5 ms·

I do agree that Facebook are assholes, but then I'm not sure I want to support journalists who are bashing sex, pornography and prostitution. There is nothing w

I do agree that Facebook are assholes, but then I'm not sure I want to support journalists who are bashing sex, pornography and prostitution. There is nothing wrong with those things. We are not living in the Medieval times any more, maybe it's finally time to stop being puritans and stop believing that sex is somehow fundamentally sinful or wrong. Those beliefs don't make any sense and they look absolutely ridiculous. I would totally support journalism targetted at exposing hypocrisy and authoritarian practices of big tech. It's finally time to liberate society and to stop demonise sex and sex-related topics. Healthy views on sex would make the society a better place, and sex ads on Facebook would stop containing only scam.

theWreckluse 2y ago
I'm not sure if your comment is targeted towards the article. In any case, the article itself specifically says that it's not against the sex, but against Meta's hypocrisy most likely driven by ad revenue.
daseiner1 2y ago
Commoditization of sex is not equivalent to its liberation, and in fact sex has been cheapened and corrupted, resulting in a more poisonous vice than it’s ever been. Pornography is about as good for society as alcohol.
- beepbopboopp 2y ago
  That sure reads like a personal opinion and not a fact. I think the passion of your response is the problem pointed out in the article as well as the general problem of freedom of speech. Everyone thinks they know where the "obvious" line is.
  - daseiner1 2y ago
    I do not believe that statements which are obviously opinions need or ought be prefaced with “in my opinion”. I feel that that is poor style. The irony that I’ve done that in this comment (I do not believe…; I feel…) is not lost on me.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  That’s not the point of the article though. It’s that Facebook is banning the same content when posted organically but allowing it in ads.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Sex has always been a commodity. There's a reason why we call sex workers "the oldest profession". What more, the societies that talk the most about vices and crack down on them tend to be the ones where the actual sexual abuse flourishes behind the scenes (e.g. Victorian England).
ajsnigrutin 2y ago
I have instagram to watch meals my friends eat and places they go, i don't need porn there. If I want porn, i visit porhub. You don't have to be a puritan to have those things separated, especially if scrolling in public.
- prophesi 2y ago
  Social media sites might be the easier option for some people! Map of porn restrictions in the US: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/sx8Ji/2/ https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/sx8Ji/2/
maronato 2y ago
> I would totally support journalism targetted at exposing hypocrisy and authoritarian practices of big tech. I’m not sure if you are referring to the original article, but that’s exactly what it’s about.
amyames 2y ago
I’m on social media to talk to my grandkids and former co workers. I don’t want to see your hoo-ha on Meta while I’m eating my pancakes.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - MemesAndBooze 2y ago
    Ok coomer
- xethos 2y ago
  The point is not "This is fine" vs "This is not", it's that the exact same images are allowed by advertisers, but not allowed from users. It is a blatant, damning example of who the customers are, and who matters, advertisers or users. If you don't want it, that's reasonable. If you think we should be less strict, you can make that argument too. It's a personal choice, a line each user has to decide for themselves (which is why centralized and centrally-moderated social media can't really work: we all draw different lines, and few of us agree with where Facebook's line is). Right now though, nobody wins: advertisers are given one set of rules, and users another, so under the current system, most parties lose. Advertisers could be banned if they draw too much heat. Users bristle under the hypocrisy. Facebook comes out ahead though, with that sweet ad revenue

theWreckluse 2y ago

I'm not sure if your comment is targeted towards the article. In any case, the article itself specifically says that it's not against the sex, but against Meta's hypocrisy most likely driven by ad revenue.

daseiner1 2y ago

Commoditization of sex is not equivalent to its liberation, and in fact sex has been cheapened and corrupted, resulting in a more poisonous vice than it’s ever been. Pornography is about as good for society as alcohol.

beepbopboopp 2y ago
That sure reads like a personal opinion and not a fact. I think the passion of your response is the problem pointed out in the article as well as the general problem of freedom of speech. Everyone thinks they know where the "obvious" line is.
- daseiner1 2y ago
  I do not believe that statements which are obviously opinions need or ought be prefaced with “in my opinion”. I feel that that is poor style. The irony that I’ve done that in this comment (I do not believe…; I feel…) is not lost on me.
scarface_74 2y ago
That’s not the point of the article though. It’s that Facebook is banning the same content when posted organically but allowing it in ads.
int_19h 2y ago
Sex has always been a commodity. There's a reason why we call sex workers "the oldest profession". What more, the societies that talk the most about vices and crack down on them tend to be the ones where the actual sexual abuse flourishes behind the scenes (e.g. Victorian England).

ajsnigrutin 2y ago

I have instagram to watch meals my friends eat and places they go, i don't need porn there. If I want porn, i visit porhub. You don't have to be a puritan to have those things separated, especially if scrolling in public.

prophesi 2y ago
Social media sites might be the easier option for some people! Map of porn restrictions in the US: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/sx8Ji/2/ https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/sx8Ji/2/

maronato 2y ago

> I would totally support journalism targetted at exposing hypocrisy and authoritarian practices of big tech. I’m not sure if you are referring to the original article, but that’s exactly what it’s about.

amyames 2y ago

I’m on social media to talk to my grandkids and former co workers. I don’t want to see your hoo-ha on Meta while I’m eating my pancakes.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
[flagged]
- MemesAndBooze 2y ago
  Ok coomer
xethos 2y ago
The point is not "This is fine" vs "This is not", it's that the exact same images are allowed by advertisers, but not allowed from users. It is a blatant, damning example of who the customers are, and who matters, advertisers or users. If you don't want it, that's reasonable. If you think we should be less strict, you can make that argument too. It's a personal choice, a line each user has to decide for themselves (which is why centralized and centrally-moderated social media can't really work: we all draw different lines, and few of us agree with where Facebook's line is). Right now though, nobody wins: advertisers are given one set of rules, and users another, so under the current system, most parties lose. Advertisers could be banned if they draw too much heat. Users bristle under the hypocrisy. Facebook comes out ahead though, with that sweet ad revenue