Comment by laser | Hacker News Reader

Comment by laser | Hacker News Reader

The suppression of the viewing of the human body in its natural form, especially in art, is one of the deepest perversions of society. It seems so intrinsically tied to the suppression and control of pleasure by institutions seeking dominance over human life. When you control access to the natural pleasures of life, you have control over the motivations and operations of that life. In prior times, when religions were the most powerful rulers of society, taboo ensured obedience to a system that enabled the powerful to rule, while as we so frequently see- violating the taboos beyond reason in far more perverse ways than unrestrained impulse motivates. Now that corporations have so strongly supplanted religion in the ruling of society, the suppression has moved from a place of religious principle, to one of purely pragmatic continuance of the dogma that maintains the status quo. Because why should Google have any philosophical position about the progression of society at all? It has under the conditions of the status quo become dominant, and so perhaps believes that its best interest lies in passively supporting the current system, no matter how fundamentally perverse it may be. But, this is a mistake. I know that Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as well as half of Google, run around naked in the Nevada desert every year, enjoying the beauty and freedom of the human body. So, to command the most powerful corporation in the world, and to know that our natural liberty is better than upholding millennia of repression, yet maintain it for a convenient profit without controversy, is if not evil, at least extraordinarily cowardly. If we want to transition from a society of repression and suffering to one of liberation and bliss, there are fewer more fundamental places to start than in the acceptance of our own natural bodies and the pleasurable practices in which they engage.

I don't think sex is particularly messianic, but I also don't see why censoring and policing nominally adult content should be Google's business - literally or metaphorically.

This is just one example from a growing list of questionable moral behaviour and outright abuse of monopoly power.

The political reality is that Google has serious trust and credibility issues on many fronts.

The more this kind of thing happens, the more likely they are to turn into antitrust issues.

It is also an example of the USA shoving down its morals to the rest of the world. Especially areas where partial nudity is accepted. One of the very first things in life a baby does is searching the nipple (which is darker than the rest of the breast) and sucking on it. Breast are very much part of nature and human life, yet we censor it as if it is something which shouldn't be seen. At the same time, we have no issues with all kind of violent games. Hello double standard! That you wanna have that in the USA is up to you Americans, but let me as European at least apply the norms of my country. You would not expect anything less as American!

But yeah... Civ cultural victory, and all that...

In EU there's already been complaints about Google only allowing their Play Store and hampering 3rd party stores, and Google lost that lawsuit.

It's the myth of "Community Standards" or, to be more precise "Contemporary Community Standards", which is a concept in American law and, I'm sure, the laws of other countries, which states that:

> Jurors are the judges of contemporary community standards, based upon their knowledge of the norms of the community from which they may come. The juror must also decide whether the "average person" in applying such standards would find that the disputed material appeals to "prurient interest" or is "patently offensive." Experts testimony may be used to testify about the nature of the contemporary community standards,' but such testimony is not constitutionally required.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contemporary-community-sta...

Back in the Dark Twentieth, you could maintain the polite fiction that even broadcast media was bound by these standards, as the FCC would go after local affiliate stations, not the mothership, for violating broadcast regulations. In theory, and, to some extent, in practice, local stations could regulate what got shown, so as to prevent what you mention: Distant townies trying to impose their standards on the locals.

This breaks down in the Internet Era, of course, because, while a website may claim to have Community Standards, a website is not a community. A website cannot have Community Standards, Contemporary or otherwise, because the people it has contributing to it are a pseudo-random mix of some vaguely-defined demographic, and, as you yourself show, can and will differ sharply on precisely the kinds of things Community Standards presume a strong majority in a community can agree on.

The Liberalization of the world has ripped a lot of veils off the cultural standards we used to abide by, and turned polite fictions, the kinds of things all the adults in the room could admit privately were not laws of nature but laws of local social norms, into, at long last, simple fictions, as might be found in a storybook. "Community Standards" is one such polite fiction, and it's been replaced by the standards of the platform owners.

