Hacker News Reader

Comment by SmellyGeekBoy | Hacker News Reader

There is no actual pornographic content posted by these accounts - they're being banned because of who they are.

It doesn't matter for advertisers whether they actually post porn or not : the image of the actor is 'tainted' by their professional lives, and could taint the ads next to it too.

I'm not supporting this, just trying to explain why not actually posting porn is no workaound to satisfy the ads company.

Presumably advertisers don't want their content interspersed in the middle of a porn stars instagram story, whether the actual content is pornographic or not.

Then it should be enough to flag those accounts, and only show ads which are explicietly ok with showing it there. This even is an advantage, because some products who already work on the border of sex-ads would surely be very happy to be shown in that context.

Once you are notified of a possible SESTA/FOSTA violation, you are required to act.

Isn’t so that only porn consumers recognise porn stars, and/or follow them? So why is it a problem for advertisers? End user gets their ads in the context that does not offend them.

They are temp de-activated because an IRC channel with a 100 or so bored kids mass-reported them. No one at Instagram looks at these accounts and goes: let's ban them for who they are. If you really think that, you got tricked.

It appears to be permanent not temporary?

They are being banned for who they are, even if the decision is being delegated by Instagram to angry members of the public.

The mentioned cases in this article all talk of re-activation, the others I assume legit broke guidelines meant to protect its younger users.

For instance, the article mentions Cinderella Jewels, which has a new account showcasing her "pole journey". NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/p/B4xM_b4AtC-/ and her Youtube banner: https://yt3.ggpht.com/L6jM6xMK_QBRZieP8x8f8_f6x1BYQi30_K7WGL...

Here is Bloggeronpole showing "body positivity", while complaining they won't let her post a video of her working out in a bikini NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2td-HPgzDP/

Here is Ginger Banks' instagram, who claimed in the article: "I've never posted explicit images on Instagram. But even a picture of me wearing leggings could be extremely provocative to someone, and worthy of being reported": NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/thegingerbanks/ and here you can support her art, for just 100$ a month you can help end the stigma that is surrounding sex and view art that makes you question yourself: https://www.patreon.com/GingerBanks (NSFW).

One of the many reasons why "surveillance capitalism" is terrible for humanity.

Once the wealthy and powerful know everything there is to know about you, they can take any arbitrary decisions they want against you - in all places, online or offline. They can effectively "ban you from society" just because you did something they may not like.

Worse yet, that "something" may be decided by an "AI" they created and there will be no recourse (people dealing with Google/Facebook "support" probably know what that means).

Don't be naive, most of them are escorts looking for affluent customers which would get Instagram into hot water wrt SESTA/FOSTA once they are notified about it. Instagram is doing the right thing; moreover, Instagram/Snapchat is facilitating tax avoidance from "premium services" so there must be pressure coming from IRS as well; it's better for Instagram to ban those "models" than to rat them out to IRS and get bad rep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com