7 ms·

Ah, yes - the moral ambiguity of sexualized western culture - somewhere between medieval moral repression and (tech-driven) liberalization.

by BikDk 5mo ago

avaer 5mo ago
As someone on the spectrum, I really don't understand where society draws this line. Seems self-contradictory to profiteer off of sexualized mass + social media (totally OK) but then get up in arms when that power is given to the masses (deepfake nudes). It seems more about power and money than anything else, and the moral grandstanding/outrage is the manipulative icing on top. EDIT: I am not saying any of this is ok. I am saying it's crazy social media has been destroying young people's lives encouraging them to sexualize for an audience for decades, and nobody is willing to do something that would maybe actually help these kids, like ban social media for under 18. I'm glad the tides are turning though.
- undersuit 5mo ago
  These children don't know they are being sexualized. Yeah the adults in the room are exploitive and manipulative but this should literally be a "think of the children" moment.
  - avaer 5mo ago
    That's what I'm saying. Children are being sexualized and exploited left and right on places like Insta, Youtube, often even encouraged by their parents as it can lucrative. And this is totally okay and encouraged. But when kids start sexualizing each other it's news and a big problem. I'm saying there is a strange standard applied where some forms of exploitation are encouraged. And I don't get it. But I get why it's confusing the kids.
    - embedding-shape 5mo ago
      > Children are being sexualized and exploited left and right on places like Insta, Youtube, often even encouraged by their parents as it can lucrative. And this is totally okay and encouraged. Huh, why would that be OK and encouraged? I haven't heard a single person, either on HN or around me AFK that they're OK with chil;dren being sexualized and exploited on social media, who on earth would even try to make such an argument?
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        The answer is, as usual, money. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2024-10-10/youtube-influencer-piper-rockelle-mother-lawsuit-settlement https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2024-10-10/... https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/piper-rockelle-mom-trial-court-abuse-allegations-tiffany-smith-rcna77228 https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/piper-rockelle... > In the 147-page complaint, the plaintiffs described Smith as a “mean-spirited control freak” and alleged she made comments about children’s genitalia, shouted obscene and sexually graphic remarks at them, encouraged them to be “sexy” and “sexually aggressive” in videos, and inappropriately touched the children on their legs, thighs and buttocks. One plaintiff said Smith told her she was mailing Rochelle’s underwear to a man who liked to “sniff” it.
        embedding-shape 5mo ago
        Doesn't those articles, allegations and suits prove that it isn't "totally okay and encouraged" in general?
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        This went on for years, amassing 10M subscribers and hundreds of millions of views, and it's a civil suit rather than a criminal one.
    - undersuit 5mo ago
      We can do something about that too!
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  > Seems self-contradictory to profiteer off of sexualized mass + social media (totally OK) but then get up in arms when that power is given to the masses (deepfake nudes). I think you might misunderstand the issue. Adults posting their own nudes on social media, even to profit from it? At a glance, seems OK, might have some moral/ethical considerations if you're involved with religion, but that should more be "Should I post my nudes?" rather than "Should others be allowed to post nudes?" but alas, religious people often don't think like that. People posting generated/fake nudes of others (sometimes children) on social media, even just for fun? At a glance, obviously not OK and obviously something that has to be addressed, in some manner, the very least make it illegal if it isn't already.
  - lostmsu 5mo ago
    > fake ... obviously not OK Obviously OK, and the puritans have to learn to live with it.
- lo_zamoyski 5mo ago
  The basic issue is that we have abandoned the basis for objective moral principles - human nature - and accepted bogus moral relativisms rooted in "consensus" or "my truth" (read: power). It is all too common and all too frustrating to hear someone get worked up about racism or bigotry or whatever else is the cause du jour[0], but when his favored vices come under the loupe, then all of a sudden he becomes a moral relativist. How convenient. "Society" is not a basis for morality. Consent or consensus are not a basis for morality. "Society", which means every one of us, has a duty to obey objective moral principles and learn to apply them within the concrete situations that make up our lives. Man is not free to confect his own moralities to taste, because he does not confect his own nature. So, the first thing we must do is accept the objectivity of moral principles. Without doing that, we would only be left to debate matters of taste. [0] Before the rabid dogs commence their barking, allow me to say that I do maintain that racism and bigotry are immoral, but I have a sound basis for maintaining their evil, unlike the moral relativist with his vacuous emotional ranting.
  - dec0dedab0de 5mo ago
    alright, I'll bite. What are these objective moral principles?
    - largbae 5mo ago
      Do unto others as you would have done to you. Or its simpler corollary: Don't do to others what you would _not_ want done to you. Everything else derives from this.
      - dec0dedab0de 5mo ago
        Ah the golden rule, classic, but it is so simplistic that it could encourage bad behavior. You can never assume that something you want or don't want applies to anyone else.
        panda-giddiness 5mo ago
        I think a better formulation is the so-called "platinum rule", i.e. to treat people as they want to treated (with the important qualification that you ∈ people). But even then it's not without issue (what if someone's wants are harmful to them, e.g. a child refusing to eat anything but candy?), and it's still a far cry from illuminating "objective moral principles" and fairly useless as a calculus for balancing different people's competing interests.
- GeoAtreides 5mo ago
  The line is consent. The line is always consent.
lo_zamoyski 5mo ago
The medieval period is much maligned for ideological reasons. And repressing bad behavior is a good thing.
BikDk 5mo ago
"I didn't start the fire"
alephnerd 5mo ago
The article also points out that this is an issue in Asia as well as South America, not just the "West". The crux of the issue is that revenge porn laws do not extend to digitally manipulated images in most jurisdictions.

