And capitalists will say there is no innovation under socialism
If only there were, like, a group of people who could confirm or deny the contents of these ridiculous "China bad" articles the West constantly comes up with. You know, like some kind of group of people who experiences life in China and could communicate with the rest if us via some kind of mouth noises or something.
Oh well, guess the best we'll get is China Expert Mayo Whitesson XIV.
I wonder what the thought process was. I would just ban it across the board if I wanted it to stop.
Feels like it would be something like Instagram not allowing female nipples but allowing male nipples. Then picked up as a stock china bad story
I remember it making the rounds that women posting promiscuous pics would get them in trouble with the government.
Yeah this sounds less like "stop selling lingerie" and more "stop producing pornography". It's illegal there, yeah?
Is "shopping livestream" a euphemism like all those porny "ASMR" videos on youtube?
Idk, this just popped out as an obvious possible reason for this. Western media will go wild with this shit, like how China banned femboys when the government said influencers couldn't show off their wealth so much.
I mean whatever it is, you can still find women in lingerie all over on taobao, pinduoduo so
Also Mothership is a tabloid, though to me and probably many others here, that doesn't mean much when NYTimes and Reuters also post tabloid quality articles all the time
yeah if it is true it doesnt seem to be implemented yet at all because there is a lot of lingerie on all the sites i see
edit: i saw a post on baidu claiming that they outlawed sharing nonconsensual photographs of women in lingerie, which can effect storefronts because they photoshop a lot of models to have lingerie on them. if this interpretation is correct, it is very good for the models
Tbf "in trouble with the government" is basically just a blanket term for any consequence occuring online in China, from what I can tell.
It's a law that's supposed to stop live streams of women in underwear but it has knock-on effects like this where a law preventing women from wearing underwear on live broadcasts affects tele-shopping like this.
The tweet is intentionally being misleading by presenting the law as intentionally targeting "modelling underwear on shopping livestreams" when it's just an unplanned side-effect.
My mom likes to mention how, back in the 70s, the FCC wouldn't let women appear on television while showing too much skin. So in order to advertise underwear, women would wear flesh-colored body suits and model the underwear over the top of it.
These rules were eventually either rolled back or struck down, not sure which. But in retrospect, she often laughs at how silly these ads would look to someone familiar with a modern-day Victoria Secret commercial or even a romantic scene from your average soap opera.
I think the ultimate target of this is softcore sex work livestreams that interact with the audience via premium phonecalls/donations, like you see on some late night tv channels.
Not really complaining about the side-effect being this. The guys are cute.
Oh sure. Just thought of another instance of unforeseen consequences making things a bit silly.
