Everyone is saying they could have gone to X, Y or Z instead of going to OnlyFans. IMO this decision to host on OF was very deliberate. Had they gone to any other platform no one would have raised an eyebrow. But because they went to OF everyone is doing a double take because of OF's reputation.
They knew (rightly so) that if they opened an OF account, they would get a bunch of free press and bring more eyeballs to their artwork.
They are quoted saying as much in the NYT coverage of this story:
> Mr. Kettner said that the OnlyFans account is not a permanent solution, but rather a protest against censorship and a call for conversation. “We want to draw attention to a certain thing,” he said. “We want to put it out there, to talk about the role of artificial intelligence, of algorithms.”
So, they’re doing this because the images constantly get flagged and reported on other social media. It doesn’t seem that hard to let users set a NSFW flag that determines whether they’re ok with nsfw content in their feed. Doesn’t Reddit do this?
It's probably that and it's great marketing TBH. They could have just posted them on their own site or another palace that allows NSFW images (Reddit, Twitter, etc). But they probably also knew that a story about an art museum opening an OnlyFans is going to be fantastic marketing.
Reddit uses the NSFW flag as bait to get you to sign up for the app. Any time you click on a link to such content, you are told have to install the app to see it.
Maybe this is a mobile only thing? I can view NSFW content on desktop (both old + new reddit) while being logged out and logged in without a prompt to download anything.
Thanks I'll have to try that, I think I've only ever used it on my phone. I recently encountered that app-wall and had even googled how to get around it and couldn't find any information on it.
I mean i actually get that…you don’t want random casual viewers accidentally seeing graphic images. Even an NSFW tag (which in reddit is often abused on definitely not-NSFW content) won’t deter them.
IMO as long as reddit still has those images, even if they’re behind subreddits which proclaim “WARNING: SEE AT YOUR OWN RISK”, that’s good enough.
In certain countries having a specific flag come up on your reddit feed is dangerous. So NSFW applies to things like that too. I agree with your opinion on how reddit deals with NSFW issues.
Twitter does. Facebook and therefore instagram have the "no female-presenting nipples" rule, and you're not allowed adult content even though they know you're an adult.
> Vienna’s tourism board has started an account on OnlyFans – the only social network that permits depictions of nudity – in protest against platforms’ ongoing censorship of its art museums and galleries.
The only social network? How about the Fediverse? Spin up their own PixelFed (and a Mastodon instance too), promote it widely, and donate some of their public money to these FOSS projects based on open standards, instead of just choosing a proprietary centralized platform.
Fediverse is a niche thing for people who care more about decentralisation for the sake of decentralisation rather than the actual social media aspect.
I can remember when a lot of widespread network platforms were niche. Twitter and post Twitter started this VC instant popularity expectation.
I don't mean to advocate for Mastodon or anything else in particular, but these things sometimes have a way of being niche until they're not.
I also think part of the parent's argument was that in encountering obstacles like this, groups of nonprofit institutions such as art museums could leverage their position to promote decentralized systems, rather than simply throw up their hands and go with a sensationalized move.
Then again we are here discussing it. But then again if they banded together to post on some decentralized platform we'd probably be talking too.
The Internet was once a niche thing for people who cared about decentralisation and interoperability. Otherwise we would be in "I can't get to HN, it's on the AT&T network" or "Only $5 more to upgrade to the Tech Websites Package!" territory today.
There's no reason social media shouldn't be more decentralized and federated. European institutes can and should consider open source, federated alternatives unless they want to be forced to play by the rules of the big social media providers.
Not in my experience, personally. There's a fair few artists who have art accounts on mastodon.socal and the related mastodon servers - especially handy for NSFW artists of all stripes.
I don't know where you get this notion. Fediverse is small with only about 4 million accounts spread out on a couple 1,000 instances. Social aspects are taken very seriously though, and have created a unique atmosphere and culture. Netiquette is taken seriously, and devs take care to avoid building social features that are harmful.
I think the decision to put it up on OF was pretty deliberate. A story about a museum opening an OnlyFans account is going to get alot more people talking than if the museum did it with the Fediverse or some other implementation.