Ah, yes - the moral ambiguity of sexualized western culture - somewhere between medieval moral repression and (tech-driven) liberalization.

by BikDk 5mo ago

Ah, yes - the moral ambiguity of sexualized western culture - somewhere between medieval moral repression and (tech-driven) liberalization.

avaer 5mo ago

As someone on the spectrum, I really don't understand where society draws this line. Seems self-contradictory to profiteer off of sexualized mass + social media (totally OK) but then get up in arms when that power is given to the masses (deepfake nudes). It seems more about power and money than anything else, and the moral grandstanding/outrage is the manipulative icing on top. EDIT: I am not saying any of this is ok. I am saying it's crazy social media has been destroying young people's lives encouraging them to sexualize for an audience for decades, and nobody is willing to do something that would maybe actually help these kids, like ban social media for under 18. I'm glad the tides are turning though.

undersuit 5mo ago
These children don't know they are being sexualized. Yeah the adults in the room are exploitive and manipulative but this should literally be a "think of the children" moment.
- avaer 5mo ago
  That's what I'm saying. Children are being sexualized and exploited left and right on places like Insta, Youtube, often even encouraged by their parents as it can lucrative. And this is totally okay and encouraged. But when kids start sexualizing each other it's news and a big problem. I'm saying there is a strange standard applied where some forms of exploitation are encouraged. And I don't get it. But I get why it's confusing the kids.
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    > Children are being sexualized and exploited left and right on places like Insta, Youtube, often even encouraged by their parents as it can lucrative. And this is totally okay and encouraged. Huh, why would that be OK and encouraged? I haven't heard a single person, either on HN or around me AFK that they're OK with chil;dren being sexualized and exploited on social media, who on earth would even try to make such an argument?
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      The answer is, as usual, money. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2024-10-10/youtube-influencer-piper-rockelle-mother-lawsuit-settlement https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2024-10-10/... https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/piper-rockelle-mom-trial-court-abuse-allegations-tiffany-smith-rcna77228 https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/piper-rockelle... > In the 147-page complaint, the plaintiffs described Smith as a “mean-spirited control freak” and alleged she made comments about children’s genitalia, shouted obscene and sexually graphic remarks at them, encouraged them to be “sexy” and “sexually aggressive” in videos, and inappropriately touched the children on their legs, thighs and buttocks. One plaintiff said Smith told her she was mailing Rochelle’s underwear to a man who liked to “sniff” it.
      - embedding-shape 5mo ago
        Doesn't those articles, allegations and suits prove that it isn't "totally okay and encouraged" in general?
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        This went on for years, amassing 10M subscribers and hundreds of millions of views, and it's a civil suit rather than a criminal one.
  - undersuit 5mo ago
    We can do something about that too!
embedding-shape 5mo ago
> Seems self-contradictory to profiteer off of sexualized mass + social media (totally OK) but then get up in arms when that power is given to the masses (deepfake nudes). I think you might misunderstand the issue. Adults posting their own nudes on social media, even to profit from it? At a glance, seems OK, might have some moral/ethical considerations if you're involved with religion, but that should more be "Should I post my nudes?" rather than "Should others be allowed to post nudes?" but alas, religious people often don't think like that. People posting generated/fake nudes of others (sometimes children) on social media, even just for fun? At a glance, obviously not OK and obviously something that has to be addressed, in some manner, the very least make it illegal if it isn't already.
- lostmsu 5mo ago
  > fake ... obviously not OK Obviously OK, and the puritans have to learn to live with it.
lo_zamoyski 5mo ago
The basic issue is that we have abandoned the basis for objective moral principles - human nature - and accepted bogus moral relativisms rooted in "consensus" or "my truth" (read: power). It is all too common and all too frustrating to hear someone get worked up about racism or bigotry or whatever else is the cause du jour[0], but when his favored vices come under the loupe, then all of a sudden he becomes a moral relativist. How convenient. "Society" is not a basis for morality. Consent or consensus are not a basis for morality. "Society", which means every one of us, has a duty to obey objective moral principles and learn to apply them within the concrete situations that make up our lives. Man is not free to confect his own moralities to taste, because he does not confect his own nature. So, the first thing we must do is accept the objectivity of moral principles. Without doing that, we would only be left to debate matters of taste. [0] Before the rabid dogs commence their barking, allow me to say that I do maintain that racism and bigotry are immoral, but I have a sound basis for maintaining their evil, unlike the moral relativist with his vacuous emotional ranting.
- dec0dedab0de 5mo ago
  alright, I'll bite. What are these objective moral principles?
  - largbae 5mo ago
    Do unto others as you would have done to you. Or its simpler corollary: Don't do to others what you would _not_ want done to you. Everything else derives from this.
    - dec0dedab0de 5mo ago
      Ah the golden rule, classic, but it is so simplistic that it could encourage bad behavior. You can never assume that something you want or don't want applies to anyone else.
      - panda-giddiness 5mo ago
        I think a better formulation is the so-called "platinum rule", i.e. to treat people as they want to treated (with the important qualification that you ∈ people). But even then it's not without issue (what if someone's wants are harmful to them, e.g. a child refusing to eat anything but candy?), and it's still a far cry from illuminating "objective moral principles" and fairly useless as a calculus for balancing different people's competing interests.
GeoAtreides 5mo ago
The line is consent. The line is always consent.

lo_zamoyski 5mo ago

The medieval period is much maligned for ideological reasons. And repressing bad behavior is a good thing.

BikDk 5mo ago

"I didn't start the fire"

alephnerd 5mo ago

The article also points out that this is an issue in Asia as well as South America, not just the "West". The crux of the issue is that revenge porn laws do not extend to digitally manipulated images in most jurisdictions.