12 ms·

Instagram is deleting the accounts of hundreds of porn stars

• fastball 7y ago
  Porn is not advertiser friendly. Hence the need for a decentralized web and decentralized payments.
  • chr1 7y ago
    Why is porn not advertiser friendly? Does anyone see an advertisement near pornstar picture and decide "gross, i'll never buy this product"?
    • cm2187 7y ago
      Particularly someone following the said star.
    • throw_m239339 7y ago
      > Why is porn not advertiser friendly? Does anyone see an advertisement near pornstar picture and decide "gross, i'll never buy this product"? No, but one just has to take a screenshot of exactly that and send it to brands for brands to pressure Instagram and co to drop pornstars. Most brands have very clear policies when it comes to ad space. These are the kind of policies that triggered the "adpocalypse" on YouTube a few years ago, where prominent advertisers dropped YouTube after being made aware (by the main stream press, the irony of this news article), that their products were advertised in the middle of sexually suggestive videos, terrorist videos and what not… So it's funny the BBC is complaining about individuals reporting content they don't like on Instagram when outlets like the BBC did the exact same thing against YouTube a few years ago.
  • rndgermandude 7y ago
    I keep hearing that, and yet "sex sells" is ever so persistent and prominent in actual ads.
    • nothrabannosir 7y ago
      Both are a consequence of sex being taboo. We seek it, yet society reprimands you when you are explicit about it. They go hand in hand with anything that is forbidden. See also The Apple.
      • Shihan 7y ago
        Sex is taboo? Where is that? Maybe in sharia oriented societies - but in the US with it's prudish attitude they don't differ that much in this regard.
        • fastball 7y ago
          How many places is it legal to have sex in public?
          • grenoire 7y ago
            I don't really want random people fucking in the streets, that's not even about the taboo aspect of it. Get a room.
            • etatoby 7y ago
              That's exactly the taboo aspect of it.
            • vincnetas 7y ago
              Replace word “fucking” with any other activity and you’ll see how taboo it is. Hint, try “laughing”, “hugging”, “playing”
              • RealityVoid 7y ago
                A softer facet is kissing in public, or PDA's how they're called by some. I find it ridiculous some people are offended by this, but maybe I am extremely shameless.
  • SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    There is no actual pornographic content posted by these accounts - they're being banned because of who they are.
    • Majestic121 7y ago
      It doesn't matter for advertisers whether they actually post porn or not : the image of the actor is 'tainted' by their professional lives, and could taint the ads next to it too. I'm not supporting this, just trying to explain why not actually posting porn is no workaound to satisfy the ads company.
    • fastball 7y ago
      Presumably advertisers don't want their content interspersed in the middle of a porn stars instagram story, whether the actual content is pornographic or not.
      • slightwinder 7y ago
        Then it should be enough to flag those accounts, and only show ads which are explicietly ok with showing it there. This even is an advantage, because some products who already work on the border of sex-ads would surely be very happy to be shown in that context.
        • bitL 7y ago
          Once you are notified of a possible SESTA/FOSTA violation, you are required to act.
      • vincnetas 7y ago
        Isn’t so that only porn consumers recognise porn stars, and/or follow them? So why is it a problem for advertisers? End user gets their ads in the context that does not offend them.
    • mtgx 7y ago
      One of the many reasons why "surveillance capitalism" is terrible for humanity. Once the wealthy and powerful know everything there is to know about you, they can take any arbitrary decisions they want against you - in all places, online or offline. They can effectively "ban you from society" just because you did something they may not like. Worse yet, that "something" may be decided by an "AI" they created and there will be no recourse (people dealing with Google/Facebook "support" probably know what that means).
  • krzat 7y ago
    If companies are concerned about their image they should not use ads, especially those annoying full screen interstitial things.
    • GoblinSlayer 7y ago
      And now they are censors too.
  • arkh 7y ago
    > Porn is not advertiser friendly. Is it really? We see this often said but usually no one links to any data.
  • buboard 7y ago
    isnt that discrimination?
• peteretep 7y ago
  tldr; because some vigilantes keep reporting them, and Instagram's content moderation team is massively inconsistent.
  • swarnie_ 7y ago
    Seems dumb.... I though reporting e-girls to the IRS was the most effective play if you're prudish?
    • true_religion 7y ago
      I don’t know what an e-girl is, but I can assure you pornstars pay taxes. Income earned is reported to the government by the studio.