Laws in Europe are different in the US. I used to work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where I published the entire collection online. I got calls from colleagues in Europe amazed that we didn't worry about kids seeing stuff they shouldn't. We think the US is puritan but the decision that anything with merit can't be judged obscene actually protects us.
protip: nothing gets judged as legally obscene in the US as nobody wants the actual decisive court case. Supreme Court has left a carveout that things can distinctly be considered obscene, but nobody has gone that far. they made new carveouts for child sexual depictions even it not passing the obscenity test. More recently, a man was sued under copyright laws for pirating pornography and their defense was that because the work was obscene it could not be have any copyright restrictions, of course since the law firms suing over piracy are just spraying and praying, they don't want an actual trial. This area is not resolved and likely won't ever be.
> nothing gets judged as legally obscene in the US as nobody wants the actual decisive court case
There are a lot of court cases on obscenity, some of which hold decisively [1].
> a man was sued under copyright laws for pirating pornography and their defense was that because the work was obscene it could not be have any copyright restrictions…since the law firms suing over piracy are just spraying and praying, they don't want an actual trial
Nonsense. Porn companies regularly go to court to protect their IP [2]. (To your example, in which venue was your defendant defending himself if not in a court?)
Everything in your [1] source says obscenity itself gets further and further diluted, and that the judges decisively say "obscenity exists" but are not trying cases themselves on obscenity grounds. and then stops before the year 2002. that is a laughable source as it doesn't even know what happened in the final court case mentioned and then lacks 20 years of data. this is a chronology, on this topic the relevant cases being the later ones, even in your article.
I mentioned one specific court case where one specific defendant was sued over one specific piece of content, where one specific plaintiff didn't move forward with the case after being presented with a defense, because they are serial plaintiffs that only want settlements. Your own source [2] says serial plaintiffs is what is happening! Not even sure where to start with you. The only point being about why there is not a decisive case on that particular defense because it never reached a judge.
More specifically, Liuxia Wong v Hard Drive Productions is a countercase, referring to Hard Drive Productions demanding a settlement from Liuxia for infringing on their copyright of a porn movie. Liuxia sued them back saying it wasn't copyrightable. What you will find online are motions to dismiss, which were denied. Then you'll find there was a settlement
short discussion (about why its largely unsatisfactory in establishing any precedent and reinforces how there likely won't be any precendent on this matter as nobody is interested in taking it above trial courts): https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/case-closed-won...
It is common but I know some creators who censor their posts as nudes are actually against the rules and people can get their accounts banned for this. For some that work hard to build a following getting banned can be catastrophic.
The guy that runs these accounts was having a few blocked about 6 months ago but seems to have straightened it out. They’re bots though so it isn’t gonna kill him if they shut one down.
Meanwhile we have hundreds of videos of a man being brutally chopped off his hand, hung upside down while he bleeds, then legs chopped off and finally dies gasping all over Twitter and Facebook, for anyone to see, even kids who stumble upon it. Apparently such content doesn't harm users as much as some Renaissance nudes.
America was founded by Protestants and it shows. Nudity and sexuality is basically the most cardinal sin, above any type of violence even.
As someone outside the Anglo Saxon world I’m amazed how Puritan it is. Like seeing a nipple or kids seeing a nipple really isn’t the end of the world. But Americans can’t even get over public breastfeeding.
Also, I’m not sure how much of the hullabaloo about breast feeding in public is about the breast, and how much is about the idea that women with children should be at home, under the guise of it being about the breast. It could be more sexism than Puritanism.
I don't think the sexism is separable from the Puritanism. The sexism built in to the religion and in the practitioners of it are reinforcing each other
...outside of extremely remote areas I don't think anyone in modern US culture would express distaste about a mom being out with children. You see women with infants in wine bars, etc.
Twitter and Facebook are full of this stuff, but what Hollywood puts out isn't any less gruesome, though probably more realistic in the sense that they tend to make sure that all the gory stuff is in good close-up instead of just overview shots.
