Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

Lol. In the real world, "child porn" is just about the most difficult thing to define and enforce. Which country's law? The most restrictive? (No bare skin on anyone) Or the most open? (Nude children ok.) What if the person looks underage but isnt? Or is underage but looks older? How do we handle art? What about existing content (hollywood)? What about political expression (naturists/nudists)? For the people that actually deal with these decisions "child porn" is a useless term. That term is thown around as if everyone knows what it means. In reality there us no real agreement.

View on HN

It's not difficult though. Just take the highest common denominator, then apply your own rules - in this case Facebook's own rules. 18+ is common in most countries, so that's a safe guideline. FB disallows porn / nudity, so, also easy enough (should be able to filter out 99% via image recognition). It's not difficult to set guidelines there, and IDK why you're trying to make it sound like it is. FB doesn't need to be tolerant or skirt on the edge in this regard. Nobody does. There is no reason why anyone would post nudity of any sorts on Facebook.

So.. what is "nudity"? Bare chests on men? Topless women? Bodypaint? Exactly how small can a bikini before it isnt really there.

I wont even attempt to define "porn".

I figured that if I didn’t mention child porn I would be downvoted. But it looks like that’s happening anyway.

If I had things my way, no piece of information would be illegal. Child porn, nuclear weapon plans, whatever, I don’t care, it should all be legal.

But I accept that it’s a fringe position, though a completely tenable and consistent one. It’s all information and I think it’s ridiculous to try and censor something that only exists in the abstract.

Moreover, once you start censoring you will never be able to stop. Even though I’m sure people will do bad things with information, I believe that history has shown that the good will outweigh the bad.

It is consistent but not tenable.

And, as history shows, censorship waxes and wanes in every society; you certainly can stop censoring things that once were censored.

>though a completely tenable

I don't think everyone having access to nuclear plans and biological weapons is tenable. Those things aren't abstract.

Your position is consistent but for most people not tenable. It’s hard to claim that the “information” as you put it is abstract when it exists in video format that can be watched. When you make statement like

Moreover, once you start censoring you will never be able to stop.

Your position become less credible. You need to argue that the censoring that is currently being proposed or being done is indeed bad for society. Or that we’d be better off without said censoring. Engaging in slippery slope style reasoning is not helpful.

But I accept that it’s a fringe position, though a completely tenable and consistent one.

Acceptance of child porn isn't tenable, that literally creates a market for rape. Sure, you may be believe markets are an unstoppable force in human nature and that suffering is inevitable, but those are just the axiomatic beliefs you've chosen to subscribe to. If you don't care about the imposition of suffering on others that these entail, are you willing to accept the same degree of insecurity for your own person?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com