      • swarnie_ 7y ago
        That's my point, the target is wrong. If you want to be a general dick online there are better ways to go about it.
• holstvoogd 7y ago
  just let these platforms die.
• breadandcrumbel 7y ago
  When you do everything right, and follow the platform rules, and still get banned after all your hard work It's just a manner of time until this platform will fall.
  • dabbernaught420 7y ago
    And the Media Goblin shall rise from the ashes
• fit2rule 7y ago
  This represents an opportunity: these folks should just build their own apps which distribute content to their fans. Thats kind of what apps are for - the commoditisation of networks like Instagram and so on, is only really necessary because the technological barrier to entry is too high. All it would take is for someone to open source a decent image browsing/payment transfer application, stick it on Github with a decent license that allows for re-use of the code, and 'services' like Instagram and Facebook will die the deserved death. This is only a thing because the OS vendors are gate-keeping, and because they work hard to make it more and more difficult for people to write and distribute apps themselves...
  • Chilinot 7y ago
    Sure, developing and publishing an app or a library to be used by other developers is the easy part. What is difficult and expensive is setting up the infrastructure for hosting all of the content generated, and api-servers for handling requests. That is the barrier that stops others from implementing something Instagram-esque.
  • ryanmcbride 7y ago
    I feel like you're confusing advertising (what they're doing on instagram) with distribution (what you seem to think they're doing with instagram). They already distribute through other channels since Instagram doesn't allow porn, but how do they find new people to sign up for their service if not by advertising where people already are?
  • tendencydriven 7y ago
    You'd never get an app like that onto the iOS App Store - you can't distribute NSFW content.
    • arethuza 7y ago
      The app store is full of violent games, which personally I'd regard as far more NSFW than anything referring indirectly to porn.
  • arkh 7y ago
• BickNowstrom 7y ago
  Why? 4chan and other assorted incels took the tactics used by the left to silence and deplatform people (mass flagging/reporting), and applied it to e-thots: women who often don't pay taxes, yet receive massive donations for sharing private pictures, often from sad young men who want to know what it is like to have a girlfriend, and get taken for a ride (they get automated "personal" messages on whatsapp, stringing them along with fake promises for more cash). It was a bad idea when the left applied it to popular right speakers, and it is a bad idea when the right applies it in their misguided quest/troll to make society more puritan, help a brother incel escape the clutches of e-prostitution and try for a real girlfriend. Viewed in a certain light, these accounts are nothing more than fronts for digital prostitution, all carefully made to guide people to one of their profitable monetizations. Even Youtube allows "performers" to use their suitable-for-work videos to advertise their Patreon, where kids can buy the bath water or access to lewd Snapchat of their favorite cosplayer or ASMR star. This is not about sexual liberation, and platforms shunning porn stars. It never was. It is all about trolling/culture hacking these very gameable report buttons. It is what happens when you allow a vocal activist minority to moderate your platform. The BBC reporting it as a crackdown by big evil business (completely ignorant of the real cause, or the 1000$ per month blowjobs these stars are offering one click away) tells you we still have a way to go with investigative journalism. Big evil site owners used to pay Ginger Banks (the first time I saw her, she was live streaming her vagina from a public library PC), they love all the attention and engagement these women bring. If the owners kick them off their platform, it is because they risk breaking the law or have their hand forced by activism/trolls. Anything else is eating into their business.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• buboard 7y ago
  it is insane that people let FB regulate their lives and communication . encrypt and decentralize is the ultimate solution
  • deelly 7y ago
    Lets remove all moderators! Free speech, yay! Racism and bulling is form of communication, too!
    • buboard 7y ago
      this isn't about free speech anymore, but about freedom of association and communication
• Scapeghost 7y ago
  This taboo against sex, one of the most natural acts of almost all lifeforms, is THE single most bizarre facet of human society. Porn stars and sex workers should be celebrated instead of being ostracized. There aren't many other professions who contribute as much to reducing stress and fulfilling the fantasies of so many people across the world. Most sex workers do it without any thanks and barely make enough from it to survive. Not only they have to brave a constant risk of disease and violence, they have to carry this outdated stigma throughout their lives, not only for themselves but also their families, even after they quit.