We can remove the platform owners by federating and decentralizing, but "Community Standards", as-was, isn't coming back. Communication is far too important to allow the previous geographic segregation to reassert itself.

The US has pretty liberal standards on pornography and art...I mean most pornography and such art is produced in the US itself. Tasteful nudity in the US is not frowned upon, perhaps in public, yes...but I don't know of many countries where that isn't frowned upon outside beaches. I'm not sure what you're referring to, or if you are that familiar with the US. The UK on the other hand and some other European countries...and many Eastern countries are battling porn/nudity if not outright banning it. With the UK even requiring you to register with your ISP. The US's FCC does have some stringent guidelines, but their restrictions only apply to OTA. What countries have a more liberal view? France? Germany? Spain, a few small countries here and there, maybe? Otherwise...not many others.

> I mean most pornography and such art is produced in the US itself

Most US pornography is produced in San Fernando Valley - I don't think you can generalize porn/nude art across the US so perhaps you ought to have said "California has pretty liberal standards on pornography and art".

Janet Jackson's Nipplegate wouldn't have been a big deal in any of the European countries you mentioned, but Americans were scandalized.

Most porn USED to be produced in the SF Valley, I used to work in the industry. A whole series of new laws forced the industry out of California. My old boss sells insurance now. A lot of modern porn is now produced in eastern europe. Basically no new porn is produced in SFV, only the softcore companies like Vivid are still in business here.

I know free porn on the web was debilitating to the industry; however, to my knowledge no US state is close to CA's production, even now; which was my point, it's not like there's a whole lot of (professional) porn coming out of OH, MS or IL

In Kansas you must have a license to produce porn legally (to do so otherwise is a felony that district attorneys vigorously prosecute), and the state government doesn't operate an office to issue those licenses.

My experience is actually the reverse. USA weirdly conservative about nudity - to the point that Americans often confuse nudity and pornography (as you had done in your post replying to a person talking about nonsexual nudity).

I don't believe I confused pornography with nudity, I am merely stating that pornography and nudity are both fairly accepted outlets in the US. I do believe that many foreign people (largely Europeans) believe the US is very conservative in regards to nudity and are just flat wrong...likely because they have very limited experience in the US.

I see no reason to think this has anything to do with the US. For instance Steam recently decided to allow openly sexualized games. The relevance there being that they've absolutely made sure that they're not going to run into legal issues in the US doing that. And it turns out, they're not.

So this is coming from Google. Their motivation is much harder to discern. Related to advertising? Avoiding store segregation as they expand into e.g. various far more conservative Asian or Islamic nations? Trying to create a 'Disney-Esque' image for Android as opposed to being that naughty back alley alternative to Apple? Maybe it was an algorithm or even human gone awry. Lots of possibilities, and we'll likely never know which it was - even if they choose to respond to this.

I think it's clearly advertisers, tumblr and reddit are going through a similar cleanup as they mature. You start with free principled user focused values, grow to a critical mass, then disneyfy for that sweet cash. This leaves a vacuum for a new entrant to go through the same process. Maybe that sweet spot between basement project and corporate success is where ultra freedom is destined to remain.

I think this mechanism is the core of why we feel a vague sadness when sites like github get bought by big corps. You tacitly know it's the beginning of the end on some dimension.

You can thank SESTA/FOSTA for all this. Past precedents don't matter anymore; there will be heavy-handed policing now everywhere, if only to firmly establish intent should it ever come to court.

Especially when it's done in such a way that favors the bigger players - he gives two perfect examples in Instagram and Reddit - reddit especially is well known to have nearly as much pornography as the "tube sites" do, and one need only click "I am an adult" to view it.

Just pointing out that Google's not the sole offender here. Apple is known the be stricter on this

"but I also don't see why censoring and policing nominally adult content should be Google's business"

Google Play is like a shopping mall, a privately owned public space.

There will be standards.

