Hacker News Reader

Comment by cowmix | Hacker News Reader

He championed civil and gay rights.

I think that some people in the recent years only sees him as a some porno-king, while, as Larry Flint, he was a leader on a lot of conflictual subjects. Some of the interviews in Playboy are also legendary (I am thinking about the one with Larry Page & Sergey Brin, and the one with Steve Jobs).

I guess nice of him to meet the lowest bar.

It wasn't the lowest bar in the 50s and 60s.

I'm sure if you were alive in the 1700s you'd be championing anti slavery, women's right to vote, etc right?

Depends where I would have been born. In which countries in 1700s did anyone have right to vote.

Republics included: France, Dutch, Northern Italy, Venice, Genoa, Poland, and of course the USA. England had its mix of monarchy and democracy.

The only thing that could be construed as sleazy are that the women were naked and he didn't settle down with one woman. He conducted business with respect and used his eventual notoriety for the greater good. If perhaps you don't want to be as hedonistic as he was, that's okay, but so far as I can tell he was not exploitive, manipulative or untruthful, which is what I would consider sleazy behavior.

If Arianna Huffington had nude chippendales style pictures separating the Huffington Post's stories or an entourage like this one every time she was photographed: http://www.gettyimages.com/event/vegas-magazine-launch-party... (obviously that's not Huffington, I'm using that as an example) - would you think any less of her as a writer and editor?

Would you think it's "sleazy"?

I don't know the history of it well, but the idea that it's hard to see what's "sleazy" about a magazine like Playboy is hard to buy.

Well said.

We clearly have different views on what sleaze is. Sleaze has nothing to do with sex or nudity in my mind.

I could concede it could be tacky or distasteful, but even that is subjective.

If Huffington had claimed to be the elegant and foremost professional news source and subsequently used nudity to sell papers then that would be sleazy. If they sold out their position of high viewership to sell advertising for cheap psuedolegal pharmaceuticals or fad diets and spin sites that would be far more sleazy. Huh. They do that.

In fact when I tried to confirm the crappy advertising practices of the Huff, it popped a new tab and an alert box as I tried to leave with another advert. I know that's normally the ad providers problem but how pertinent the timing.

Before it's said, yes I do realise most other news sites use similar advertising and I yet I still find the practice far more detestable than a magazine open about its love for nudity.

Nobody was ever under the illusion that Playboy was anything other than what it was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com