Pornhub

Goodshape

Feisar wrote: »

One can say that about a lot of porn though, not just the unregulated stuff. It chews up young women and spits out broken people.

One can say that about a lot of jobs in general. Having to "do porn" because you need the money is absolutely outrageous depravity!! But a couple months on a fishing trawler, or all day every day picking fruit in the field, or anyone doing any job they hate because they need to buy food and pay rent to live... that's "normal".

Porn is work. People work because they need the money. Work sucks - sometimes both figuratively and literally!


And that's all kinda off topic but I think it feeds into the discussion of why PH is targeted when other networks aren't. People have a baseline issue with PH because Porn is not good work.

Beyond that, I think the accusations that they weren't doing enough - or that they were doing so little as to warrant the removal of their income stream - are unfair.

GarIT

KiKi III wrote: »

My ex subscribed to an $11/month exclusive content thing from his favourite porn star. No ads, no underage girls, no one being exploited. No issue with that at all.

No choice either though. I don't want to look at the same girl all the time, or even for more than 10 mins. I did subscribe to a friend to help her out (she asked I wasn't going creeping) but looked at the stuff once and didn't go back to it.

Gruffalux

GarIT wrote: »

They already required ID verification to make money even before the NYT article between the article and payments no longer being processed they had started requiring ID to upload anything at all.

Other than hiring more moderators (which they have said they are going to triple) I don't think there is much more they can do.

There are plenty of much worse sites that need to be targeted now. If anything PornHub is now the most ethical free porn site.

Triple? From 80 to 240 so. That means every moderator will have to watch 4000 hours per week or something stupid. Triple me non existent bollix. Put 20000 people at least to moderate your fantastically lucrative website to make sure it does not host torture porn or trafficked victims and then I will say fair dues dudes.

Stone Deaf 4evr

km991148 wrote: »

You might not like the question, but its a valid question and when it comes to the porn industry, I don't think its fair to trivialise it by comparing it to growing tomatoes.

Sure in that case, why don't I just stop paying for food altogether and threaten the checkout staff with a knife and take what I want?

but at what point can people enjoy something without having to be made ashamed for not going on a deep dive / ethical audit ?

should the films of Roman Polanski be erased because he was a creep?

what about Edward Norton being forced to make films by Paramount?

Should we get rid of The Lord of the rings movies because animals were killed during its production?

How about getting rid of the Harry Potter books?

Putting the guilt back on the end user is unfair, and its an increasing trend by the verbal woke brigade to make people ashamed of things they like.

KiKi III

GarIT wrote: »

No choice either though. I don't want to look at the same girl all the time, or even for more than 10 mins. I did subscribe to a friend to help her out (she asked I wasn't going creeping) but looked at the stuff once and didn't go back to it.

And honestly, who cares if young girls are being exploited and raped so long as you have sufficient variety in your porn?

km991148

Goodshape wrote: »

And that's all kinda off topic but I think it feeds into the discussion of why PH is targeted when other networks aren't. People have a baseline issue with PH because Porn is not good work.

When it comes to porn, there is an element of that, but I don't think it is just that. There is a lot of people doing things against their will (much higher in the porn industry than the fishing industry..)

Goodshape wrote: »

Beyond that, I think the accusations that they weren't doing enough - or that they were doing so little as to warrant the removal of their income stream - are unfair.

tbf - its pornhub - they are massive and will bounce (!) back.. probably use this in some bs ethical branding.

KiKi III

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

but at what point can people enjoy something without having to be made ashamed for not going on a deep dive / ethical audit ?

Putting the guilt back on the end user is unfair, and its an increasing trend by the verbal woke brigade to make people ashamed of things they like.

People should be ashamed to tacitly support the exploitation of young girls. It’s a shameful thing to do. There are ethical ways to sexual titillate yourself.

GarIT

Gruffalux wrote: »

Triple? From 80 to 240 so. That means every moderator will have to watch 4000 hours per week or something stupid. Triple me non existent bollix. Put 20000 people at least to moderate your fantastically lucrative website to make sure it does not host torture porn or trafficked victims and then I will say fair dues dudes.

With the restrictions on uploading there isn't nearly as much content being uploaded. Plenty of other sites just review stuff that has been reported not everything. Although reviewing everything would be better on a site like PornHub.

