And it's true, I mean would you ever remember a logo or an ad you saw on PornHub or YouPorn?
The PlayBoy magazine wasn't free, you had to subscribe to it because little money flowed into the business via ads.
To put it lightly, focus of the consumer in those moments is elsewhere, not the ad. Advertisers love space which is placed in-between 2 slices of engaging (but not sexually engaging content), possibly where the viewer doesn't know when the advertisement will end and their favorite content is coming back on.
That's the reason why SuperBowl ads and generally ads airing during live events such as NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL games are a favorite among brands
That part that stood out to me was
> The posts were flagged by users, then reviewed and removed by an AI system.
To me this says that we're talking about a system that involves people who are telegraphing their dislike of nipple content. I agree with you that advertisers may have reservations about the content, but in this story advertisers aren't mentioned, only users who dislike nipple content are. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I can't see a connection between advertisers not wanting to be associated with the content in a way that causes people to report nipple pictures.
Pornhub being thrown off of credit card payment systems was mostly the doing of an anti-porn religious organization. That's what these brands are afraid of.
Conservatives bitching about "cancel culture" have NOTHING on the wrath of religious folks if you step outside their prescribed notions of the world. Remember, people BOMBED abortion clinics, like, not rarely either.
It's just about being safe for work.
As a man I can get away with a beach shot of me and a hypothetical son both without tops on. On my work desk.
My hypothetical wife and daughter? Not so much.
Purportedly, this includes the following jurisdictions:
New York State 20200000
Wyoming 576851
Colorado 5773000
Utah 3271000
New Mexico 2117000
Kansas 2937000
Oklahoma 3959000
Austin, TX 961855
Asheville, NC 94000
Colombus, OH 906528
Eugene, OR 175000
Portland, OR 641000
D.C. 712800
New Orleans, LA 377000I see a pretty obvious line allowing women without a hijab but not what might be considered child porn (girls topless).
Unless you're suggesting that topless girls goes from fine as a baby to not okay as a teen to fine as an adult?
> Should you be using facebook and instagram at work?
I'm allowed to browse at work. But not watch what they consider pornographic.
Considering Facebook user demographic, countries its revenue comes from.
I get the feeling people are trying to use Facebook to enact some sort of societal change.
I thought I addressed that: I'm grateful to not be in that position. Moreover, I do not think that it's a good thing for a single company to have consolidated power over the communications of the entire world as facebook has. If I were so situated, I would break them up.
The issue is that allowing topless women will encourage even more of the porn industry to use IG as a lead generator. There's already a ton of that for OnlyFans.
That's not a moral problem for a rational person, but it's potentially a huge problem for advertisers. Fidelity doesn't want their ad directly above a nearly-nude woman in a leather bondage outfit.
It'd also make moderation of child porn harder tbh.
IE a group of friends wants to go to dinner, one suggests tacos even though they dislike tacos because they think that will make the group happy. Everyone agrees even though they hate tacos because they don't want to hurt the feelings of the suggestor.
This frequently leads to suboptimal outcomes.
It goes off the rails when it's only others for whom harm is claimed. That's what makes children such a common trope here. Children will (almost) never say "this harms me". Instead, people get to claim something on behalf of the children, without fear of contradiction. No child gets to say "Hey, I wouldn't mind seeing some boobies."
It's why Greta Thunberg caused such an uproar. She is a child, but got a platform to say, "Climate change harms me". It brought some credence to climate advocates who previously risked sounding like they were doing it "for the children" without the consent of any children.
... I find it more compelling to put it this way: "If we make [something currently seen as sexual] normal in public, it will harm society".
There isn't anything more magically sexual about the nipple than there was about the thigh. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. Culture/advertising has exposed the fact it's arbitrary by pushing up against it, but maybe it's just as sensible to argue that the line should move back towards being more modest than being less so.
There is a separate discussion about why women's norms are more restrictive than men's, but I think things have gotten more libertine across the board.
The air can only be cleared by answering, "who?" and "which relations in society?" otherwise we're fighting clouds.