Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

You are free to purchase a domain from a registrar, setup a server or purchase hosting and bandwidth, and display any legal content, including nudity, on the internet for all to see.

>How is this democracy?

If you are in a democratic country, you can vote for representatives, or run for office yourself. Has nothing to do with you being able to host something on someone else's computer.

>How is this an advanced society?

Because you can upload functionally limitless digital content to someone else's computer and someone else halfway around the world can almost instantly view it on a handheld device. Obviously restricted to the rules of the entity paying to host said content.

View on HN

> You are free to purchase a domain from a registrar, setup a server or purchase hosting and bandwidth, and display any legal content, including nudity, on the internet for all to see.

This retort always seems kind of trite and disingenuous.

First of all, no, they are not free to do these things unless they are billionaires with capital to spend. "Just start your own business" is a silly dismissal because the vast majority of people cannot start such a business. Second, it doesn't even address the original complaint. "I think Company X should do ABC." Suggesting they start a different company to do ABC doesn't really address what OP calls for: Company X changing their ways.

They do not have to start a company to share their nude art or whatever they want. And they don’t have to be billionaires. $100 per month is plenty to cover bandwidth and hosting expenses.

There has never been a cheaper and quicker way to share one’s art in the history of humanity.

Let's clarify some things. I am fully capable technically. VPS, Next.js site, Stripe, and so on. My complaint is cultural first, megacorp censorship second. Read the part with 17–18 centuries nude art. Think about the society in those times. Compare with today.

Yes, I agree with the cultural changes.

It doesn't even take $100/mo like the other commenter says. It takes about $10/mo to have a website that would be completely capable of displaying "art" to however many people you can convince to look at it. It's simple too.

It's just that the network effect of megacorp social media means you won't actually get many random arbitrary visitors and you won't have a way to monetize easily.

So if you just care about art and not about monetizing you're art there's no problem. Should be good. If your goal is only money then, yes, you have to stick to the marketplaces.

So you solved the issue? Right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com