Porn is not advertiser friendly. Hence the need for a decentralized web and decentralized payments.
I'm not supporting this, just trying to explain why not actually posting porn is no workaound to satisfy the ads company.
They are being banned for who they are, even if the decision is being delegated by Instagram to angry members of the public.
For instance, the article mentions Cinderella Jewels, which has a new account showcasing her "pole journey". NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/p/B4xM_b4AtC-/ and her Youtube banner: https://yt3.ggpht.com/L6jM6xMK_QBRZieP8x8f8_f6x1BYQi30_K7WGL...
Here is Bloggeronpole showing "body positivity", while complaining they won't let her post a video of her working out in a bikini NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2td-HPgzDP/
Here is Ginger Banks' instagram, who claimed in the article: "I've never posted explicit images on Instagram. But even a picture of me wearing leggings could be extremely provocative to someone, and worthy of being reported": NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/thegingerbanks/ and here you can support her art, for just 100$ a month you can help end the stigma that is surrounding sex and view art that makes you question yourself: https://www.patreon.com/GingerBanks (NSFW).
Once the wealthy and powerful know everything there is to know about you, they can take any arbitrary decisions they want against you - in all places, online or offline. They can effectively "ban you from society" just because you did something they may not like.
Worse yet, that "something" may be decided by an "AI" they created and there will be no recourse (people dealing with Google/Facebook "support" probably know what that means).
See also The Apple.
Wasn't sex outside marriage a felony in Utah until recently? Pretty sure the sharia wasn't applied there…
My point is that the American puritan roots are still alive and kicking, both in conservative circles obviously but also liberal circles with people getting "distressed" at the sight of any kind of eroticism in art or entertainment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat...
These are all clues that sex is taboo. We can't even have honest conversations about it and it causes a bit of obsession with it devoid of healthy attitudes.
> believe the polytheistic are much open minded regarding sexuality than the monotheistic ones
Not really, it depends on whatever religion. Hinduism, 3rd largest of all religions and largest polytheistic religion, makes a big deal about premarital virginity of women, at least in all the major branches/sects of it.
Though, taking Germany as an example, you might run into legal troubles if you make a nuisance of yourselves knowingly or on purpose. [1]
Americans are considered pretty prude, uptight, and christian fundamentalist when it comes sexuality here, while US citizens can have quite the culture shock and think us crazy. The laws surrounding sexuality are really just the tip of the iceberg.
How long did the drama over a nipple being shown during the egg ball final last?
This is what these “grand unified theories of American prudery” miss — the US isn’t a uniformly prude nation; it’s just a very large and diverse one. It contains people who are very prude as well as people who are the opposite — it contains people who write in to the FTC to complain about not-quite-nipples on TV, but it also contains the sort of people who thought that showing a 40 year old woman’s saggy boob during an afternoon football game was a good idea in the first place. It contains people who complain about porn, but it also contains most of the global porn industry.
There is a fine line between what is somewhat accepted and what not. And porn usually is on the other side of it.
You can see all of this. the "sex" has to walk a line so as not to become vulgar .... but a run-of-the-mill piece of art will get more attention if it is being modeled by a pretty woman or shirtless man than if shown alone. Or if it is of a nearly naked woman (but a nearly naked man is vulgar).
I don't know, the first two pages of Google if you enter "sex does not sell"? I could have linked contents, but I think I'll let you do the homework.
It is pretty obvious that it does at times, even if we are aware of the biases. Of course, getting it wrong hurts and there is lots of nuance.
...well gee, let's look what I wrote...
> ...I'm pretty sure that "sex sells" as a general statement has been debunked a while ago
See that bit about "as a general statement"? I never wrote that it _never_ sells.
No, but one just has to take a screenshot of exactly that and send it to brands for brands to pressure Instagram and co to drop pornstars. Most brands have very clear policies when it comes to ad space. These are the kind of policies that triggered the "adpocalypse" on YouTube a few years ago, where prominent advertisers dropped YouTube after being made aware (by the main stream press, the irony of this news article), that their products were advertised in the middle of sexually suggestive videos, terrorist videos and what not…
So it's funny the BBC is complaining about individuals reporting content they don't like on Instagram when outlets like the BBC did the exact same thing against YouTube a few years ago.
Is it really? We see this often said but usually no one links to any data.