this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
299 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

59143 readers
3012 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

doesn’t change that it’s from a porn shoot

Your point? (I'd call it more erotica than porn but that's irrelevant.) If your culture sexualizes nudity per se that's not my problem and if nudity offends you well that's your problem. She consented to this, was an adult at the time, got paid for it and moved on (and, for most of her life, couldn't care less).

The model has indicated she doesn’t want it used for this

It's a pretty valid reason to me and it would be nice if people respected that. Do note that Playboy has the rights of the photo though, not her, but chose to let it slide 'cos... free publicity.

there isn’t any other possible standard besides this exact photo

I never said that. It's an old photo, along with all the other photos of the time it should've been retired ages ago, on technical grounds.

But these are not the reasons the IEEE is banning the photo, now are they?

This is an interesting video on the matter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

This

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

She consented to this, was an adult at the time, got paid for it and moved on

Sorry, consented to what? And what does that have to do with this? The existence of the photo or its continued use as a photo and as porn are not at issue.

Do note that Playboy has the rights of the photo though, not her

And again, this isn't a rights issue. Lena isn't upset because her rights are being violated, and neither is anyone else.

I never said that.

And I never said photos of shoulders are porn. You made a straw man or my argument, so I made a straw man or yours. Neither one was particularly useful to discuss.

Of course there were reasons the photo was chosen originally, convenience and the fact that it has just the right amount of complicated detail. But those don't really matter now because, as you said:

It's an old photo, along with all the other photos of the time it should've been retired ages ago, on technical grounds.

People are upset because the use of a photo from a porn shoot, especially one that has no other particular reason to use it besides "tradition," is emblematic of a culture that is exclusionary to women.

Any defense of the use of this photo which does not address those points isn't really a good faith argument.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Any defense of the use of this photo which does not address those points isn't really a good faith argument.

According to you.

Tradition is not really an excuse for anything really.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If you're making arguments on this issue with someone who feels the photo should not be used because using a cropped porn photo is offensive or derogatory, those are the points that should be addressed. Another approach might be to address why it should be used instead of some similar image, but it seems you agree with me that there is no good reason another image couldn't be used.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

In this day and age, and considering the model expressed so, there's really no reason to continue to use the image, no.