[kkop]

I wouldn't necessarily hold it against anyone working in porn so much as working in the porn industry. The porn industry is violently against even basic things like condom use (and the list continues). Such resistance tends to mean justifying things with excuses. Since compromising would be to admit to responsibility. So why should I trust that someone working in such an environment isn't going to treat private data, important infrastructure or financial software the same? Random programmers from overall mediocre environments are quite easy to find whether it is porn or something else.

Edit: It is always funny how when you claim that people are biased and don't have arguments on Hacker News, they downvote you. People really can't get out of their heads. My point still stands. Good programmers doesn't have to go into controversial industries. They don't need excuses to justify how things "actually really are". The article says that the porn industry is "leading" in technology. That is bullshit. They might be leading in commercialization of certain technologies for a brief second, but that is all. How many programming languages did they invent? Zero.

Don't go into mediocre industry where people accept problems as a feature. All the people around will be there because they don't care about certain things and so won't you. You might not like it, that is up to you, but don't come complaining when you can't find a job after 40 because you haven't developed the skills companies are looking for at that age. Like identifying, solving and taking responsibility for larger problems.

[FlipperBucket]

> The porn industry is violently against even basic things like condom use

THAT is a matter of profitability, whatever else you may think. SMH I have to wonder what's wrong with people who think there's some other motives.

[kkop]

That is certainly part of it, but it is also about capability. They don't know how to make it work, maybe especially not in their own heads. The same is true for developers. Seniority is largely measured in how good you are at delivering what is fundamentally correct without compromising. While lesser programmers will convince themselves that it is unnecessary or that their own solution is good enough.

[stevenicr]

Actually, some of the top notch, well funded production companies tried to make it work. They knew how to make it work.

Was it Wicked(?) (one of the big name, well experienced, well funded companies) that tried to make all their hired performers wear protection, even married couples.

They had top notch good looking talent, professional camera people, great lighting, costumes, everything.

I think they made some money from the HBO type cable channels buying the 'camera does not show the actual penetration' market, but not enough to continue the condoms only crusade that was attempted, from what I remember. Maybe there is a crew still making condoms only porn, but I have not see much of it.

The free market shows what most people are looking for, and from what I can tell, they aren't choosing the 'all condom' channel, even when it's free on the free sites.

[enwa]

That isn't really making it work. Look at the UFC. Total spectacle when it was first acquired, now it is one of the largest sports in the US. Largely because they are ahead of the regulation. People who want to compete by being a spectacle don't get licenses and access to large arenas. If they would have known how to make it work there would be a similar situation for payment processing and free sites as well.