4 ms·

This is weird to me. I find that people arguing on behalf of others is way more valid than whining about themselves.

jfengel 4y ago
And that's why they do it. It's a way of gaining apparent validity by expanding the group for whom you can claim harm. 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.
JonChesterfield 4y ago
How about people arguing on behalf of hypothetical / imaginary other people?
psychphysic 4y ago
The reasoning is nonsense. 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.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Yeah that's puritanism for ya. Where I live, it's technically legal for women to go topless anywhere men can. It would be interesting to test that as it applies to photographs in the workplace.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    This is true for a large portion of USA citizens as well. The lower bound on this is >13% of women in the USA can be topless anywhere that men are allowed to be topless. 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 377000
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    Problem is Facebook and Instagram are global entities.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      And yet they don't censor women who aren't in hijab. Should you be using facebook and instagram at work? I know I don't.
      - psychphysic 4y ago
        Where do you think they should draw the line as a business case? I 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.
        klyrs 4y ago
        The line between nudity and pornography is indeed blurry; in fact there is pornography out there without any nudity at all. I can go down to the beach (were it not the depths of winter, I guess) and see naked people of all ages and that's not pornographic or even sexual. I live in the luxury of not being responsible for one-size-fits-all policies to be applied world-wide.
        psychphysic 4y ago
        So as a business case where would you draw the line? 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.
        klyrs 4y ago
        > So as a business case where would you draw the line? 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.
- smt88 4y ago
  A lot of current IG is NSFW. That's not the issue. 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.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    Nah friend of mine got banned from insta cause she had some performance art with a nip visible. It'd also make moderation of child porn harder tbh.
aeternum 4y ago
The problem with arguing/advocating on behalf of others is that you can arrive at a state that no one actually wants. 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.

And that's why they do it. It's a way of gaining apparent validity by expanding the group for whom you can claim harm. 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.

JonChesterfield 4y ago

How about people arguing on behalf of hypothetical / imaginary other people?

psychphysic 4y ago

The reasoning is nonsense. 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.

klyrs 4y ago
Yeah that's puritanism for ya. Where I live, it's technically legal for women to go topless anywhere men can. It would be interesting to test that as it applies to photographs in the workplace.
- runnerup 4y ago
  This is true for a large portion of USA citizens as well. The lower bound on this is >13% of women in the USA can be topless anywhere that men are allowed to be topless. 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 377000
- psychphysic 4y ago
  Problem is Facebook and Instagram are global entities.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    And yet they don't censor women who aren't in hijab. Should you be using facebook and instagram at work? I know I don't.
    - psychphysic 4y ago
      Where do you think they should draw the line as a business case? I 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.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        The line between nudity and pornography is indeed blurry; in fact there is pornography out there without any nudity at all. I can go down to the beach (were it not the depths of winter, I guess) and see naked people of all ages and that's not pornographic or even sexual. I live in the luxury of not being responsible for one-size-fits-all policies to be applied world-wide.
        psychphysic 4y ago
        So as a business case where would you draw the line? 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.
        klyrs 4y ago
        > So as a business case where would you draw the line? 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.
smt88 4y ago
A lot of current IG is NSFW. That's not the issue. 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.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  Nah friend of mine got banned from insta cause she had some performance art with a nip visible. It'd also make moderation of child porn harder tbh.

aeternum 4y ago

The problem with arguing/advocating on behalf of others is that you can arrive at a state that no one actually wants. 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.