If you put up some questionable ads in your local mall, you'll get asked to have them taken down.

Those spaces are not intellectual zones, or bastions of expression. They are public/common areas and subject to some kind of basic rules of expression.

Your local library has some rules.

So does your school.

So does your University.

There are infinitely url's that you can use to access content according to a different set of norms, you're free to use them at any time.

This thread exhibits one of the failing aspects of intellectual idealism, in that it so often fails to take into consideration the community - you know - 'other people's opinions'.

Bad analogy. It's a custom shopping mall that is built just for you. If you want a fully uncensored experience you should get it.

I believe this to be one of the fundamental questions that will charaterize this new century: How is humankind going to cope with so much of humankind? How to deal with "someone's wrong on the internet"?

There seem to be these possible answers: a) Everyone agrees to one narrative and moral standard. b) Everyone sticks to their little bit of the world and guards it with walls c) Live and let live and do not feed the trolls, cause haters will hate. So be it.

Any one of a) or b) put to extremes wouldn't make a nice world to live in.

It would either come with a global harmonization effort that will feel opressive. (This is what you are feeling in this instance)

Or it would be a world comprised of iron curtains. With whatever harmonization and opression going on within each region.

In any way, c) seems to me the most favorable outcome. But I have no idea how to get there since a) and b) appear to be the popular choices nowadays.

The problem with 'live and let live' is that you either choose to let people hurt other people, or you resolve to stop it.

If you resolve to stop it, then you have to deal with that problem that everyone thinks different things are harmful.

Some people honestly believe that porn is harmful to society and the individuals within it. It's not enough to just say "it's not harmful" because they believe it.

And I can't even say that it's not. Promiscuous sex transmits diseases that absolutely do harm people, and there are psychological aspects that I'm not even knowledgeable enough to start giving an opinion on.

Firstly, porn != sex. There's no disease that can be transmitted through pornography that I know of.

Secondly, the human race will die out pretty fast without sex.

Food may kill you too, yet it's still needed so we can live™.

So clearly this isn't an useful criterion.

Self- or consensual "harm" should be excluded from anybody else's business. Most sexual activity fits under this category. It's not a difficult problem.

> The problem with 'live and let live' is that you either choose to let people hurt other people, or you resolve to stop it.

Has the choice not already been made with westphalian sovereignty?

I think the problem arises due to a very small portion of society that take it too far. The association between nudity and savagery has been grandfathered in. Even if the nudity is pure, people are explicitly or unintentionally afraid, and for good reason: we have children and death in porn. No reasonable person wants that, so we restrict the lot. ML probably could solve this specific problem, but we are too afraid to loosen the borders.

But you also understand their motivation, right? They don't want any boycott campaigns and protests from the loud minority, both inside the company and outside of it.

it is not really google’s fault. google is obeying american norms. if they were to allow naked pictures you can be sure some senators etc. will be outraged and start their pitchforks. the tragedy here is that google’s dominant position means all other countries have to follow american norms.

You can find pornography easily with many Google products, their search app included. I hear no outcry.

it's likely an extension of dominant males restricting reproductive access to other males. Interestingly this is not a feature of every species, Bonobo monkeys have a matriarchal society and go quite a bit beyond grooming in order to maintain social relationships within their group.

The suppression of pornography is one of the deepest perversions of society? I sincerely hope such views, which are actually themselves perverted, are not prevalent.

>progression of society

how is reducing ourselves to animals running around naked with no impulse control "progress"? Is pleasure your only goal in life? The hard work and years of effort to make scientific breakthroughs sure as hell isn't fun, but the results are beneficial

>If we want to transition from a society of repression and suffering to one of liberation and bliss

"repression" is what makes society possible. If every one is free to do what they want and seek their own pleasure with no societal control, your only rule is might makes right.

