Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

I'm imagining a future where a bunch of bizarre laws interact oddly (as they do), and now we've got websites with unnecessary nudity pasted in the corner.

"Oh, those? Those are just compliance tits. Ignore those. It's just a thing that came a few years after we finally got rid of the cookie banners. The companies wanted certain protections awarded only to 18+ sites. But you can't just declare yourself an 18+ site, so some sites post the most minimal amount of imagery that constitutes erotic nudity. That's why Google's graphic for the past few months has just been that one with the two dots in the middle of the o's."

View on HN

Reminiscent of this scene from the 1981 teen-slasher parody, Student Bodies:

> Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, in order to achieve an "R" rating today, a motion picture must contain full frontal nudity, graphic violence, or an explicit reference to the sex act. Since this film has none of those, and since research has proven that R-rated films are by far the most popular with the moviegoing public, the producers of this motion picture have asked me to take this opportunity to say "Fuck you."

> [the MPAA R-rating logo appears on the screen]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083133/quotes/

Took a bit of poking, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgDQ5z7bNPs

That sound quality did something weird to my brain, I was convinced sound was accidentally coming out my laptop speakers not my headphones. I'm not even on my laptop, and I still took my headphones off to check.

Almost assuredly a video capture of a screen.

This one is a ripped recording:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzHKwhrN1Lg

Joke's on you, as standards loosen now PG-13 movies get up to eleven "fuck"s to distribute throughout the film (nineteen for documentaries)

PG-13 didn't exist in 1981. It went straight from PG to R. So less loosening of restrictions, and more adding gradation.

And in 1981 PG movies had tits.

It's bizarre because tits are the first thing everybody sees

At the time, I was of an age and disposition to notice.

the second, surely...

Airplane (1980) was PG.

Today's 13 year olds say that word more times than that before breakfast.

Which is, of course, a bad thing that ought not to be encouraged and that ubiquity does, in fact, encourage and normalize.

Yea. Nobody needs to be talking that much before breakfast.

>Which is, of course, a bad thing that ought not to be encouraged

I'm not actually willing to take that as read. It's just the word "fuck". You may personally find it distasteful and you're welcome to discourage your children from using it but it seems like you're committing Pargin's Blunder here (mistaking norms specific to your social group for universal truths).

So fucking what? Nothing wrong with that. Lighten up, francis.

If the word fuck isn't offensive, there's absolutely no reason to use it.

Yet every culture across the globe has and has always had swearing, profanity, taboo words, fart jokes, and gate keepers decrying such things.

While the reasons may elude, the ubiquity speaks to something foundational.

If casual use of profane and taboo words isn't offensive, are they really profane and taboo?

Non homogenous population response says both Yes and No

Fart jokes are popular in US. Mostly.

no one is challenging whether "fuck" is offensive, we're challenging what powers the mild abrasiveness of a single word actually gives people in controlling behavior.

And one of the rare incidences of the MPAA ratings banner appearing in the middle of a film.

Fear of a Black Hat, a rap mockumentary in the same vein as This is Spinal Tap, begins with a warning about the language in the movie that's essentially them repeating the offending words three or four times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fmaaZtINRU

Right this is exactly what happened with the new sesame laws. The government declared sesame as an allergen and enacted heavy fines if it was undisclosed. This lead to manufacturers adding sesame because they couldn't guarantee they were sesame free.

"May contain" labeling seems like the better solution to this problem. This should be allowed for allergens that are present in the manufacturing or packing facility but not intended to be ingredients in the product.

Then there would never be a reason not to list "may contain sesame". Just like every product causes cancer in california.

The door to one of the hospitals in SF has a prop 16 warning. Even hospitals give you cancer!

That's part of the problem. "May contain" doesn't provide legal protection and then if you make it a standard there needs to be testing for compliance which ends up as the same original problem and you just add compliance tits to your food product.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34116211

"May contain" should provide legal protection. It may be compliance tits in some cases, but that's better than forcing the addition of a compliance ingredient.

> "May contain" doesn't provide legal protection

Yes, this causes problems.

> and then if you make it a standard there needs to be testing for compliance

Why would there need to be any additional testing? If anything I'd expect "may" foods to need less testing than an accident-prone "no" food.

do you have an example of this? it feels like a suboptimal response even given the stupid, heavy-handed legislation you cite.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34116211

https://www.fox9.com/news/new-us-food-label-law-unintended-e...

> Some companies include statements on labels that say a food "may contain" a certain product or that the food is "produced in a facility" that also uses certain allergens. However, such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they do not absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination.

> Instead, some companies have taken a different approach. Officials at Olive Garden said that starting this week, the chain is adding "a minimal amount of sesame flour" to the company’s famous breadsticks "due to the potential for cross-contamination at the bakery."

> Many companies now routinely attach Prop 65 warning labels to any product of theirs that they think might possibly contain one of the 900 listed chemicals without testing to see whether the chemical is really present in their product and without reformulating their product, because it is cheaper to do so than to run the risk of being sued by Prop 65 enforcers.

Kinda orthogonal to this, but the other day I was looking for a friend's cheer routine on Instagram so I put her school name and cheerleader routine and I got a lot of images and videos of very young girls (like aged 6-16) in very revealing cheer outfits doing provocative dances which made me very uncomfortable for many reasons. Like first, why are you making your 6 year old do this, and second, why is Instagram floating these to the top instead of adults? I dont think I want to know the answers to either of those questions.

Add beauty pageants to that list. It's gross, and a lot of people are ok with it.

> Those are just compliance tits.

Ha! At one point some years back, in an internal presentation somebody used an image of an old computer that if you really, really squinted and looked closely, had a topless woman in ascii art in a small area of the computer screen. It was so hard to see that most of us didn't even notice, but one eagle eye did and caused a whole shit storm around it. If the presenter would have said, "Those are just compliance tits" I think my life would have been complete :-D

Great story! I remember sharing my screen at work recently and the URL bar suggested https://thisisnotporn.com/ because I had been playing it a bit on my phone and my browser history synced to my work. I dont know if anyone caught it but I started using a different browser after that. Because it indeed is not porn but hard to explain that!

I've been using certain slurs as more proof-of-human, and any nuanced thinking that skirts by certain ideologies like Chechens hugging Russian artillery in 1995.

Why not? We already need to include typos and misspellings to signal we're not an LLM.

What use is this when you can just prompt the LLM to insert those or use any other style of writing that looks human?

and its 1 pixel wide. I propose the term pixtit

Also the Dixel for the male option.

Males have tits too

I mean, isn't this basically what's already happening after COPPA with YouTubers having to swear or make adult jokes to prove to the bots they're not targeting children with their videos?

©©

Reply on news.ycombinator.com