Pornhub

km991148

This is the thing - social media platforms are a free for all.

They will allow practically anything to be uploaded because more content (Alt right/Anti vax/ Extreme wokeism, porn all sorts) is more adverts and is more revenue.
They (the platforms) have a huge impact in many areas of our society (contributing directly and indirectly to the polarisation of views) while also being able to sell extremely targeted ads back to the political powers.

All while most people don't even realise (I would guess at least most people think google is just a search engine, twitter/fb/insta are just chat/social apps etc youtube is a viable alternative to journalism).

I am usually not for tight regulation, but these companies are really damaging, in many ways.

Jinglejangle69

You would think you are safe visiting pages like pornhub form illegal content.

That's scary.

GreeBo

Gruffalux wrote: »

Hosting rape videos is not a legal business.
And they did not shut down the business as some form of pseudo regulation enforcers. The credit card companies just basically said (finally) we don't want to facilitate a platform that hosts rape videos.

Ah here, their business is not hosting rape videos any more than any other platforms is.
There are far worse things being shared on any and every other social media platform, why target pornhub only if it isn't some virtue signalling by the providers?

Why not WhatsApp, Facebook, tiktok, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, etc, etc?

I'm not condoning any of the content, and any hoster should have mechanisms in place for reporting and flagging such content, but it will be interesting to see if these providers allow pornhub back now that the objectionable content is gone.

Anyway, my point was that unless the site is deemed illegal, an essential service shouldn't be able to withdraw that service. Are they also refusing to service sites that sell legal drugs for example?

Brian?

Gruffalux wrote: »

Surprised this has not a thread.
Pornhub - the biggest provider of porn on the planet and beloved of many it would seem - has removed 80% of its content. It has gone from 13.5 million videos to about 3 million. All content from unverified users has been removed.

This is supposedly because of an investigation by the New York Times that found it hosted large amounts of rape and abuse content.
But I think it was because Mastercard and Visa stopped allowing their cards to be used on the site. The reason I think this is there have been long and vocal campaigns by people like Laila Micklewait and girls who themselves found their underage and rape videos to have content removed, and almost nothing was done about it. Now that they are hit in the purse strings they suddenly get a conscience.
Classy place to hang out. It's owners have all made hundreds of millions from the cesspit of a site.

This is long overdue. I follow a couple of young ladies on twitter who have been film while being gang raped and video ended up on pornhub.

Despite numerous requests and campaigns pornhub did nothing to take the content down.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

That would be good. Wouldn't it. Has to start somewhere.
There seems to be a hate speech law being pushed here in Ireland re social media. It would be more useful and real to have a concerted drive against illegal content on social media - but I don't hear about that.
Make the platforms liable for what they host. Liable to be sued. I hear Pornhub is being sued.
It could be a big job creation area too. Moderators, lots of them. We are always told tech reduces jobs. Well here is an area where tech could increase jobs.

How far down this rabbit hole are we going?

Are we allowing tech companies to decide what is and isn't illegal...

Are we including posting copyrighted music/images in this drive...

Brian?

GreeBo wrote: »

I think it's very wrong that some payment providers can basically shutdown a legal business. Could an electrical company do the same? How about a hosting company? Where is the line exactly?

I think the line was crossed when they ignored requests from rape victims to take down videos of them being raped. I suspect that was a mistake.

joe40

Gruffalux wrote: »

That would be good. Wouldn't it. Has to start somewhere.
There seems to be a hate speech law being pushed here in Ireland re social media. It would be more useful and real to have a concerted drive against illegal content on social media - but I don't hear about that.
Make the platforms liable for what they host. Liable to be sued. I hear Pornhub is being sued.
It could be a big job creation area too. Moderators, lots of them. We are always told tech reduces jobs. Well here is an area where tech could increase jobs.

100% agree. Traditional publishers and media are accountable for what they put out. If I go on Joe Duffy and slander someone RTE could be liable.
Why do internet platforms get to wash their hands of the content they are putting out.
I'm frankly shocked that things like rape videos with actual rape are freely available on legal sites. How is that possible?

