4 ms·

> Showing a naked boob is considered porn and banned on most of these platform while public toplessness is perfectly legal in many jurisdictions worldwide Yep

> Showing a naked boob is considered porn and banned on most of these platform while public toplessness is perfectly legal in many jurisdictions worldwide Yep. Im wondering when will countries start preventing US tech platforms from enforcing US laws and US morals on the people of those countries.

lucideer 4y ago
> US laws I don't really think this is about laws, but even in that arena, companies already do their best to avoid those within the US, nevermind internationally. See e.g. recent Patreon controversy for an example of this. There's man others. So I don't really think law is the problem here. > US morals This is the real issue and unfortunately these are finely weaved deep inside US corporate culture itself - they're part of culture fit for hiring in US multinationals and are thus highly unlikely to ever be disrupted from within the workforce of those companies.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > US laws If companies 'willingly' comply with the existing social and regulatory landscape proactively, that's not something that happens 'willingly'. Its mental gymnastics to claim that they are doing it freely and not out of being obliged to.
deaddodo 4y ago
What are you even asking for here? Sites like Reddit, Twitter and Tumblr cater to "American laws" (most of these aren't even laws, the US is generally quite liberal on sexual content and nudity; thus producing a significant chunk of the global supply of pornography) is due to their primary target or largest slice of ad revenue coming from Americans[1][2][3]. There's no law forcing themselves to self-censor, they generally do it for financial/accessibility (American traffic) reasons. What it sounds like you're proposing is, if Denmark has carte blanche topless legality, that websites that want to operate in Denmark must respect their liberalism and allow said content. Which is far more draconian and intrusive. If a site wants owner wants to err on the side of conservative social values, that's their prerogative; create an alternative to fill the niche if you feel it's lacking. OnlyFans filled an entire void in that manner. 1 - "Two hundred twenty-two million users live in the US, which makes up 48% of the Reddit community." / https://thrivemyway.com/reddit-statistics/#Reddit-Usage-Statistics https://thrivemyway.com/reddit-statistics/#Reddit-Usage-Stat... 2 - "The United States of America has at least 83.4 million active Twitter users" - https://datareportal.com/essential-twitter-stats https://datareportal.com/essential-twitter-stats 3 - "While Tumblr is used worldwide, the vast majority of its users are based in the U.S. Domestic visitors alone account for 42% of its overall traffic." - https://cloudincome.com/tumblr-statistics/ https://cloudincome.com/tumblr-statistics/
- heavenlyblue 4y ago
  > Which is far more draconian and intrusive. That will enforce less monopoly in social media, I am perfectly fine with that.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    What an obtuse jump in logic.
    - heavenlyblue 4y ago
      There's a reason we do not allow monopolies to exist, liberitarians (like you) would call draconian too, but this is as much an obtuse jump as mine. tl;dr: your last point didn't add anything to discussion, but is likely to offend
      - deaddodo 4y ago
        I’m not a libertarian, and straw-manning will get you no where. There’s also a reason we don’t dictate platforms and content. We don’t force people to attend or partake in topless/nude beaches despite allowing them to exist. We don’t force people to join political protests despite them being a protected activity. In the same manner, we don’t force newspapers to publish content against their goal or audience. There’s no difference for a site platform. There’s no reason “ChristianGram” should be forced to host nudity for Danish (and other) Christians, simply because Danes are allowed to be naked if they like. The fact that you don’t see how that’s equally tyrannical and intrusive is, honestly, terrifying.
        heavenlyblue 4y ago
        What about public libraries in the US? Access to water? What if I was a monopolist with access to food who doesn't want to serve gay people? > The fact that you don’t see how that’s equally tyrannical and intrusive is, honestly, terrifying. I don't think you know what tyrannical means.
- 4y ago
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
That seems... inverse. "Your service is not allowed in the US because there's not enough boobies in it"? Anyway the opposite is already true, all US based companies that want to operate within the EU all follow the GDPR. It, and a lot of US online moral codes, are IMO good for society as a whole. If you still want to look at NSFW content, there's plenty of sources for that everywhere.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > "Your service is not allowed in the US because there's not enough boobies in it"? No, the service will apply the filters and moderation tools to users from any given country separately. If the law in the US allows enough boobs and the US users post boob pictures, that's totally that legal ecosystem and userbase's thing.
arinlen 4y ago
> Im wondering when will countries start preventing US tech platforms from enforcing US laws and US morals on the people of those countries. This makes zero sense. How do you force anyone to not follow a law? Do you, say, force anyone to post nude pics just because a jurisdiction does not allow anyone to post them? How would that even work?
- noptd 4y ago
  >How do you force anyone to not follow a law? I'd imagine it be an ultimatum - if you enforce another country's laws on our citizens then you're also in violation of our local laws and will be fined, unable to operate in our country, etc
  - arinlen 4y ago
    > if you enforce another country's laws on our citizens then you're also in violation of our local laws and will be fined This makes no sense at all. Unless you're violating your own laws, which is not what you're arguing, then you're just complying with your own jurisdiction. Yo can't possibly be advocating punishing anyone for not violating laws in multiple jurisdictions.
- unity1001 4y ago
  Simple. The platforms would have to enact different filtering and moderation mechanisms for different countries based on the law in those countries. That would make them compliant everywhere.

