There used to be a Kbin instance called feddit.online, which was shut down. @Jerry@hear-me.social just announced on Mastodon, that he brought feddit.online back to life, this time using PieFed. PieFed is a pretty neat alternative to Lemmy and Kbin/Mbin, created by @rimu@piefed.social and of course it's fully free and open source on Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi
It has some cool features like “Topics”, which are basically groups of multiple communities that you can view all at once (similar to these Lemmy feature requests: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3071 https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui/issues/1113).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cacheson@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

You seem to be implying that I'm arguing something that I'm not? This thread started with me lamenting that piefed.social accounts are prohibited from accessing NSFW communities, and inquiring whether feddit.online would have the same policies. Along with some commentary on the general state of the threadiverse's culture.

Note that I haven't asked either admin to host said communities, and I specifically acknowledged the caching issue. Nor am I advocating for them to be treated on absolutely equal footing; they're specially marked so that people who don't want to see them can filter them out, which I think is a good thing.

what do you think will happen if you create an online space and put a big billboard saying "here you will always be free to share your NSFW content"?

If you're specifically advertising it as focused on that, then that's likely what you'll get. If you allow NSFW but don't center it, you'll end up with something like Reddit, Twitter, or pre-ban Tumblr. While there are things to criticize about those sites, very little of it has to do with porn.

Content discovery of porn should not be as easy and it should not be trivialized under the pretense of "sex positivity".

Why? That absolutely sounds like a sex-negative attitude to me. It's treating sexuality as something toxic that needs to be suppressed and hidden even from those that are interested in seeing it. Sex positivity means treating sexuality as a normal thing that is not unusual for people to be interested in.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

advocating for them to be treated on absolutely equal footing; they're specially marked so that people who don't

You lamented the fact that unlogged users can not see it and that they can not be found as easily. This is the same as "make it available to the public without any type of check".

It's treating sexuality as something toxic

Sexuality != Porn, and "toxicity" is dose-dependent. Eating a bit of broccoli is good for you. Too much at once and you get thyroid dysfunction.

There are plenty of things that are good and normal, but need to be discussed/presented with a proper context and (most importantly) people need to have a better understanding of the potential bad consequences if it is abused or corrupted.

You don't see young people destroying their lives because they were promised they could make a lot of money by knitting sweaters or working as electricians, but cases of vulnerable women who regret getting into sex work are infinite.

[–] cacheson@piefed.social 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

You lamented the fact that unlogged users can not see it and that they can not be found as easily. This is the same as "make it available to the public without any type of check".

Behold! (nsfw) - no login required, just an "are you 18+?" prompt, which is pretty standard. You can also search for NSFW communities without logging in. If you're being more moralistic about this than Reddit is, you're probably taking it too far.

Sexuality != Porn

Porn ∈ Sexuality. Also, I intentionally used a broader term here, because what I'm advocating for is expansive, not restricted to just porn. For example, I miss r/bdsmcommunity and r/sex, which are discussion-only. However, you don't get those kinds of communities growing in a place as structurally and culturally prudish as the threadiverse.

"toxicity" is dose-dependent.

Yeah, porn is about on par with video games in that regard. Yet we (rightly) don't suppress gaming communities here.

You don't see young people destroying their lives because they were promised they could make a lot of money by knitting sweaters or working as electricians, but cases of vulnerable women who regret getting into sex work are infinite.

C'mon, don't get all SWERFy on me now. That regret is a direct result of (drum roll)... sex negative culture! (And capitalist labor exploitation.)

"If you think sex workers 'sell their bodies,' but coal miners do not, your view of labor is clouded by your moralistic view of sexuality."

Look, I want a world in which, to the extent that jobs continue to be a thing, acting in commercial porn is just as normal and unremarkable as any other job, and people don't get all judgy about it. Same (hopefully robust) labor protections too. We don't get to there without abandoning pearl-clutching attitudes towards the resulting product, among other things.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

“If you think sex workers ‘sell their bodies,’ but coal miners do not, your view of labor is clouded by your moralistic view of sexuality.”

If you are going to start a conversation by attacking a strawman, then I really will not get into it.

acting in commercial porn is just as normal and unremarkable as any other job

If this is your idea of being "sex positive" then I really do not want to get into this argument. I can guess this will quickly play out to any objection as "pearl clutching" and I will stick to the point that your attitude is completely dehumanizing and that there is nothing "positive" about reducing sex to the mechanical/physical act.

Like I said in the first comment, if you feel so strongly about this, go ahead and create your own and see how far it goes. When you start putting some Skin In The Game you will get more credibility or at least accept that things are Just Not That Simple.

[–] cacheson@piefed.social 0 points 1 month ago

then I really will not get into it.

Bet.

If this is your idea of being "sex positive" then I really do not want to get into this argument. I can guess this will quickly play out to any objection as "pearl clutching" and I will stick to the point that your attitude is completely dehumanizing and that there is nothing "positive" about reducing sex to the mechanical/physical act.

DEHUMANIZING? Seriously? I guess you actually are a SWERF. You clearly have no claim to the label "sex positive". Why would you even want to identify as such?

The view I expressed here is consistent with how sex workers view themselves. Sex work is work. They're just doing a job. They don't want to be "rescued" by moralizing radfems. They want more pay and better working conditions, the same as most workers.

Like I said in the first comment, if you feel so strongly about this, go ahead and create your own and see how far it goes. When you start putting some Skin In The Game you will get more credibility or at least accept that things are Just Not That Simple.

And as I've said, I'm definitely interested in doing that. If you know of any IT people that want to work on such a project, send them my way. I've got experience with programming, leadership, and community building to bring to the table.

Given your attitude regarding (more than just performative) sex positivity though, I'm not sure why you're egging me on here.

load more comments (2 replies)