Yeah, although at least with films you know it is make-believe. The real stuff is also pervasive on social media and that can be terribly damaging for a young person to stumble upon. In my opinion, more so than stumbling upon even hardcore porn. Arbitrary censorship is worse than either totally locking down everything or being completely open. With the latter two you (as a user/consumer) know what to expect and can be prepared.
You know it’s make believe, but part of the point of movies is to suspend your disbelief and for a short time believe that it’s real. That distinction is even harder for children, which is why the violence of movies for your kids is problematic.
Hollywood movies go out of the way to make violence look and feel unrealistic. It is effectively cartoon violence that makes you chill, but never makes you feel bad.
Hollywood in particular is not even interested in gruesome or realistic or effective depiction of violence.
I agree with the sentiment. My theory is that while the stuff you name is indeed horrifying, the issue with sexuality is that it acts like a drug (it changes your behavior chemically, can be addictive, etc.) and it’s a combination of (a) kids haven’t learned how to “handle their liquor” in that department yet, and (b) many adults have also not learned how to do that and so find it difficult to engage in that topic conversationally, and so avoid the topic in the guise of protecting the children. The violence you describe above is less complicated: it’s bad. Not a lot of nuance there.
I’ve seen people make the argument that an image of an exposed breast is harmful to young children (even when those same kids are still breastfeeding).
(b) is entirely a deficit of the parents, or of a prudish culture that makes conversations about sexuality taboo. It is not intrinsic to sexuality.
Meanwhile, mainstream culture doesn't bother to similarly "protect" children from alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, and other vices. It would look weird if parents allowed and encouraged consumption before a certain age (which exactly depends on culture), but we don't bother to hide from them that we consume, and pretty much accept that they will routinely consume at some point too.
We can discuss at length how damaging each of these is, but I find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues caused by exposure to porn. All of these vices carry danger, but their acceptance in society varies. Because of this, issues with the more taboo ones are more difficult to prevent, to diagnose and to treat.
> (b) is entirely a deficit of the parents, or of a prudish culture that makes conversations about sexuality taboo. It is not intrinsic to sexuality.
That's... my point? It's like you're agreeing with me but in a tone that says you're disagreeing with me.
> I find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues caused by exposure to porn
I didn't say anything at all about porn, alcohol (except for the 'holding their liquor' metaphor, not meaning children should drink alcohol), cigarettes, or sugar? If not for the fact that you mention my point (b) I would have thought you were replying to the wrong comment. I don't know who is arguing that alcoholism is less damaging than porn, but it isn't me!
Yeah, I went off-topic a bit here. My point was that the dangers of violence and porn and other poorly expressed forms of sexuality are not that different from each other. Your presentation read like (b) would be specific to sexuality for other reasons than culture treating it as taboo. The nuance you describe is not a given.
Violence can be addictive too. It frequently is, judging by the amount of gore (simulated or real) sites and rape-fantasy/BDSM porn out there. The addiction to violence actually (IMO) works a more vicious evil in your brain than plain sex/porn addiction, though that is damaging in its own way too.
I agree! However, I think when violence becomes addictive its because it gets linked to sexuality. Mostly I’m just saying I agree.
I read an interesting essay years ago from a psych-educated person (leaving that intentionally vague because I don’t remember) who was urging moviemakers not to reduce the amount of sex or violence in movies, but to separate those scenes in movies by some amount of time like 5 minutes: ok to have a sex scene, ok to have a murder scene, but please no sexy murder scenes.
Yea I never understood why there's such a crusade to go after people with pictures of nude children on their phones/computers but no one seems to give a shit about someone who collects footage of people (children included!) being brutally tortured and murdered...if we're assembling lists of people we don't like I feel like that should also make the list.
First, in order to produce child porn you have to abuse real child. At least that is what I think you talk about.
Second, who exactly is cool with collection of child torture videos? Or collection of murders? Because when I came across discussion about such finding, the consensus was that people were horrified, scared, seen it as red flag and seeked to classify kid ones as child port (and hence call authoritirs). It was on reddit.