  • catchmilk 7y ago
    Just for the sake of being the devil's advocate - I think this is highly debatable. One, you have the not-so-uncommon addiction to porn. Because of the wide and free availability of porn content today, it's very easy for a person that's susceptible to addiction to fall into a vicious hole. Secondly, it can lead to spreading aggressive, potentially dangerous fetishes. I might be wrong about this, but I think a lot of the dangerous fetishes wouldn't necessarily exist (or at least wouldn't be so popular) if it wasn't for them being so readily available on the internet. Sex workers would be an entire discussion topic on its own - but I think it's safe to say that the information available on the dark net crosses all lines - from legal to human rights. I'm not suggesting we should shun it or disallow it completely - but I think celebrating would also be an extreme that's not worth the consequences.
    • Scapeghost 7y ago
      > One, you have the not-so-uncommon addiction to porn. Because of the wide and free availability of porn content today, it's very easy for a person that's susceptible to addiction to fall into a vicious hole. You can say this about anything. Movies, video games, the internet, alcohol, sugary foods, fast cars, social media upvotes. > Secondly, it can lead to spreading aggressive, potentially dangerous fetishes. Again, this statement can also apply to things like violence in movies and games. And much has been said against that kind of reasoning :) > I'm not suggesting we should shun it or disallow it completely - but I think celebrating would also be an extreme that's not worth the consequences. I didn't mean literally celebrating like parading them around on a palanquin, but treating them with respect at the very least. Create an environment that at least allows some discussion about it, instead of indignantly shutting these topics down upon hearing the first syllable.
• tuyguntn 7y ago
  I believe companies should be free to set their terms of use and/or whom they provide services. Like in a real life, if you don't like someone or you don't follow her/his ideas, you are free to not answer his questions or concerns, why it should be different in corporate world? If you think company does wrong, just fight with them in a same way. In other words, why I should demand from local bar to serve me a kosher beer? They feel like it is not profitable for them to serve all kind of minorities (or even some majorities depending on type of bar) and I should be ok with that.
  • rajup 7y ago
    You can always go to another bar which does serve what you want. Name an alternative to Facebook/Instagram/Twitter that has similar reach. It's not a very good analogy IMHO. It's all well and good to say that companies should be free to set the terms and conditions of use but when said companies have such a large impact on people's livelihood and have a near monopoly, I'm not sure.
    • zakki 7y ago
      I agree with grandparent analogy. If Starbucks doesn’t serve your need, you can go to other cafe. But you will never have the same experience. The same thing for Instagram/Facebook. You will find the alternative, PCMag listed 9 alternatives in their website.
• TomMckenny 7y ago
  Paid ads for violent conspiracy theories are fine but god forbid you use an eggplant emoji.
• bitL 7y ago
  I am all for banning them all from Instagram; it'd be both for the good of society as well as for them. Their "working years" are very short, many of them don't make it to 45 years of life and generally live horrible lives past age 30, likely as drug addicts/homeless if they weren't smart enough to become trophy wives. I find it terrible that people are financing their disastrous choices, then moving onto new younger entrants, keeping alive vicious cycle that spits out ruined persons. Talk to some charity workers that have to deal with the "outcomes" of that industry...
  • Tehdasi 7y ago
    Sorry, I thought you were talking about Hollywood and the recording industry there.
    • bitL 7y ago
      Instagram has original content as well. You wouldn't believe how little are most pornstars paid (would you let yourself be filmed with an unknown man for $250-$1000?) unless they are superstars so they need to reach out elsewhere, using their filmed scenes as "marketing", trying to catch some rich sugar daddies or clients on Instagram. That all evaporates once their bodies can't compete with younger "models", cycle repeating itself. It's best for Instagram to pull the plug on their part of the cycle.
  • appleflaxen 7y ago
    Why are you a better person to make these judgments than the people it actually affects? When you start making rules for/against certain activities "for their own good", you need to be extremely circumspect, especially when these are consenting adults. Just because you feel strongly about something being bad for you doesn't mean it's your place to make the call for someone else.
    • bitL 7y ago
      I am not doing judgment, I am trying to prevent consequences like these: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49757600 https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49757600 This was linked in the original article. Do you have any better solution? I personally know two originally fashion models I had photoshoots with that later turned to porn and subsequently to escorting and now they are shadows of their former selves and I don't think they will make it through the next 5 years. If you didn't see what happened to them you probably could be indifferent or be even "enjoying it".
• ricc 7y ago
  Doesn’t really make sense if they’re not posting porn. They might as well ban the BBC...
• Scapeghost 7y ago
  It seems that even HN has censored this topic. I couldn't see this post on any page without searching for it.