serial plaintiffs that only want settlements. Your own
| source [2] says serial plaintiffs is what is happening! Not
| even sure where to start with you. The only point being
| about _why_ there is not a decisive case on that particular
| defense because it never reached a judge.
|
| _More specifically_ , Liuxia Wong v Hard Drive Productions
| is a countercase, referring to Hard Drive Productions
| demanding a settlement from Liuxia for infringing on their
| copyright of a porn movie. Liuxia sued them back saying it
| wasn't copyrightable. What you will find online are motions
| to dismiss, which were denied. Then you'll find there was a
| settlement
|
| https://casetext.com/case/liuxia-wong-v-hard-drive-prods-1
|
| short discussion (about why its largely unsatisfactory in
| establishing any precedent and reinforces how there likely
| won't be any precendent on this matter as nobody is
| interested in taking it above trial courts):
| https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/case-closed-
| won...
| thinkingemote wrote:
| When traditional cultural institutions openly back the
| pornography industry what does that say about the future of
| culture?
| seattle_spring wrote:
| It says that they're no longer going to cater exclusively to
| people who get their worldview from a multi-millenia old
| fictional book.
| sp332 wrote:
| Excluding a basic part of human experience (nude bodies, let
| alone sexuality) really puts a crimp on artistic expression.
| Facebook is a cultural dead end.
| version_five wrote:
| That eroticism has been and will be part of culture?
| elmicha wrote:
| > There are 2527 videos about "nudity" on Vimeo, the home for
| high quality videos and the people who love them.
|
| https://vimeo.com/tag:nudity
| jikbd wrote:
| They could also host these on their own website, but of course
| that doesn't sound as flashy.
|
| We are subject to American Puritanism because Europe has failed
| time and time again to create competitive social networks because
| of regulations and scarce access to capital. Better complain
| about that.
| samus wrote:
| Silicon Valley has the first-mover advantage in social networks
| and pretty much all other sectors in IT technology. Competitors
| in Europe only exist because of niches, sometimes created by
| regulation and mostly by cultural differences. However, the
| (mostly) laissez-faire approach to access to information makes
| it difficult to put constraints on social networks. China
| managed to do so thanks to their Great Firewall. The GDPR is
| too little, too late, and the public is too used now to scatter
| factoids about their private lives on the internet.
| qualudeheart wrote:
| They could also have self hosted a website and accepted payments
| through Monero or Bitcoin. Why rely on Onlyfans as another third
| party site?
| jackson1442 wrote:
| They could have "just" made their own payment processor too.
| It's not feasible to build an entire platform for every
| project.
| inetsee wrote:
| I knew very little about OnlyFans, and when I went looking for
| more information I found this line on Wikipedia:
|
| "The website [OnlyFans] has been criticized for hosting child
| sexual abuse material, though the National Center on Sexual
| Exploitation reports negligible numbers of incidents in
| comparison to Facebook."
| jamesmishra wrote:
| If you want to post on OnlyFans, you have to verify your
| account with a government-issued photo ID.
|
| I imagine this requirement makes OnlyFans a very unattractive
| website for child pornographers and other people guilty of
| federal crimes.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| All public services need to get out of facebook and all social
| media, otherwise they re not respecting the privacy of their
| citizens.
| Bayart wrote:
| I see a lot about China trying to export its censorship, but
| little about how America is already doing it at scale throughout
| much of the world.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| It's not america's fault, but the rest of the world's.
| Unfortunately europe has rendered itself completely dependent
| on US media to the point where i don't know any sites where i
| could discuss matters from european perspective. There are only
| local language sites.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Well there's always Hacker News! I'm European, ask me
| anything.
| watwut wrote:
| Why the local language sites don't count? It is not like
| Americans discussed American issues in Italian, Americans
| talk about it in their own local language.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| because europeans talk different languages. You re more
| likely to talk to european entrepreneurs from other
| countries here than in any other forum.
| Bayart wrote:
| Might isn't right.
| imgabe wrote:
| So, they're doing this because the images constantly get flagged
| and reported on other social media. It doesn't seem that hard to
| let users set a NSFW flag that determines whether they're ok with
| nsfw content in their feed. Doesn't Reddit do this?
| version_five wrote:
| Reddit uses the NSFW flag as bait to get you to sign up for the
| app. Any time you click on a link to such content, you are told
| have to install the app to see it.
| diogenesjunior wrote:
| Maybe this is a mobile only thing? I can view NSFW content on
| desktop (both old + new reddit) while being logged out and
| logged in without a prompt to download anything.
| version_five wrote:
| Thanks I'll have to try that, I think I've only ever used
| it on my phone. I recently encountered that app-wall and
| had even googled how to get around it and couldn't find any
| information on it.
| diogenesjunior wrote:
| Yeah, they are very sneaky with their methods.
| grey413 wrote:
| Reddit does that... but also scrubbed pretty much all nude and
| sexual subreddits off their "all" and "popular" feeds to
| appease advertisers.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| I mean i actually get that...you don't want random casual
| viewers accidentally seeing graphic images. Even an NSFW tag
| (which in reddit is often abused on definitely not-NSFW
| content) won't deter them.
|
| IMO as long as reddit still has those images, even if they're
| behind subreddits which proclaim "WARNING: SEE AT YOUR OWN
| RISK", that's good enough.
| ImaCake wrote:
| In certain countries having a specific flag come up on your
| reddit feed is dangerous. So NSFW applies to things like
| that too. I agree with your opinion on how reddit deals
| with NSFW issues.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| And occasionally nuking them when they cross an unspecified
| line that must not be crossed.
| sp332 wrote:
| I think Twitter allows this, but Facebook does not.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Twitter does. Facebook and therefore instagram have the "no
| female-presenting nipples" rule, and you're not allowed adult
| content even though they know you're an adult.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-16 23:01 UTC)