I think we all agree that media involving children always forces strong reactions, no matter if it is violence or porn. But I'd guess it would create less of a ruckus if a video showing an adult being beheaded is discovered on a child's phone than an adult porn video. People would get upset about the former and the child's environment would be investigated, but it won't necessarily lead to a scandal with news coverage, criminal investigations and resignation of the school principal.
I don't live in the US but I doubt that's true in most places given that adult porn is way easier to access than gore. "Pornhub" is a household name, on the other hand, assuming they're not particularly interested in gore, chances are most people can't cite the name of a site specializing in distributing real gore.
Erm, what planet is that on? You can show people getting shot and killed on primetime TV, but you can't show a video of a nudist beach, let alone porn.
Does nothing in Deadpool 2 qualify as gore to you? It's among several movies which depict man falling into a woodchipper. Does cutting zombies with a chainsaw not count as gore? Do videos of abatteur, butchers and surgeries count as gore?
Gore is subjective obviously, but if the above is not 'gore enough' for you, then you are comparing some extreme gore, of the kind that most people will (hopefully) never encounter in their life, with pedestrian portrayals of sex, something most people do encounter.
Jokes aside, let's flip your argument on it's head -> would you be concerned if someone you know recommended you a website where various kinds of gore are uploaded by the thousands every day, they are tagged and categorised for easy search? Are you concerned about pornhub to the same degree? I would probably refer to them to a mental health helpline immediately.
It's not actually hard to find Gore, it does surface on 4Chan and other places occasionally, it's just that mentally healthy people don't search it regularly the way they do porn.
There are hundreds of them (just search by hashtags in the posts above). Of course same set of videos/pics repeated over & over, but my point is that such stuff is present all over Twitter & FB and anyone accessing those platforms can stumble upon them. Twitter doesn't even seem to put them behind a "Violent/NSFW" click-through.
I don't see how nudity can be more damaging or pernicious than such content.
And the papers printed a nude nine year old girl getting burned alive by napalm. Some events are worth depicting even if they are shocking or horrifying and political murder is one of them.
There's probably a potential difference in intent, in the sense that a kid will not buy the new York times but they might be exposed to random things on Twitter.
I'm not sure of the "kids will suffer because of violent images" idea tho, we were shown a crap ton of terrible imagery from WWI/WWII/Holocaust/Vietnam when I was in middle school, and if anything I thought it was a good thing.
Just go watch the latest batch of Hollywood movies.
I'd suggest starting with 'Law abiding citizen' and 'John Wick'. Note that an 'R' rating means that children under 17 are not allowed to watch these without a parent or a guardian present. But that's different from 'adult-only', after all, technically it is still allowed. The proper marker would be 'X' if it was to be compared to 'adult only'.
It's not america's fault, but the rest of the world's. Unfortunately europe has rendered itself completely dependent on US media to the point where i don't know any sites where i could discuss matters from european perspective. There are only local language sites.
Why the local language sites don't count? It is not like Americans discussed American issues in Italian, Americans talk about it in their own local language.
There is definitely a lot of art that is "adult" for one reason or other. If I walked into my kids' daycare to see a reproduction of [0] on the wall, I'd definitely raise an eyebrow, and even [1] is probably enough to scare smaller children. We've kind of grown numbed to the iconography, but even as an older teenager I was fairly shocked by a closer look at [2].
The distinction between "art" and "pornography" is also somewhat artificial. It's hard to argue that [3] was not meant to be prurient when the model (underage, by today's standards) shortly thereafter became a mistress of the King of France, based on him having seen the painting. And some stuff that was painted might get you banned from OnlyFans even today, e.g. [4].
But the problem, it seems to me, is that the internet has turned into a place where (1) everything has to be "safe for children" and (2) said safety standards are defined (through US influence, I strongly suspect) to be highly permissive of violence, but super strict on nudity.
yep every time I head to gutenberg.org I'm reminded that it doesn't get any more ironic. The guy was German for gods sake, we invented the printing press and here I am 600 years later getting owned by copyright
Gutenberg making the movable type popular[1] is one of primary reasons Statute of Anne(1710) and copyright was created. It shouldn't be surprising that you are seeing the effects of that.