Dravokivich

joe40 wrote: »

100% agree. Traditional publishers and media are accountable for what they put out. If I go on Joe Duffy and slander someone RTE could be liable.
Why do internet platforms get to wash their hands of the content they are putting out.
I'm frankly shocked that things like rape videos with actual rape are freely available on legal sites. How is that possible?

That's an issue with user submitted content.

KiKi III

Gatling wrote: »

Just as many kids trying to be porn stars too .

OF requires you to upload a government ID and verifies it. There may still be a few that fall through the cracks but far fewer.

Dravokivich

KiKi III wrote: »

OF requires you to upload a government ID and verifies it. There may still be a few that fall through the cracks but far fewer.

Once the account is "verified" there's nothing to stop people sharing the log in details.

KiKi III

Dravokivich wrote: »

Once the account is "verified" there's nothing to stop people sharing the log in details.

Like I said, it’s not a perfect system, but requiring users to verify themselves is significantly more safeguarding than most adult sites do.

KiKi III

Gambling sites also require all users to prove they are over 18. Porn sites should be made to do the same. No, it won’t stop all 13 year olds, but it’ll help.

Young lads these days can be watching hard core porn for 4-5 years before they lose their virginity and it can give them a very skewed image of sex.

Dravokivich

KiKi III wrote: »

Gambling sites also require all users to prove they are over 18. Porn sites should be made to do the same. No, it won’t stop all 13 year olds, but it’ll help.

Young lads these days can be watching hard core porn for 4-5 years before they lose their virginity and it can give them a very skewed image of sex.

Before the tube sites there was filesharing. This also doesn't handle the issue of abusive content distribution.

KiKi III

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's an issue with user submitted content.

Content that PornHub knew was there and chose to ignore until they were shamed into removing it by the NYT.

GreeBo

Kraftwerk wrote: »

What's wrong about it? There's many ways to sell your goods and services. Individual payment providers are under no obligation

Personally I think its great that PayPal, visa etc arent allowing their services to be be used by companies profiting from rape porn and exploitation etc. But maybe I'm old fashioned..

There are many ways to generate electricity also, but we wouldn't allow the ESB to refuse service to legal businesses, or would you?

Your last paragraph is pointless, absolutely noone is condoning rape or abuse videos.

GreeBo

Brian? wrote: »

I think the line was crossed when they ignored requests from rape victims to take down videos of them being raped. I suspect that was a mistake.

I don't disagree this was a terrible decision, but the point still stands, either it's a legal business or it isn't, if it's legal then the providers should have to offer their services.

What if PayPal decided to stop supporting Amazon in favour of eBay?

KiKi III

Dravokivich wrote: »

Before the tube sites there was filesharing. This also doesn't handle the issue of abusive content distribution.

Yeah Dravokivich, I’m clear on the fact that it would still happen to some degree. I’m talking about harm reduction.

Your take seems to be “there’s no point trying to improve the way things are because some people will find loopholes”.

They will. But it will be more difficult and it will make it less likely that hardcore porn will be available on an unlimited basis to young teens as it is now.

KiKi III

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't disagree this was a terrible decision, but the point still stands, either it's a legal business or it isn't, if it's legal then the providers should have to offer their services.

What if PayPal decided to stop supporting Amazon in favour of eBay?

PayPal don’t support Amazon.

Dravokivich

KiKi III wrote: »

Yeah Dravokivich, I’m clear on the fact that it would still happen to some degree. I’m talking about harm reduction.

Your take seems to be “there’s no point trying to improve the way things are because some people will find loopholes”.

They will. But it will be more difficult and it will make it less likely that hardcore porn will be available on an unlimited basis to young teens as it is now.

That was not my position at all. You're pinning the tail on the wrong donkey for the most part. File sharing is difficult? It's not at all.

