[pavlov]

Are dedicated porn sites like PornHub and friends considered somehow left wing?

Or is it just that their NSFW freedom of speech isn't significant because it's not to the benefit of a billionaire that these politicians happen to like.

[seadan83]

I think the arrow of causality is perhaps the other way. Recall the "moral majority", Jerry Fallwell, etc. It was a big right-leaning effort to ban porn starting in perhaps the 70s. Probably earlier. The republican party used to have religion as the main ideological component, and immoral porn was a plank in that platform - the party of "family values."

That campaign to ban porn never really ended AFAIK, but my impression is the priorities of the party really shifted about 10 years ago to the point it's no longer an open policy (the word pornography no longer appears anywhere in the Republican party platform [1])

Remnants of the anti-porn part of the party can certainlystill be seen in the republican party, eg: Mike Johnson extolling his use of "covenant eyes"

Thus the arrow is flipped. The anti-porn cause was very active against printed pornograpghy and continued into the internet age. A right-wing/conservative movement and efforts both predating the internet.

[1] https://prod-static.gop.com/media/Resolution_Platform.pdf

[dotnet00]

Dedicated sites have the issue of being targeted from all sides, right wing hates them for porn, left wing hates them for not being able to filter out exploitation, revenge porn etc and then they also have to fight payment processors who, for some ridiculous reason, are still allowed to screw with any business with zero accountability.

I think all those factors combine to make them have to be kind of politically neutral.

[seadan83]

I think you might be drawing a false equivalence. Left wing solutions to things like porn, gambling, drugs, sex work, abortion - is to regulate them so that they are "safe" (harm-reduced) & then find ways to reduce those activities in first place & provide support for people to get out of those activities. Left wing considers these as social problems - not legal.

In contrast, right wing views these as problems to be solved also with the legal system. Ban entirely and enforce with police and criminal sentences. Thus the "hates" I don't think is quite equal between the two.

I will concede for sure though that if you go far enough left the degree of 'hate' levels out between right & left, but the number of people on the two sides is different.

The "silent majority" part of the right wing, the old Reagan coalition for a long time was a pretty sizable part of the Republican party. Meanwhile, the twitter left progressive wing of the Democratic party is not as large compared to the republican religious-conservative right.

If we think to the OG far-left hatred of porn - that was there before revenge-porn etc were even concerns. Those OG left-wing concerns that did want to ban porn - were concerned about how porn disempowers women, can glorify violence, further genders inequality, etc..

As a general left/right difference, the approach is not equal. In the cases where the approach is to ban entirely - there are just different numbers of people in the far left "porn should be banned" camp compared to the "porn is sin" camp.

[dotnet00]

I'm mainly going off of the story of how IIRC a couple of years ago, PH was forced to wipe most of their site due to left-wing activists pressuring payment processors into threatening to block PH's basic means of doing business if they didn't meet the somewhat absurd demand of filtering out all harmful/unethical material.

Sure, they technically didn't use the legal system, they just used the technicality that payment processors hold the same power over internet-dependent companies as a government.

[lancesells]

Looks like a NY Times article detailed they were hosting awful stuff. They then implemented a verification system. Not sure about the activists.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55304115

[seadan83]

Citations for which left wing activists?

In contrast, I would consider Charlie Kirk as a right-wing activist (hopefully this will work as a good example). If there were an action taken by him and similarly small group of activists, perhaps with backing from their organization - I would be very hesitant to extrapolate that action as broadly representative of "the right."

Which is to say, left wing or right wing activists might not be representative of the broader views, and also those broader views might not be consistent (not everyone on the right/left agree on everything)

[freedomben]

Where do you see the group of people who are libertarian on the issue? In other words, people who think that the premise that drugs are immoral is flawed, and they should be regulated for safety, but society does not need to discourage their use and certainly does not need to ban them.

I see those people as on the moderately far left, at least in the United States. There are plenty of people on the moderately far left who are not libertarian in the vast majority of positions, but who would agree in the case of drugs.

[seadan83]

> Where do you see the group of people who are libertarian on the issue?

The libertarian party platform states: "we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes" [1]

Which I interpret as full legalization of all drugs. It is interesting that this is essentially an extreme left point of view on the topic. I really think libertarian philosophy is just kinda fascinating. I'm now curious though on where libertarians stand on tort laws.

[1] https://www.lp.org/platform/

[freedomben]

Yes I think a little of both:

> Are dedicated porn sites like PornHub and friends considered somehow left wing?

Not directly no, but since the overlap between right-wing and religious (mostly Christian) are so significant, and many right-wing Christians believe that there is a spritual war going on and that porn is a sin/evil, and it can lead to atheism, and atheism is so frequently associated with left-wing, I think there's some consideration there.

> Or is it just that their NSFW freedom of speech isn't significant because it's not to the benefit of a billionaire that these politicians happen to like.

I'm sure that's a factor as well. No (or very, very few) politican of any ilk is going to stand up for Big Porn and risk becoming the porn candidate. Personally I'd sure love to see them at least stand up for Big Porn in the name of free speech, but I'm not expecting it anytime soon.