With movable type printing, the market for books could be widened, suddenly writing and printing presses could go professional, before that it was largely academic. Printers and distributors and writers both became professional and needed their rights balanced and became economically influential enough to get legislature to enact laws to protect both groups.
[1] He was the first in Europe, he didn't invent it first in the world.
> If I walked into my kids' daycare to see a reproduction of [0] on the wall, I'd definitely raise an eyebrow, and even [1] is probably enough to scare smaller children.
I'm not sure this is meaningful. You would also find any fine art unusual in the context of a daycare, regardless of whether or not it's offensive. Your mind is trained to expect bright colors, letters, shapes, etc. in that context.
A better question is, would you expect an art museum to have these paintings in a separate area that requires proof of age to see? And I think the answer to that is absolutely not. That would be weird.
That's far from what your kid can see just watching a few minutes of news. (And I'm not even talking about this email I received from the kindergarten explaining to all parents that kids of this age aren't supposed to watch Squid Game at home!)
What's wrong with those two? These are innocent painting of naked people (also children have no sense of pudency before way after kindergarten so they just can't see the problem with this)
Because automatic content detection suck really bad, and a kid in that position might be detected as child porn by a bot
I've had multiple pics flagged by discord as "graphic" even though none were graphic, the last one was a close up picture of a coin held between my fingers
Hands and fingers always trip up NSFW detection models. We use them for automoderation and a lot of people demoing nail art, close up shots of someone painting etc get classified as NSFW. My guess is that fingers kind of look similar to legs to a CNN model and it appears like naked legs.
TBH I think 0-2 would pass as completely fine depending on the context. #1 could probably be put anywhere and would only scare the most easily scared children. I could definitely expect to see stuff like #0 and #2 at maybe not the corner street daycare but maybe a prestigious private catholic school's daycare would have that nearby.
#3, #4 would just seem out of place because of their nudity. Most sane people would realize it is art but it would still seem weird.
Part of the US's double standard involves being exposed to stuff like the crucifixion and the concept of torture at a very young age. The concept that nudity can be appreciated or even expressed outside of a sexual context is not really a thing in the US. The issue is that the only use cases for nudity in movies & TV is going to sex related 99% of the time because if you are going to show nudity you might as well use it to suggest or depict sex.
I agree that #1 would be considered harmless by most people, and except for the fact that it's still copyrighted would not be subject to a takedown anywhere. As you say, #2 would probably be widely accepted due to the religious context, even though objectively it is quite gory.
I disagree with your assessment of #0. It is extremely gory, repurposes religious imagery in a secular context, and was considered such a menace to society that it could not be shown in museums and had to be hidden for 15 years.
And I think #3 and especially #4 were not meant to depict nudity devoid of a sexual context. With Fragonard, there is often an acknowledged voyeuristic element, even in paintings where there is no nudity, such as https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/the-swing-1... (cf also the original French title).
But it's kind of twisted that we consider it less weird to look at a person nailed to a cross than one engaged in a prelude to a reproductive act.
> internet has turned into a place where (1) everything has to be "safe for children
It is not just safe for children. Safe for work too. Safe for people who don't like porn in their feeds too. I think that these filters don't particularly care about high art, because that is insignificant percentage of overall nudity people post. Most of it is boobs and genitals.
The art you posted is all tame. But not all art is tame and like between porn, erotic and art is often blurry.
NSFW is probably quite a lower threshold than not for children generally. I have a couple pieces of art in my house that I definitely would not put up in a work office if I had one, a screen saver on a work laptop etc. I'm not sure it's even so much the case that someone would take offence but that people would be concerned that someone might and/or think (probably correctly) that I was trying to test the limits of what was appropriate for a work setting.
That said, someone will get upset at just about anything.
Yes. But I think that when people chalk it all to kids, they are massively oversimplifying. Because on forum like this it is easier to attack "safety for childer" arguing.
But in reality, people don't want to see erotica and such in their own feeds. The threshold of where it becomes unwanted is different for everyone. But most people want some level of filtering to be done for them.
