A matter of harm, not a matter of taste (Nick Carr on porn)

Matt, this came to my attention because of the mention of etech.

I think it's another indication of Nick Carr misrepresenting what other people think in order to create straw men that he can then attack. Please show where there are people who are saying that those who don't approve of porn are "prudes and losers."

The fact that people note that porn has been a driver of new technology adoption does not mean that they approve. (Although, to be true, the account of Annalee's talk does make it sound as though she does. But I don't think that this is a widespread opinion in the tech community.)

Nor does the distaste for the .xxx domain mean that people want to pretend that porn doesn't exist. It's that cordoning off any part of the internet goes against their idea of how it ought to be run as an open "free speech" platform. Whether or not you agree with the emphasis some people put on freedom of speech as a fundamental principle or not, if you want to argue the case, argue it on the merits, not by falsely characterizing the other side of the argument.

The argument that I've most often heard about porn on the net is that the net is unfairly singled out as a haven for porn. We don't have people railing against DVDs as a haven for porn, or magazines as a haven for porn. Porn isn't a technology problem, and to try to pretend that it is, or to seek a technological solution, is to mislead and thus to make it harder to find a real solution.

Good feedback, Tim, but I think you're mischaracterizing Nick's argument (and, by extension, mine). Nick gives an indication of someone calling anti-pornists (is that a word? :-) "conservative prudes" in the first few lines of his post. And it is very much the implication (and sometimes outright commentary) from neo-feminists who argue that the anti-porn crusade is anti-women, prudish (yes, that word is used) and, though they may not say "loser," the strong implication is there. One can say something without overtly saying it. True, it's not quite libel/slander, but the effect is the same.

What I was writing about is the indifference to porn, rather than the outright promotion of it. To me, willingly turning a blind eye to something harmful (and, in my admittedly conservative/religious view, wrong) is tantamount to promoting it. To use an extreme example, I would view myself as equally culpable in the merciless beating of a woman/child/man if I sat by and watched, and doubly so if I made smug remarks during my voyeurship as to the innocuous nature of what was happening.

For those who believe porn does no ill, this is a bad example, because they see it as a victimless crime. But for those of us who disagree, the argument I made (and Nick's) become very much grounded in reality. Ours, you could say, but how did the other side's become more valid than ours? By fiat alone.

As for free speech, I'm all for it. But free speech has never, in any society, meant 100% open, say-whatever-you-want speech. Never. And for good reason. We've always recognized that certain speech (slander, libel, inciting hate crimes, etc.) serves no useful purpose, does much ill, and can be regulated. The Net should be no different. You didn't make this argument, but I sometimes feel that the Net is expected by some to collect all the rubbish that isn't allowed offline, as if it should be "out of bounds." Why? Why should the Net be different from the offline world?

In the offline world, we have zoning laws to keep sex clubs/etc. to different parts of the city. .xxx accomplishes much the same online. I actually can't see any logical reason for opposing the .xxx sheme. People who want porn will still be able to find it (it's not as if it's difficult now). People who don't may find it easier to avoid it (though I may be naive to believe that pushing it all to the .xxx suffix will make it technologically easier for me to avoid having it imposed on me).

Perhaps it is this that bothers me most about porn online. It's not passive. It imposes itself on me. I don't listen to (and generally disagree with) Rush Limbaugh. But I don't have to listen to him. He's on some AM/FM station, and I have to seek him out. Porn, however, is not content with being found. It aggressively tries to impose itself on others. My email is clogged with it. Pop-up ads (used to, before Safari came along) try to push themselves on me. Web searches for unrelated terms turn up porn. If people want this so much, why does the porn industry work so hard to force itself on others?

That, Tim, is at least one difference (going to your last paragraph). Porn isn't passive online, while it is in DVDs, magazines, etc. I don't like it in these other media, either, but at least it keeps to itself (though, as elsewhere, it's bleeding slowly into TV, mainstream movies, etc.). Let people find it, if they can't find titillation through other means. But don't impose it on me and then try to cloak it in "free speech" and other nice-sounding phrases. Freedom of speech, sure, but not freedom of screech, force, prod, etc. onto my computer.

Matt