Instagram permanently disables Pornhub account | Hacker News Reader

Instagram permanently disables Pornhub account

techcrunch.com

30 pointsbusymom016 comments

> Instagram told TechCrunch that all accounts are held to the same moderation standards.

Turns out Meta's claim of equal standards being applied uniformly across the platform is false.

Yet another case of FB doublespeak.

If only FB would hold itself accountable to adhering to the policies it publicly proclaims and embraces. Oh wait, that can't be totally automated and thus doesn't scale.

What's the solution here? Or any solution?

I don't know if it's fair to say they don't hold everyone to the same moderation standards, the level of moderation will of course scale to the audience of the person but that seems fair - a smaller creator doesn't pose as much of a risk as a larger one.

Is there another profile with similar amount of followers and content that aren't disabled, or only smaller accounts?

> Oh wait, that can't be totally automated and thus doesn't scale

It does scale, just not proportionately for everyone - in the extreme case you only have one moderator and they have to focus on the highest priority stuff. Everyone still have the same level of moderation(very little), but you're still going to see people able to "get away" with stuff

Pornhub’s statement says that “censoring the presence of sex workers and adult brands is violent”

We’re really stretching the definition of violence now, aren’t we?

Pornhub is still probably in the right, though (assuming their claims are true).

I think the idea is disruption of online livelihoods comes along with unseen and ignored externalities. Loss of online exposure will push online sex workers to make up loss of income to less safe sex work environments.

As if Pornhub videos are produced ethically.

As if you have some inside information.

And there's no difference between this 2nd order effect that may harm porn producers (or maybe consumers will find other channels besides Instagram to get porn, and overall porn consumption won't decrease), and hiring goons with baseball bats to assault prostitutes.

Or if there's a difference, it's so small that we can call both "violence", and insisting on some kind of categorical distinction between the two is pedantic nit-picking.

Big corp foisting social agency change on people has biological effects. It rather highlights the lack of free agency and self determination our society is built on.

Go ahead and be academic but you’re one of billions, aka too insignificant to matter by your own tools of measure; there’s a reason the mathematicians of old warned against the application of such cognitive tools to societies needs. Statistical insignificance is a philosophy that can be thrown right back in your face.

I'm not saying it doesn't have effects, or that it was good. But calling it "violence" dilutes the meaning of that word into nothing, as the threshold is so low almost anything qualifies as "violent".

Exactly, areas of the world where sex work is de-stigmatized and legal are much safer for all.

We're returning to the 50s in every way. Although fuck Manwin always (and all monopolies, and all roll-ups) this is just going to roll downhill and result in platform attacks on individual women, punished for the sin of victimizing themselves.

Just another reason not to use instagram. High horse morality seems like something that should belong in the past.

Is it not high horse morality to decide not to use them because of their actions?

Why does Twitter flag the letter itself as 'potentially sensitive content'?

Out of all the censorship tech companies do, this is probably the least harmful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com