Plus people want to be able to scroll Facebook or Twitter in work for few minutes without risking something inappropriate shows up.
And lines between art that feels good, erotics or porn, and basically bad art/photo that is super cringy just to look at and disgusting are blurry. And they are also subjective.
Nudity and sexual content was always subject to suppression and censorship, it's just that "fine art" got a free exception for nudity for reasons that I've never seen adequately explained but are almost certainly to do with class.
He knew in his heart that spinning upside down around a pole wearing a costume you could floss with definitely was not Art, and being painted lying on a bed wearing nothing but a smile and a small bunch of grapes was good solid Art, but putting your finger on why this was the case was a bit tricky.
“No urns,” he said at last.
“What urns?” said Nobby.
“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added: “Or a plinth. Best is both, o’course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”
"The Ankh-Morpork Fine Art Appreciation Society, hem hem. It's just men paintin' pictures of young wimmin in the nudd. Some of them don't even have any paint on their brushes, you know. Shameful." — Guards! Guards! (1989)
"it's just that "fine art" got a free exception for nudity for reasons that I've never seen adequately explained but are almost certainly to do with class."
Because otherwise art is impossible.
If you are a painter, and you need to draw people, you learn to draw naked people because you need to learn how human anatomy works, where various muscles and wrinkles are. In your careers you won't be just asked to draw dudes in T-shirts, you will have to draw or animate people in various clothes and state of dress or undress, torn clothing, gladiator games, etc.
There is great deal of knowledge that they actually have to learn, how to draw realistic deltoids in different body positions, or under stress to show that a person is putting in a great effort to support a great weight, or is in a fight. A drawing by a great artist should make a medical professional happy.
That's why they hire nude models to stand around in various posses, and they aren't all pretty, some of them are old people because they have to learn how to draw wrinkles and old skin.
As far as I can tell, every human culture has some taboos about these things. In my readings, I've never heard of a culture where the base state is nudity and this is unremarkable. Even in cultures where we think they're nude, they're still working their own modesty standards. I am reminded how in some traditional New Guinean cultures, the males wear nothing but a gourd to cover the genitalia. But they're very shy without the gourds. Similarly, there isn't a single culture ever documented (to the best of my knowledge) where lovers don't usually seek some degree of privacy.
Of course, exactly what counts as nude (or public lovemaking) and just how draconian the repercussions for transgression are, varies greatly.
I knew I shouldn't have made a categorical statement, but it's been the rule rather than the exception everywhere with a printing press. Even the much vaunted US freedom of the press ran into the Comstock laws.
> Nudity and sexual content was always subject to suppression and censorship, it's just that "fine art" got a free exception for nudity for reasons that I've never seen adequately explained but are almost certainly to do with class.
This is true only for very unusual definitions of “always” and/or “fine art”; history is more than Victorian England.
Can you name a culture where people don't have some taboo or restrictions about sexuality in art or drawings? It may he more loose or less loose, but it always exists somewhere.
I'm not sure it's Puritan so much as it's modern society's strange desire to sexualize everything while also keeping sexuality behind glass, figuratively speaking.
There is always a problem when you have to apply one set of standards globally. Ideally there would be far more censorship but it would only affect decentralized communities of ~150. Smaller groups can set rules to suit themselves, less so with billions of users.
Or is this a clever art installation in itself commenting on ideas like censorship and views of the human body in modern society? I think this is ridiculously clever!
Austria is fairly Catholic for European standards, but Vienna, the capital, is a major exception. It had a "sexually liberated", freethinking and bohemian reputation already in the 19th century.
Much like the USA, Europe does not fit into neat boxes made of stereotypes.
What I was really trying to do was mention the areas of Europe that are either “sexually liberated” or apathetic to sexuality and equally wont bother anybody or weakly say “it’s not my opinion it’s the advertisers!” because the advertisers don’t care either
I wasn't aiming to imply or say the entire subcontinent is like that
Not sure a better way to do that, even with your observation
I don't know. I used to want to be able to draw like Egon Schiele. Back when I was in art school they had an assignment where you drew a self portrait in the style of another artist so I did Egon. Didn't do the full nude but you know. The guy could draw. Still wish I could draw like that but wishes aren't paychecks.
