> Its a private business, not for us to speculate on just because the company in question is a private business
We literally speculate on this kind of thing daily on HN but I only see this defense of the company when it pertains to Pornhub.
I can look up some other threads about acquisitions, like Libery Media buying Formula 1, and we can quantify how many of these comments are present in those threads. Or one of the many acquisitions Google have made that have been discussed here ad nauseum.
I've seen this kind of legalistic defense of pornography on HN every time it comes up on discussion. Worries about AI replacing developers are given time and nuanced discussion but any concern about women being abused with deep fakes are dismissed on these kind of technical terms. It's not surprising as the demographic of HN has a pretty big overlap with porn users (male, single, chronically online, etc.) so the people here are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the porn industry while the people who suffer are almost entirely unrepresented.
No one's saying it explicitly today and I am indeed drawing conclusions based on my experience but that's a normal human thing to do.
> No one's saying it explicitly today and I am indeed drawing conclusions based on my experience but that's a normal human thing to do.
……
this is a disingenuous way of engaging
you’re trying to shortcut a conversation based on what you think will happen, hasnt happened, and instead makes like looks like you’re doing a a combination of a strawman argument and gaslighting.
you’re not able to treat me as an individual but part of an amorphous hackernews audience, yet think you’re exempt. how do you think your ridiculous form of argument is perceived aside from “classic HN”
I do not speculate on who the owners of a private company are and I don’t advocate for that. typically for marketing reasons they blast their public facing team and investors all over crunchbase for vanity.
as the article states, it is common for non-consumer facing investment firms and holding companies to have no information available to the public.
I'm sorry but I'm not willing to engage further if you take this tone with me. I've tried to make my position clear as well as my basis for it. There's no need to use the heavy language against me that you are.
I was open to you offering a counterpoint to this perception that you’re unilaterally broadcasting to everyone, not just me.
But you can skip that part how about this:
I do not speculate on who the owners of a private company are and I don’t advocate for that. typically for marketing reasons they blast their public facing team and investors all over crunchbase for vanity.
as the article states, it is common for non-consumer facing investment firms and holding companies to have no information available to the public.
We literally speculate on this kind of thing daily on HN but I only see this defense of the company when it pertains to Pornhub.
I can look up some other threads about acquisitions, like Libery Media buying Formula 1, and we can quantify how many of these comments are present in those threads. Or one of the many acquisitions Google have made that have been discussed here ad nauseum.
I've seen this kind of legalistic defense of pornography on HN every time it comes up on discussion. Worries about AI replacing developers are given time and nuanced discussion but any concern about women being abused with deep fakes are dismissed on these kind of technical terms. It's not surprising as the demographic of HN has a pretty big overlap with porn users (male, single, chronically online, etc.) so the people here are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the porn industry while the people who suffer are almost entirely unrepresented.
No one's saying it explicitly today and I am indeed drawing conclusions based on my experience but that's a normal human thing to do.