Forbidden fruit and all :)
Europeans fetishize what they can't have as much as anyone else. It doesn't always result in censorship to amplify the coveting.
The outcomes are just as often built on deep patriarchal control and objectification as anywhere else. I just like that across Europe you can get all of your carnal desires fulfilled in a regulated environment, or various levels of regulation, whatever you are feeling at the time.
for sure I thought ML tech already grew out of that phase where it cannot distinguish between an onion and a breast.
Now if this quality of AI is to be considered state of the art then the good news is that the Singularity is not to be expected soon.
or much more hilarious.
Needs more leetcode.
There's another ML problem right there. Humans vary.
Reddit has plenty of NSFW subreddits for example.
I am sure there are other options that can be done - restricting some content in some countries, restricting content for minors, and allowing adults other places to opt out or opt into nudity. I do not trust facebook to implement these well enough to appease governments and I think the prudish regulations align with Zuch's views on things. Not to mention that as long as folks use the service, they aren't really here to make folks happy. I'm not looking for change any time soon.
Facebook itself may also be unwilling to risk losing advertising from conservatively-aligned companies by allowing material that their conservative clients would find offensive.
Religious conservatives can cause tremendous brand damage if a megachurch pastor happens to 'find' something blasphemous that he can use to motivate his flock to up their donations that week. For most companies it's not worth the risk of stirring up these people and it would not be surprising if this is also the case with Facebook.
Not only does it free us from the more radical sort of bomb throwing islamic fundamentalist extremism, it also frees us from the more radical sort of female curve covering puritan fundamentalist extremism.
Facebook does not allow advertisers to use Zoomed in images of body parts to artificially inflate CTR and play with their ad algorithm.
The onion image that was banned has the exact contour of breasts viewed from above zoomed in.
Personally I'm in favor of modesty, and would prefer not to have sexuality flaunted everywhere like it is, but your answer isn't quite accurate.
I'm a little confused. Didn't your first paragraph illustrate how "modesty" is basically subjective? If that's the case, what does it mean to be in favor of it? Are you in favor of the current notion of modesty as it is today in your country, and if so, why?
What days should be holidays is also pretty subjective, but if the society can agree on which days to consider as holidays, probably it can also agree on what is considered sexual and modest. (Which is actually way more important than holidays because it impacts children that could be traumatized by certain sexual behaviors).
Right, I completely agree. Which is why I'm confused when somebody brings up how a topic is subjective, complicated, and has been approached in the past in a way that seems ridiculous to us today; and then says simply "personally I'm in favor of [it]." That strikes me as disregarding the issue, and even disregarding what they just said themselves.
> ...probably it can also agree on what is considered sexual and modest.
I don't think the people of the USA will come to an agreement on this in my lifetime. Why would they? They haven't for the last hundred years.
"Modesty" in my country means that behaviors and body parts that are considered sexual are not displayed prominently or advertised; it doesn't matter that a nipple may not be inherently sexual, because everyone here feels that it is, and thus not displaying (and by extension, not saturating TV, movies, and advertisements with images of sexualized breasts) would be considered modest.
I certainly wouldn't mind if the nipple was eventually de-sexualized, but seeing as that's likely not possible given the internet, and since it will likely remain sexualized at least in the western world, I'd prefer if people were modest about it.
OnlyFans is an example of a service which embraced adult content, but most others would rather not go this route.
I can understand some people may want to avoid nipples, like some people may find images of guns or knives disturbing. But things like that are a personal preference.
In this day and age information delivery is already personalized. There is no excuse to censor content or ads based on what "most users don't want".
I just think we to chill the fuck out if we see a boob.
It’s titillating... so what? Is that such a bad thing?
A great example was when I watched a YouTube video on Robocop a while ago. Robocop is a great movie, but it’s insanely violent. Yet YouTube was fine with all the violence and gore. But show a nipple? Bam... instant demonetisation.
Come to think of it, the USSR did dissolve nearly peacefully. Maybe those censors knew what they were doing?
Ere wa wel, desh terash kowltim, deradzhang inyalowda tili pensa wit kuwang. (In a gravity well, there's always acceleration, which is why Inners don't think straight.)
Nudity isn't going to take away any of these zones. You children are going to experience things differently than you, and nudity isn't going to encourage or prevent it.
But faces stay exposed almost everywhere.
The nudity policy in media however is utterly ridiculous. Butts are allowed nipplee are not , but breastfeeding is probably ok, bikinis are ok, but not if too wet , etc etc.