Pretty much every religious rule you're criticizing was for the benefit of the weak. The strongest can just crack your skull and do as they please without any rules holding them back

Have you wondered why extremely successful cultures (Christian, Muslim) have/had rules against public nudity? I had, and my (layman) conclusions were that public nudity creates too much sexual tension, and that is bad for stability of society. Hence, societies just function better without public nudity.

Without any evidence to back up your claim, this is simply a case of correlation != causation. If we follow your example, then the subjugation of women also leads to a better functioning society. Do you think that is also true?

Going back to the nudity example, have you ever been to a topless beach? As an American who grew up in the religious south, my first trip to a topless beach in Europe was interesting for a bit but then just became normal. There was not any growing 'sexual tension'.

I have friends who are nudists and they say the same thing. It becomes normal quickly, and then it's not even a thing.

> Without any evidence to back up your claim, this is simply a case of correlation != causation. If we follow your example, then the subjugation of women also leads to a better functioning society.

It's a bit stronger than that, because not only all successful cultures banned public nudity - also all cultures that tried public nudity failed.

Re: topless beach - going to a topless beach once a while vs living in a society where everybody around you is naked all the time are two different things. Imagine a workplace where your female colleagues (if you're a straight male) are naked. There's a reason why some of the best schools in the world still separate pupils by sex.

> Imagine a workplace where your ... colleagues are naked.

I just imagined that - and indeed, you're right that the possibility is quite offensive to my personal taste, and even frankly disquieting. But whereas you might try to explain this as the result of "too much sexual tension", I would instead place the blame on its very opposite. (And the fact that the colleagues might be of the gender I'm occasionally attracted to does not improve things one bit.)

Have you wondered why extremely successful cultures today are the ones that tend to be less rather than more prudish?

I'd say the weakening of prudishness is recent phenomena and it's too soon for it to have an impact on society's success. We'd need to wait a couple hundred years to see where it leads.

Not true, the US is quite prudish and successful. The OP I'd a fine example; if Google would be French or Japanese I doubt this would be an issue.

US is far less prudish than median. If you compare it to other developed countries, sure, it's on the more prudish end. But if you compare it to most everywhere else, it's a whole different story.

For example, Sayyid Qutb - the grandfather of modern Salafism - became radicalized after visiting US in 1940s, and observing its culture. Here's how he describes it in his writings:

"The American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs -- and she shows all this and does not hide it."

"They danced to the tunes of the gramophone, and the dance floor was replete with tapping feet, enticing legs, arms wrapped around waists, lips pressed to lips, and chests pressed to chests. The atmosphere was full of desire."

A brief reading of Wikipedia states that the ancient Egyptians and Greeks didn't have much against nudity. Minimal clothing was worn in Egypt. And the Greeks even said that other countries disliked their nakedness: "generally in countries which are subject to the barbarians, the custom is held to be dishonourable; lovers of youths share the evil repute in which philosophy and naked sports are held, because they are inimical to tyranny;"

Edit: Reading further, it's saying that public topless-ness was common in Japan until the American occupation after WWII, so there's a more recent example as well.

So you don't mind wading through some 'rape porn' while you try to find the next bus time? Because there's nary any real definition of 'art'.

Your position is nice, but it's academic.

We could even disagree on the academic points, but it would be futile: topless women and men with their dongle's hanging out are not going to be in Google Play, just like you won't see them on street signs or in shopping malls in the US, Germany, or most other places frankly.

I don't buy any of the historical (i.e. religious) or national (i.e. USA) arguments: in the UK and Sweden, they are banning scantily clad women in ads on the basis of 'sexism' for god's sake. And even if they weren't, you're not going to find men with their dongle's in your Taxi ad anytime soon either - anywhere on earth basically.

In reality, there will always have to be a line drawn somewhere.

Tumblr became a porn haven, and for whatever reason, they didn't want that, so they moved it.

If there were no recourse, then I think there'd be an issue here, but there are basically infinity recourses. All you hav to do is type a url into your browser to get your 'Heavy Metal' avatar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com