KiKi III

Dravokivich wrote: »

That was not my position at all. You're pinning the tail on the wrong donkey for the most part. File sharing is difficult? It's not at all.

Would you say it’s less or more accessible than PornHub?

Kraftwerk

GreeBo wrote: »

There are many ways to generate electricity also, but we wouldn't allow the ESB to refuse service to legal businesses, or would you?

Your last paragraph is pointless, absolutely noone is condoning rape or abuse videos.

And if you breach the terms of your esb contract you think there's nothing the ESB can do? Seriously? Power companies routinely shut off people who don't pay their bill or breach their contract regardless of whether its a legal business.

And that's what Pornhub did. Breached the terms of the payment services by using them to accept payments for access to a site that contained illegal content.

The last paragraph isn't pointless. The payment providers are right to do what they're doing and hopefully other sites will be forced into taking this stuff seriously.

Dravokivich

KiKi III wrote: »

Would you say it’s less or more accessible than PornHub?

File sharing is more accessible than any one website.

Brian?

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't disagree this was a terrible decision, but the point still stands, either it's a legal business or it isn't, if it's legal then the providers should have to offer their services.

What if PayPal decided to stop supporting Amazon in favour of eBay?

You're hanging on to your legality point? They refused to take down videos of underage girls being raped. I think it's perfectly acceptable that some credit card companies took a moral stance on the issue.

I would have preferred if there were criminal prosecutions.

This is not some sort of pearl clutching, "won't someone think of the children", anti porn campaign. These girls were raped and filmed while being raped. I'm alright if someone burns down pornhub HQ to be honest.

I think the elephant in the room here is personal responsibility. There are plenty of places to get ethically made porn. The same way I drink fair trade and rain forest alliance coffee, I choose to watch porn of a higher standard.

Unfortunately rape has been fetishised, so people want that content. They should take responsibility about where they get their jollies.

KiKi III

Dravokivich wrote: »

File sharing is more accessible than any one website.

That’s definitely not true. If it was we would use file sharing sites instead of YouTube or Netflix.

KiKi III

Brian? wrote: »

You're hanging on to your legality point? They refused to take down videos of underage girls being raped. I think it's perfectly acceptable that some credit card companies took a moral stance on the issue.

I would have preferred if there were criminal prosecutions.

This is not some sort of pearl clutching, "won't someone think of the children", anti porn campaign. These girls were raped and filmed while being raped. I'm alright if someone burns down pornhub HQ to be honest.

I think the elephant in the room here is personal responsibility. There are plenty of places to get ethically made porn. The same way I drink fair trade and rain forest alliance coffee, I choose to watch porn of a higher standard.

Unfortunately rape has been fetishised, so people want that content. They should take responsibility about where they get their jollies.

Mad and utterly disheartening how many people are taking the side of PornHub above vulnerable teenage girls in this discussion.

Dravokivich

KiKi III wrote: »

That’s definitely not true. If it was we would use file sharing sites instead of YouTube or Netflix.

Just becuase it's something you don't do, doesn't make it any more complicated. Hell all the stuff for usenet and torrents have automation on them now too.

suicide_circus

Excuse my ignorance but when we say "rape videos" are these videos of actual rapes taking place or simulated rape fantasy type stuff?

KiKi III

Dravokivich wrote: »

Just becuase it's something you don't do, doesn't make it any more complicated. Hell all the stuff for usenet and torrents have automation on them now too.

Streaming is very clearly easier than file sharing. I have nothing else to contribute on that topic.

Brian?

suicide_circus wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but when we say "rape videos" are these videos of actual rapes taking place or simulated rape fantasy type stuff?

The majority are simulated, I believe. But there were a number of rape videos on pornhub of actual rapes.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Dravokivich wrote: »

Just becuase it's something you don't do, doesn't make it any more complicated. Hell all the stuff for usenet and torrents have automation on them now too.

The reason the vast majority of people pay for streaming services like Spotify and Netflix is not because they want to pay for things. It's because torrenting is a pain in the hole and a barrier to entry for most users.