Tech is perpetuating the Victorian era in the most comical, backwards fashion
You must have a cartoon sense of "native tribes," because this existed in many "native tribes" and other cultures around the world before the first missionaries arrived.
Is that an innate response? Or is it one that comes from your upbringing and social environment?
Or on the other side the not that distant outrage about women wearing trousers which exposes leg shape.
I find it entirely plausible that dressing in string skirts and flowers while dancing to songs with highly ambiguous lyrics would have been the neolithic equivalent of "woo girls" tottering around on heels, intermittently pulling down skirt hems and emitting the Sorority Mating Call ("I'm soooo drunk").
Koyo, to wa terashting mali? Fo to du seping kori mi. (Baby, are you an attitude control Epstein? Because you make my heart spin.)
Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_-Qtz70_z4
Push wit xante
Push wit lek
Leta kom but ere dek
Push wit xante
Leta kori fo du mi xushIf it had been men’s nipples, which are otherwise useless, that had been sexualised, that would’ve been much less weird; but it’s fine for me to go around topless and nobody cares.
Men conflate women's sexuality with child rearing to control women > men insist women cover voluptuous body parts > men exploit women's sexuality with modesty constraint for additional power and control > men decide women's nipples are hidden = modesty, and sexualize women's nipples > nipples somehow mean something different if they're attached to a woman
(Compare monkeys, which don't.)
No sources or background, just throwing darts at a plausible "the ones who didn't died" scenario.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Most mammals do fine with nipples and no breasts, whether they're nursing or not. And women lactate after giving birth; they can't do it on command.
there are good articles and youtube videos on why woman's boobs are sexy.
the common denominator is that in all societies all boobs are considered sexy. lindybeige's channel suggested it may have to do with some sort of trickery. ie the woman wants to be protected so they are always 'full' unlike other animals.
I think the fact that they are considered sexy across all cultures regardless of shape/size tells us something obvious. they are to show the woman is of mating age.
That does raise one obvious question: is the cultural difference (1) a real difference of sexualisation of body parts, or (2) does the average [†] hetero women look at topless men the same way that the average [†] hereto man looks at topless women, but society as a whole hasn’t noticed because it is male-dominated and not enough men in power ask women?
{As an aside: In the context lindybeige would be an example of argument from authority fallacy; expecting him to be right about comparative global sexuality is like expecting sexplanations to be right about comparing the relative merits of ancient Athenian and Persian armour.
That doesn’t mean he must be wrong (if I said that I world be making the fallacy fallacy), but surely there is a better example to use than him?}
[†] to emphasise: average as in “no I can’t just ask my exes that would be anecdotes”
there are a lot of situations where it would be considered inappropriate for a woman to expose most of a breast (though perhaps not nudity, per se). the degree of coverage socially required for a man or a woman varies a lot. like if I wore cargo shorts to work, it would merely be against the dress code. if I wore only a speedo (or a woman wore a bikini), it would be inappropriate.
once you've decided you have to make and enforce rules about nudity, you need to make them unambiguous. "cannot show nipple" is a lot less ambiguous than "most cover most of breast". "must cover entire breast" is also fraught; how do you decide exactly where it begins? if you agree that female breasts are sexual features, it doesn't seem that weird that nipples would be where the line is finally drawn.
just for the record, I don't think the world would end if women could expose their breasts without repercussions.
The theory is that this aids with conception.
...and as for you going topless in public, actually we do care; nobody wants to see that. ;)
Citation needed.
Fair enough, I walked right into that one. :P
Several thousand years of Judeo-Christian cultural indoctrination teaching that because Eve tempted Adam into original sin, women and their bodies are inherently unclean and can lead men astray, and thus are to be treated as taboo.
This was going on long before Judeo-Christianity existed, and in almost every single culture on the planet before each made contact with the first Christian.
> I think _everything wrong with America would gradually settle down_ if we could just collectively disillusion ourselves from the notion that human female nipples are an indecent horrid thing.
Emphasis added—I should have re-quoted in my post, as I think it got lost. It's not that our obscenity standards are good or that we should ignore that problem—but it's not going to magically solve everything else too!
Edit: not that I agree with this law. It’s a very clear double-standard with roots in conservative Christian thinking.
0: https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a19545146/nipple-double...
This is a very bad comparison. That's like saying "drinking on the street in public is illegal in many states, so showing any visual references to people drinking on Facebook is potentially illegal and should be removed".
> Because it’s illegal in many places.
So... it's illegal because it's illegal?
This existed thousands of years before the first Christian, and in almost every culture on the planet.
You might want to re-examine your biases to figure out why you assume that things you disagree with are automatically "conservative Christian thinking."