9 ms·

What I don't get is how in year 2022, having landed on the moon and tricked silicon into computing for us, we as a western civilization still haven't come to te

by arpa 5y ago

What I don't get is how in year 2022, having landed on the moon and tricked silicon into computing for us, we as a western civilization still haven't come to terms with our own bodies, other peoples' bodies, the fact that we have a sex drive, the fact that we can and do have sex for pleasure and punish ourselves for all of these things. It's insane.

drawfloat 5y ago
Not being funny, but there are plenty of western countries that don't go around censoring this stuff. There's one massive leader in it.
- noiwillnot 5y ago
  The same country that gave us Dexter.
- ajross 5y ago
  Why do people insist on conflating demonitization with censorship? Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    Seems like a dumb move on YouTubes part. Instead just only show ads from advertiser's who want to be associated with this kind of content. There aren't many of that kind of advertiser, so prices will be low. YouTubers will then soon find out that while that sort of content might get lots of views, it earns few dollars, so will produce other content. Having a binary 'you have been demonetized' flag just seems like a way to stir discontent.
    - richardfey 5y ago
      That's what their email says. You will receive less revenue because less advertisers will want them on adult content. She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.
      - SexyCyborg 5y ago
        >She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue. Correct
      - youngtaff 5y ago
        End effect is essentially the same thing though, less ad revenue for Naomi
  - SexyCyborg 5y ago
    >Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The assumption being in this case that advertisers will pay for ads when a man creates a nude female torso and not when a woman creates a nude female torso and YouTube is simply acting on their behalf?
  - will4274 5y ago
    Advertisers would pay for controversial content. They'd pay less, but they'd pay. TPB keeps selling ads somehow. I think the reason people see demonization as censorship follows the same lines as seeing non-government censorship or "ceasing to do business" (in an industry that generally does business with everybody) as censorship. They aren't exactly going out and burning books, sure, but it's certainly exclusionary and it's certainly targeted. What's wrong with demonitizing all the videos of gay people? "It's not censorship." Still seems to have most of the negative impacts of censorship. It's a spade to me.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    Would it be hard for Google, for all their greatness, to have adds for...adults?
    - ajross 5y ago
      Advertising-funded adult sites are extremely common, though. If you have adult content and want a site to host your content and share ad revenue with you, you have lots (lots!) of choice. The problem is that there's a lot less money available to people funded by sex toy ads on PornHub or whereever than there is to people who sit behind Liberty Mutual ads on Youtube. So SexyCyborg would, unsurprisingly, prefer to be on youtube. But she's also dancing on the edge of what people call "adult" (again, I'm presenting no personal opinion here: take it up with Liberty Mutual if you don't like the definition). So naturally she's going to have trouble with those boundaries. PornHub never would have kicked her off, but she doesn't want to be on PornHub. It's all about money here, not freedom. That was my point.
  - cfn 5y ago
    "My channel got demonetised but my videos shows ads." https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-channel-got-demonetised-but-my-videos-shows-ads?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-chann...
    - jimworm 5y ago
      This is the big one imo. Youtube's monopoly status is making creators sign unfair contracts, after which stealing from them becomes legal.
  - danielrpa 5y ago
    Not defending YouTube, but I think that the letter said that some advertisers won't accept "sexual" content and thus her income would go down? The big question here, as I see it, is whether it's fair to call that "sexual" content.
- laumars 5y ago
  Ironically the same county that doesn’t see an issue with guns and graphic violence. I’ll never understand how a nipple is more offensive than shooting someone.
  - 4gotunameagain 5y ago
    Female breasts were, are, and will be secondary sexual characteristics. With whatever implication. Male and female bodies will never be the same, and they shouldn't be. That should have zero implications on equality though. It means that it is trickier to achieve
