Hacker News Reader

Comment by mymythisisthis | Hacker News Reader

There is nothing wrong with sex. There is nothing wrong with nudity.

Tumblr didn’t say there’s something wrong with sex and nudity. They only said there’s now something wrong with posting pictures of sex & nudity on Tumblr, like most of the millions of other forums online that aren’t focused primarily on porn.

Pornography has been a significant part of tumblr for a long time, and the community that has evolved around it is protesting being removed from their platform of choice. The fact that there are millions of other forums where this isn't a significant component is an argument TO allow pornography, not to remove it.

And there's nothing wrong with a company pruning content it doesnt want to host or be associated with. Tumblr is ambiguously painted as a porn site by many internet communities because of how much crap is on there. Yet this decision has been met with moral outrage as if tumblr is doing something "evil".

It's a symptom of the the pathologies brought on by the current centralised state of web 2.0. Something like this couldn't happen so easily with a more decentralised tumblr-like system.

Of course, decentralised systems like that have their own problems, and there are reasons they're not very widely used. But in principle, a technological solution (make it easier to use/run federated, decentralised alternatives) seems preferable to a social or legal one. Assuming it can be done.

There is nothing wrong with a platform disallowing it, and requiring you hosting it elsewhere.

Nobody is saying Verizon isn't allowed to do this. The entire argument is that Verizon _shouldn't_ do this.

Yeah, I said the same thing when Cloudflare was deplatforming white supremacists [1]. That's the thing about free speech: you have to defend it when you don't agree with the content, not only when it's speech you agree with.

I have since changed my stance after that event: platforms should deplatform everything they don't like. It's the only way people will advocate for solutions that support free speech in all its forms.

EDIT: Everyone running their own phpBB instance is looking pretty smart right now. To own your content/speech/destiny, you have to own your platform.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031922

I support free speech but I also don't want flat-earther or nazi-supporting opinion columns in my newspapers/websites. Or at least not more than one a week or so. I don't want to spend my time consuming rubbish, or having a lot of conversations why those columns are rubbish.

The columns can be published sure, but in some fringe publications that I don't have to know about.

I also don't like the idea that all people with rubbish ideas should be able to demand distribution via any popular network/publication/institution. However when someone with rubbish ideas is already known, refusing debates or stuff like that is just silly.

Also it's good to remember that free speech means you shouldn't be persecuted for your words. Not that you can't be disliked or made fun of.

> I support free speech but I also don't want flat-earther or nazi-supporting opinion columns in my newspapers/websites.

Some people don't want nudity in their platforms as well, so be prepared for those sites to deplatform with extreme prejudice.

Tumblr users publishing the sexual and nude content that they do makes them what the general public would consider a fringe publication. It should be unsurprising that Verizon/Oath intend to nuke all of it.

It's a _little_ surprising because of how "decentralized" Tumblr is, more like reddit. Reddit has all sorts of nsfw subreddits, but users have to actively seek them out. Tumblr has the same sort of model, where each user is in control of their own blog that others would have to find. Simply marking a blog or post as NSFW (much like marking a subreddit as NSFW) should have been enough for Verizon. Purging the platform seems completely unnecessary.

It's more than a little surprising, considering the amount of content that is of this variety. It's a bit like Verizon buying Hustler, then objecting to all the sex.

> It's a bit like Verizon buying Hustler, then objecting to all the sex.

In this situation, it's more like Verizon buying a bookshop (Yahoo) and half the basement is erotica (Tumblr).

Arguably, though perhaps I am unwise to post this here (if so, it is a sorry state of affairs..), the idea that there is "nothing wrong with nudity" is less controversial (more true, even!) than the idea that there is "nothing wrong" with white supremacy.

Morality is subjective, which is why the freedom of speech is (almost entirely) absolute (except in cases of causing immediate harm, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater when fire doesn't exist).

Others, including countries in the EU, would remove the "immediate" part from the equation. Hate speech has been criminally prosecuted there.

I live in the United States, and therefore not subject to such infringements on my rights. While well intentioned (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the cliche goes), it's a slippery slope towards tyranny when those in power or the majority are deciding what speech is undesirable, and prosecuting you for it (look to Russia and their persecution of the LGBT; all it takes is public opinion to swing for you to be disenfranchised as a citizen when you decide what speech to regulate).

Europe sometimes makes me chuckle; Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right. But hate speech is icky, so not so inalienable!

The social contract and public policy is a balance. I do not endorse hate speech, but I am vehemently against restricting speech. Undesirable speech is the cost of a free society.

Yelling "pedophiles in the pizzeria" (for example) hasn't yet caused a mass causality event, but it's coming. Yelling "funded by George Soros" didn't cause one because the bomber was incompetent, but it was close.

The gray band here is narrow enough to see across.

No, a bomber plating bombs almost caused a causality event.

Take it up with the US Supreme Court.

This would be the task of someone who was kicked off a platform and believes it violates the Constitution. I haven't had it happen, so I have no standing to pursue such a case.

I have a hard time equating Tumblr with CloudFlare. The latter is purely a utility, like a phone company, while the former is a website. While I understand that websites are also considered utilities by some (and the irony that Tumblr is now owned by a phone company is not lost on me), it seems like a blurrier line than for CloudFlare.

There are about a dozens directions they could want to take Tumblr in to grow it that all require it being porn free.

...and there are dozens more that don't. Look at Reddit.

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with users saying:

"I have enjoyed this use case that is currently allowed. I dislike the fact that this use case will be going away. If it does happen, I am much less likely to use the site. I think you should reconsider your decision."

Tumblr, of course, is free to disregard this feedback, but I cannot see how there is anything even slightly wrong with concerned users providing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com