lucideer 4y ago

> US laws I don't really think this is about laws, but even in that arena, companies already do their best to avoid those within the US, nevermind internationally. See e.g. recent Patreon controversy for an example of this. There's man others. So I don't really think law is the problem here. > US morals This is the real issue and unfortunately these are finely weaved deep inside US corporate culture itself - they're part of culture fit for hiring in US multinationals and are thus highly unlikely to ever be disrupted from within the workforce of those companies.

unity1001 4y ago
> US laws If companies 'willingly' comply with the existing social and regulatory landscape proactively, that's not something that happens 'willingly'. Its mental gymnastics to claim that they are doing it freely and not out of being obliged to.

deaddodo 4y ago

What are you even asking for here? Sites like Reddit, Twitter and Tumblr cater to "American laws" (most of these aren't even laws, the US is generally quite liberal on sexual content and nudity; thus producing a significant chunk of the global supply of pornography) is due to their primary target or largest slice of ad revenue coming from Americans[1][2][3]. There's no law forcing themselves to self-censor, they generally do it for financial/accessibility (American traffic) reasons. What it sounds like you're proposing is, if Denmark has carte blanche topless legality, that websites that want to operate in Denmark must respect their liberalism and allow said content. Which is far more draconian and intrusive. If a site wants owner wants to err on the side of conservative social values, that's their prerogative; create an alternative to fill the niche if you feel it's lacking. OnlyFans filled an entire void in that manner. 1 - "Two hundred twenty-two million users live in the US, which makes up 48% of the Reddit community." / https://thrivemyway.com/reddit-statistics/#Reddit-Usage-Statistics https://thrivemyway.com/reddit-statistics/#Reddit-Usage-Stat... 2 - "The United States of America has at least 83.4 million active Twitter users" - https://datareportal.com/essential-twitter-stats https://datareportal.com/essential-twitter-stats 3 - "While Tumblr is used worldwide, the vast majority of its users are based in the U.S. Domestic visitors alone account for 42% of its overall traffic." - https://cloudincome.com/tumblr-statistics/ https://cloudincome.com/tumblr-statistics/

heavenlyblue 4y ago
> Which is far more draconian and intrusive. That will enforce less monopoly in social media, I am perfectly fine with that.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  What an obtuse jump in logic.
  - heavenlyblue 4y ago
    There's a reason we do not allow monopolies to exist, liberitarians (like you) would call draconian too, but this is as much an obtuse jump as mine. tl;dr: your last point didn't add anything to discussion, but is likely to offend
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      I’m not a libertarian, and straw-manning will get you no where. There’s also a reason we don’t dictate platforms and content. We don’t force people to attend or partake in topless/nude beaches despite allowing them to exist. We don’t force people to join political protests despite them being a protected activity. In the same manner, we don’t force newspapers to publish content against their goal or audience. There’s no difference for a site platform. There’s no reason “ChristianGram” should be forced to host nudity for Danish (and other) Christians, simply because Danes are allowed to be naked if they like. The fact that you don’t see how that’s equally tyrannical and intrusive is, honestly, terrifying.
      - heavenlyblue 4y ago
        What about public libraries in the US? Access to water? What if I was a monopolist with access to food who doesn't want to serve gay people? > The fact that you don’t see how that’s equally tyrannical and intrusive is, honestly, terrifying. I don't think you know what tyrannical means.
4y ago

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

That seems... inverse. "Your service is not allowed in the US because there's not enough boobies in it"? Anyway the opposite is already true, all US based companies that want to operate within the EU all follow the GDPR. It, and a lot of US online moral codes, are IMO good for society as a whole. If you still want to look at NSFW content, there's plenty of sources for that everywhere.

unity1001 4y ago
> "Your service is not allowed in the US because there's not enough boobies in it"? No, the service will apply the filters and moderation tools to users from any given country separately. If the law in the US allows enough boobs and the US users post boob pictures, that's totally that legal ecosystem and userbase's thing.

arinlen 4y ago

> Im wondering when will countries start preventing US tech platforms from enforcing US laws and US morals on the people of those countries. This makes zero sense. How do you force anyone to not follow a law? Do you, say, force anyone to post nude pics just because a jurisdiction does not allow anyone to post them? How would that even work?

noptd 4y ago
>How do you force anyone to not follow a law? I'd imagine it be an ultimatum - if you enforce another country's laws on our citizens then you're also in violation of our local laws and will be fined, unable to operate in our country, etc
- arinlen 4y ago
  > if you enforce another country's laws on our citizens then you're also in violation of our local laws and will be fined This makes no sense at all. Unless you're violating your own laws, which is not what you're arguing, then you're just complying with your own jurisdiction. Yo can't possibly be advocating punishing anyone for not violating laws in multiple jurisdictions.
unity1001 4y ago
Simple. The platforms would have to enact different filtering and moderation mechanisms for different countries based on the law in those countries. That would make them compliant everywhere.