    - batekush 5y ago
      And so are hairy arms on men. Do you have a point?
      - saalweachter 5y ago
        I think beards would be a better analogy.
  - post_from_work 5y ago
    It's all the fault of those damn Puritans: people who were such sticks in the mud they were essentially kicked out of Europe because nobody wanted to hear their prudish nonsense. They were all about the "fire & brimstone".
  - xvector 5y ago
    I've played videogames where I turn people into fine red mist, where I decapitate people or deglove them, where blood and gore are practically features. I've watched movies with scenes so brutal that I've felt sick. But full nudity and sex? Noooo, we can't have that! Thanks, Puritan America.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    The right to have tools for killing people is considered essential to maintain their democracy. Unfortunately, their constitution doesn't say anything about the right of being naked or having large breasts or other visible appendages shall not be infringed upon.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  "Name three"
  - Mashimo 5y ago
    France, Denmark, Germany.
    - tremon 5y ago
      and Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic. I'm sure other commenters can give even more examples.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Dailymotion, the French youtube competitor, used to have a "Red" section on its front page, next to "Sport" "News" etc, where they kept all the nudity. That all got deleted in one of their acquisitions.
  - dncornholio 5y ago
    Netherlands. Literally all of our classic movies features a dick in plain sight. Yes, even Rutger Hauer shows all his features in Turks Fruit
    - spacechild1 5y ago
      Same in Germany and Austria. It's not unusual to see fully naked actors on TV, even on the afternoon program. That's because we can see a difference between nudity and (graphical) sex.
dgellow 5y ago
> we as a western civilization You can say "USA", no need to bring the whole "western civilization" generalization into this.
totony 5y ago
Isn't it understandable that people want separate spaces for sexual and non sexual content? I wouldn't jump the gun on allowing sexualization everywhere since it can have pretty bad effects on some people. Now whether this is sexual or not is another matter.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  Not really. Sexuality is and ought to be a normal part of human life and the repressed puritanism of US culture in particular is kind of awful. There's a distinction worth making between voyeurism and sexualizing others but when someone portrays themselves as they want to be seen I have no idea why that needs to be put in some sort of box. Because there ought to be nothing offensive about sex, which is just about the most natural thing on earth. And of course for some reason everything is assumed to be sexualized, from a sculpture of a torso to even breastfeeding mothers, I still remember 'female presenting nipples' on what was it, tumblr? It's like some sort of cursed feedback loop where the repression leads people to be horny about every sight of a nipple.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    > repressed puritanism of US culture in particular is kind of awful. Have you seen other cultures? US culture is one of the LEAST repressed cultures.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      US doesn't really have a unified culture. Compared to countries that have a strong cultural weight on the world, the US is pretty puritan.
      - deltaonefour 5y ago
        >US doesn't really have a unified culture. I disagree. Yes it's multicultural; but there are unified attitudes and cultural behaviors that purvey the country. Foreigners who come from abroad to live here maintain their own cultural identity while adopting American culture. What do you mean by strong cultural weight? You mean like Japan or China?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
There is no such thing as Western civilization, cultures are different. This one is all on America.
- tremon 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wickedsickeune 5y ago
Actually "western civilization" if you just count it as having begun in ancient Rome (if not earlier) didn't really have such a problem with nudity intrinsically.
tgv 5y ago
We have long come to terms with this, and the general opinion seems to be that there should be limits to public nudity and sex. These are not culturally invariant, but the internet happens to be a thing that is accessed from all over the world, so there's a kind of lowest common denominator where money is concerned. A bit hypocritical at times, but quite understandable, really. I don't know why you think that's insane.

