Oh it absolutely is cancel culture 101. It just that in this case the person isn't cancelled but society moral values have changed, and this is somehow an impor

Oh it absolutely is cancel culture 101. It just that in this case the person isn't cancelled but society moral values have changed, and this is somehow an important hill to die on (I think not). Ie. there were 2 artists: the model and the person shooting the picture. If they're not fine with it they can pick an alternative. One was posted in this very thread. The woman in question and the author of the picture were also OK with it in past, right? Not like it was a case of copyright infringement? I'm sure there are also people who deeply care about not using programs written by a convicted criminal. Most people don't realize that when they use Linux because it is hidden in plain sight. Just like the fact that this photograph is from a pornography magazine, and that the woman in question was naked (softcore still), is obscure as well. Obscure in this context also means harmless. Ie. I can show this portrait picture of this woman to my pre-puberty daughter, and it'd be completely OK. Just like running Linux kernel with code by a convicted murderer is also OK. OK, as in harmless. My pre-puberty daughter is a great case of where I draw the line between NSFW, ie. with regards to recent terrorism in Russia and torture of suspects. Would I feel ashamed if she saw this picture of Lena? Not at all. If needed, I could tell her the context of it being a picture from a different time in our past with different society moral values (though they're still very much alive in some areas in the world). There is also a huge difference between hardcore intercourse and a (half-)naked, posing woman. And of the former, with women who are exploited, is much more rampant on the internet. That seems to be a valid hill to die on.