Gruffalux

Goodshape wrote: »

One can say that about a lot of jobs in general. Having to "do porn" because you need the money is absolutely outrageous depravity!! But a couple months on a fishing trawler, or all day every day picking fruit in the field, or anyone doing any job they hate because they need to buy food and pay rent to live... that's "normal".

Porn is work. People work because they need the money. Work sucks - sometimes both figuratively and literally!


And that's all kinda off topic but I think it feeds into the discussion of why PH is targeted when other networks aren't. People have a baseline issue with PH because Porn is not good work.

Beyond that, I think the accusations that they weren't doing enough - or that they were doing so little as to warrant the removal of their income stream - are unfair.

First we take Pornhub then we take the world. Like the rape and stuff, I mean. Your argument seems to be why arrest one killer when 10 other killers are still at loose..

km991148

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

but at what point can people enjoy something without having to be made ashamed for not going on a deep dive / ethical audit ?

should the films of Roman Polanski be erased because he was a creep?

what about Edward Norton being forced to make films by Paramount?

Should we get rid of The Lord of the rings movies because animals were killed during its production?

How about getting rid of the Harry Potter books?

Putting the guilt back on the end user is unfair, and its an increasing trend by the verbal woke brigade to make people ashamed of things they like.

I know where you are coming from, but porn has some pretty ethically tricky questions. Are these all the users fault, no not at all.

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

the verbal woke brigade to make people ashamed of things they like.

Ah - can we not go down that road? I don't think you need to be calling yourself "woke" to be able to acknowledge there are problems in the porn industry.

The sad fact is, people are using the problems to try and shut down the industry, instead of actually addressing them.

GarIT

Gruffalux wrote: »

First we take Pornhub then we take the world. Like the rape and stuff, I mean. Your argument seems to be why arrest one killer when 10 other killers are still at loose..

It's more like why arrest 1 killer and not even bother investigating the others.

Gruffalux

Roh my God I am called "woke"..first time everrr!!! Runs and eats some Roses to celebrate.

GarIT

KiKi III wrote: »

And honestly, who cares if young girls are being exploited and raped so long as you have sufficient variety in your porn?

That's not what I said at all. I'm in favour of the actions PornHub are being made to take. I'm just saying OnlyFans it's a viable or like for like replacement.

If there was a €10 subscription to onlyfans and you could watch everything then they would be different. But it's €10 per girl, and you are relying on them to keep putting out content daily and not need a day off or not drop off for a few months like many do.

Gruffalux

GarIT wrote: »

It's more like why arrest 1 killer and not even bother investigating the others.

They will be. It only makes sense. If one continues to practice some kind of misguided liberal laissez faire just because porn is always good, things will just get worse and worser.
I want to live in an actual civilisation.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

Roh my God I am called "woke"..first time everrr!!! Runs and eats some Roses to celebrate.

I know the threads you post on - this gave me a chuckle :pac: :pac: (Now you are woke tho - please don't take offence at this!)


(But labels in general.. they really don't help much..)

GarIT

Gruffalux wrote: »

They will be. It only makes sense. If one continues to practice some kind of misguided liberal laissez faire just because porn is always good, things will just get worse and worser.
I want to live in an actual civilisation.

I hope so. But I'll only believe it when I see it. It would take minutes to stop processing card payments for Facebook and there has been no sign they are going to yet. I don't even know if you can pay for things on twitter.

Goodshape

Gruffalux wrote: »

Your argument seems to be why arrest one killer when 10 other killers are still at loose..

And I hate those sorts of arguments

But no, I only mean to say that the punishment of losing their sources of income overnight outweighs the crime of not going above and beyond what is expected of others in the user-generated-content space.

And I believe the basis of that harsh and decisive punishment rests on people's baseline moral objections to porn as a business. I'd consider that unfair.

km991148

GarIT wrote: »

I hope so. But I'll only believe it when I see it. It would take minutes to stop processing card payments for Facebook and there has been no sign they are going to yet. I don't even know if you can pay for things on twitter.

People forget the other side tho.. who is buying all those targeted ads..

Stone Deaf 4evr

km991148 wrote: »

I know where you are coming from, but porn has some pretty ethically tricky questions. Are these all the users fault, no not at all.



