Hacker News Reader

Why is one more justifiable than the other?

Oh come on, don't make me spell it out for you. Revenge porn preys on women, child porn preys on children. Having these videos up, and allowing people to upload them, actively hurts people. Nobody is getting hurt if people watch Family Guy on youtube.

They said stolen, not anything of what you mentioned.

Individual humans are not directly demeaned and violated by copying TV shows.

They are by non-consensual porn.

I personally believe strongly that porn demeans, dehumanizes, and violates the people in it, even when it's consensual (and my understanding is that consensuality and non-abusive working conditions are much rarer than most porn consumers think).

I realize that opinion would be quite unpopular around here.

you comment on "non-consensual porn" may be what the GP meant, but s/he used the term "stolen porn" which I took to mean simply a copy that the user was unauthorized to upload, i.e. I download a movie then share it, not so-called revenge porn. I'd say in the first case, they are roughly equivalent wrongs, but in the case of revenge porn, I'd say distributing that publicly is an much higher moral wrong.

Ah, maybe I misunderstood the original post. Thanks for clarifying.

Hmm. "Non-consensual porn" has nothing at all to do with the question being asked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com