People taking the subway to work might not want to see all that.
As an artist I avoid sharing over the internet oil nudes, anatomy sketches or artistic nude photography. I made the last attempt in early 2013 trough Instagram. Quickly realizing the big mistake I deleted my account and never come back.
This are the new times. We will adapt as always.
A mob of angry puritans attacked me in the comments and over-reported my act photos for abuse etc. (photos were black & white medium film and abstract as can possibly be - with no nipples in sight and no sexual provocation in composition).
Someone (I assume moderators) deleted my posts minutes after upload.
After several attempts to clear the issue and no reaction from Instagram I decided that it is not worth the effort. Mind you, at the time all influencers were using the platform in sexually subjective ways with no problems at all.
Since then, I don't share on any platform my act photography, painting or drawing work.
It is available only for exhibitions and print medium (albums).
Anyway it's less of a moral thing and more economical. Facebook sells ads next to user content. Anything that advertisers are unwilling to risk appearing next to is on thin ice.
It is grossly inappropriate that we subjugate our entire culture to the capricious will of online advertisers. They are unaccountable, unelected, rife with fraud and not even subject to customer feedback. It's all the evils of both government bureaucracy and free markets distilled into one toxic concoction.
I would rather pay a subscribtion fee for any social network I use, keep the data and decide what I get to see.
I don't think it's necessarily about being puritan.
If images like these, which is by definition art, were what people posted on FB, Twitter, etc., then maybe to a degree they would be allowed on certain platforms.
However the reality is that the vast majority is very hardcore material that should not be allowed. You either allow all or try to forbid everything, otherwise you end up in a mess since many people end up in the extremes, and the sensible content slowly fades away.If you're talking about the culture and society being puritan, I agree, but then again the access to information also drastically changed.To this you also include the fact that by definition facebook &co try to be very globalistic in nature, they also have to adapt to certain "societal norms"(thinking about the eastern ones), where people are way more puritan.
Imo such art being displayed on OF is kind of a shame and a disgrace to those artists, considering the kind of material being posted there.
I am not sure why seeing, for example, the statue of Michael Angelo, might have a bad influence on Children except according to some perverse religion where the human body is somehow bad.
I’m glad that nude artwork is filtered out from the mainstream, because if it weren’t, the art world would become even more faddish and attention-seeking. I can’t even search YouTube for recipes or offgrid videos anymore, because the top results are always a woman in a sexualized pose.
It’s okay to like boundaries. Everything doesn’t need to be blared in your face all the time. Saying this doesn’t make me a Puritan, it makes me in line with most of the people on earth.
HN is a very niche audience. Most of the global population is in China, India, Africa, and the Muslim world (including Indonesia and Pakistan) and the majority of these people do not want nudity everywhere.
As usual, a small segment of Western society deems itself morally superior to the entire world. New century, same old mentality.
They could also host these on their own website, but of course that doesn’t sound as flashy.
We are subject to American Puritanism because Europe has failed time and time again to create competitive social networks because of regulations and scarce access to capital. Better complain about that.
Silicon Valley has the first-mover advantage in social networks and pretty much all other sectors in IT technology. Competitors in Europe only exist because of niches, sometimes created by regulation and mostly by cultural differences. However, the (mostly) laissez-faire approach to access to information makes it difficult to put constraints on social networks. China managed to do so thanks to their Great Firewall. The GDPR is too little, too late, and the public is too used now to scatter factoids about their private lives on the internet.
Excluding a basic part of human experience (nude bodies, let alone sexuality) really puts a crimp on artistic expression. Facebook is a cultural dead end.
I knew very little about OnlyFans, and when I went looking for more information I found this line on Wikipedia:
"The website [OnlyFans] has been criticized for hosting child sexual abuse material, though the National Center on Sexual Exploitation reports negligible numbers of incidents in comparison to Facebook."
_-_WGA2906.jpg){kind=link}
They knew (rightly so) that if they opened an OF account, they would get a bunch of free press and bring more eyeballs to their artwork.