Ah - can we not go down that road? I don't think you need to be calling yourself "woke" to be able to acknowledge there are problems in the porn industry.

The sad fact is, people are using the problems to try and shut down the industry, instead of actually addressing them.

Not calling you woke at all, and I'm also not denying that there are issues with the Porn industry - but it has to be acknowleged there are problems with every industry.

The pandemic has shone a fairly uncomfortable light on the food industry here recently, between fruit farms, the meat plants, mushroom farms, it has exposed pretty grim conditions and possible exploitation of immigrant workers.

but does this mean people should be called out for eating anything produced in these places? if someone goes into a shop and buys them, Are they not entitled to a certain degree of confidence that the product has been produced ethically?

The responsibilty to police this lies with PornHub, not the end user.

Kraftwerk

Goodshape wrote: »

And I hate those sorts of arguments

But no, I only mean to say that the punishment of losing their sources of income overnight outweighs the crime of not going above and beyond what is expected of others in the user-generated-content space.

And I believe the basis of that harsh and decisive punishment rests on people's baseline moral objections to porn as a business. I'd consider that unfair.

It's not a punishment it's a loss of service due to a breach of their contract. PayPal actually stopped supporting them because they were abusing the service to pay performers which was a breach of the contract. Visa have suspended service while they're investigating the reports.

You and others seem to think this is PayPal and visa policing the Internet. Its not. Its them conducting their business and protecting their service as all business would do. If you have evidence that other sites are using their services in breach of their terms and conditions then by all means report them.

But there is absolutely nothing wrong or unfair about a payment service withdrawing service from a business that has been found profiting from illegal content.

KiKi III

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Not calling you woke at all, and I'm also not denying that there are issues with the Porn industry - but it has to be acknowleged there are problems with every industry.

The responsibilty to police this lies with PornHub, not the end user.

It’s their responsibility to police it, but you are responsible for your consumption. You can’t pretend you don’t know that girls are exploited in the industry.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Gruffalux wrote: »

Roh my God I am called "woke"..first time everrr!!! Runs and eats some Roses to celebrate.

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/Mondelez-Ferrero-Godiva-fail-to-address-cocoa-labor-sustainability/566075/

Best not, unless you like supporting unfair labour practices and poor human rights.

Gruffalux

Goodshape wrote: »

And I hate those sorts of arguments

But no, I only mean to say that the punishment of losing their sources of income overnight outweighs the crime of not going above and beyond what is expected of others in the user-generated-content space.

And I believe the basis of that harsh and decisive punishment rests on people's baseline moral objections to porn as a business. I'd consider that unfair.

One can have strange bed fellows in all manner of political movements. I am not going to abandon an idea because weirdoes may think the same idea. I often have different motivations than people I find myself wayfaring with on individual topics. Its what happens to us radicals!

Gruffalux

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/Mondelez-Ferrero-Godiva-fail-to-address-cocoa-labor-sustainability/566075/

Best not, unless you like supporting unfair labour practices and poor human rights.

Nooooooooo!!! spits out Roses

Stone Deaf 4evr

KiKi III wrote: »

It’s their responsibility to police it, but you are responsible for your consumption. You can’t pretend you don’t know that girls are exploited in the industry.

as per my post after yours - my point is, there are people exploited in EVERY industry.

Its an awful thing, but we're never going to get to a place where its not the case, particularly when money is involved.

jimmycrackcorm

Gruffalux wrote: »

Heh. No. I'm a lady and rape sex is not my thing.

randd1

Looking through this thread, and some of the arguments within, one thing seems to stand out for me, so I'll just ask one question;

Who the hell is paying for porn these days? The internet is practically free pornography, why would you waste your money signing up to a site in the first place?

Stone Deaf 4evr

randd1 wrote: »

Looking through this thread, and some of the arguments within, one thing seems to stand out for me, so I'll just ask one question;

Who the hell is paying for porn these days? The internet is practically free pornography, why would you waste your money signing up to a site in the first place?

to get that ethically sourced, fully traced, farm to fork ass of course.

Gruffalux

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

to get that ethically sourced, fully traced, farm to fork ass of course.

Could be a good tagline for a porn site that avoids the gorno. I like it.

jake1970

F