by arpa 5y ago

drawfloat 5y ago

Not being funny, but there are plenty of western countries that don't go around censoring this stuff. There's one massive leader in it.

noiwillnot 5y ago
The same country that gave us Dexter.
ajross 5y ago
Why do people insist on conflating demonitization with censorship? Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  Seems like a dumb move on YouTubes part. Instead just only show ads from advertiser's who want to be associated with this kind of content. There aren't many of that kind of advertiser, so prices will be low. YouTubers will then soon find out that while that sort of content might get lots of views, it earns few dollars, so will produce other content. Having a binary 'you have been demonetized' flag just seems like a way to stir discontent.
  - richardfey 5y ago
    That's what their email says. You will receive less revenue because less advertisers will want them on adult content. She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.
    - SexyCyborg 5y ago
      >She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue. Correct
    - youngtaff 5y ago
      End effect is essentially the same thing though, less ad revenue for Naomi
- SexyCyborg 5y ago
  >Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The assumption being in this case that advertisers will pay for ads when a man creates a nude female torso and not when a woman creates a nude female torso and YouTube is simply acting on their behalf?
- will4274 5y ago
  Advertisers would pay for controversial content. They'd pay less, but they'd pay. TPB keeps selling ads somehow. I think the reason people see demonization as censorship follows the same lines as seeing non-government censorship or "ceasing to do business" (in an industry that generally does business with everybody) as censorship. They aren't exactly going out and burning books, sure, but it's certainly exclusionary and it's certainly targeted. What's wrong with demonitizing all the videos of gay people? "It's not censorship." Still seems to have most of the negative impacts of censorship. It's a spade to me.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Would it be hard for Google, for all their greatness, to have adds for...adults?
  - ajross 5y ago
    Advertising-funded adult sites are extremely common, though. If you have adult content and want a site to host your content and share ad revenue with you, you have lots (lots!) of choice. The problem is that there's a lot less money available to people funded by sex toy ads on PornHub or whereever than there is to people who sit behind Liberty Mutual ads on Youtube. So SexyCyborg would, unsurprisingly, prefer to be on youtube. But she's also dancing on the edge of what people call "adult" (again, I'm presenting no personal opinion here: take it up with Liberty Mutual if you don't like the definition). So naturally she's going to have trouble with those boundaries. PornHub never would have kicked her off, but she doesn't want to be on PornHub. It's all about money here, not freedom. That was my point.
- cfn 5y ago
  "My channel got demonetised but my videos shows ads." https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-channel-got-demonetised-but-my-videos-shows-ads?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-chann...
  - jimworm 5y ago
    This is the big one imo. Youtube's monopoly status is making creators sign unfair contracts, after which stealing from them becomes legal.
- danielrpa 5y ago
  Not defending YouTube, but I think that the letter said that some advertisers won't accept "sexual" content and thus her income would go down? The big question here, as I see it, is whether it's fair to call that "sexual" content.
laumars 5y ago
Ironically the same county that doesn’t see an issue with guns and graphic violence. I’ll never understand how a nipple is more offensive than shooting someone.
- 4gotunameagain 5y ago
  Female breasts were, are, and will be secondary sexual characteristics. With whatever implication. Male and female bodies will never be the same, and they shouldn't be. That should have zero implications on equality though. It means that it is trickier to achieve
  - batekush 5y ago
    And so are hairy arms on men. Do you have a point?
    - saalweachter 5y ago
      I think beards would be a better analogy.
- post_from_work 5y ago
  It's all the fault of those damn Puritans: people who were such sticks in the mud they were essentially kicked out of Europe because nobody wanted to hear their prudish nonsense. They were all about the "fire & brimstone".
- xvector 5y ago
  I've played videogames where I turn people into fine red mist, where I decapitate people or deglove them, where blood and gore are practically features. I've watched movies with scenes so brutal that I've felt sick. But full nudity and sex? Noooo, we can't have that! Thanks, Puritan America.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  The right to have tools for killing people is considered essential to maintain their democracy. Unfortunately, their constitution doesn't say anything about the right of being naked or having large breasts or other visible appendages shall not be infringed upon.
phendrenad2 5y ago
"Name three"
- Mashimo 5y ago
  France, Denmark, Germany.
  - tremon 5y ago
    and Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic. I'm sure other commenters can give even more examples.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Dailymotion, the French youtube competitor, used to have a "Red" section on its front page, next to "Sport" "News" etc, where they kept all the nudity. That all got deleted in one of their acquisitions.
- dncornholio 5y ago
  Netherlands. Literally all of our classic movies features a dick in plain sight. Yes, even Rutger Hauer shows all his features in Turks Fruit
  - spacechild1 5y ago
    Same in Germany and Austria. It's not unusual to see fully naked actors on TV, even on the afternoon program. That's because we can see a difference between nudity and (graphical) sex.

dgellow 5y ago

> we as a western civilization You can say "USA", no need to bring the whole "western civilization" generalization into this.

totony 5y ago

Isn't it understandable that people want separate spaces for sexual and non sexual content? I wouldn't jump the gun on allowing sexualization everywhere since it can have pretty bad effects on some people. Now whether this is sexual or not is another matter.

Barrin92 5y ago
Not really. Sexuality is and ought to be a normal part of human life and the repressed puritanism of US culture in particular is kind of awful. There's a distinction worth making between voyeurism and sexualizing others but when someone portrays themselves as they want to be seen I have no idea why that needs to be put in some sort of box. Because there ought to be nothing offensive about sex, which is just about the most natural thing on earth. And of course for some reason everything is assumed to be sexualized, from a sculpture of a torso to even breastfeeding mothers, I still remember 'female presenting nipples' on what was it, tumblr? It's like some sort of cursed feedback loop where the repression leads people to be horny about every sight of a nipple.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  > repressed puritanism of US culture in particular is kind of awful. Have you seen other cultures? US culture is one of the LEAST repressed cultures.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    US doesn't really have a unified culture. Compared to countries that have a strong cultural weight on the world, the US is pretty puritan.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      >US doesn't really have a unified culture. I disagree. Yes it's multicultural; but there are unified attitudes and cultural behaviors that purvey the country. Foreigners who come from abroad to live here maintain their own cultural identity while adopting American culture. What do you mean by strong cultural weight? You mean like Japan or China?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

There is no such thing as Western civilization, cultures are different. This one is all on America.

tremon 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wickedsickeune 5y ago

Actually "western civilization" if you just count it as having begun in ancient Rome (if not earlier) didn't really have such a problem with nudity intrinsically.

tgv 5y ago

We have long come to terms with this, and the general opinion seems to be that there should be limits to public nudity and sex. These are not culturally invariant, but the internet happens to be a thing that is accessed from all over the world, so there's a kind of lowest common denominator where money is concerned. A bit hypocritical at times, but quite understandable, really. I don't know why you think that's insane.