Pornhub

Brian?

GarIT wrote: »

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.

You think the campaign will stop now? They went after Pornhub because they were by far the biggest offender. The campaign will move on to others now. Hopefully other sites will be scared enough to take pre-emptive action.

KiKi III

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

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.

This is an industry where women are exploited moreso than most. You can pretend that’s not true if it makes you feel better about your ****, but it is.

Eric Cartman

KiKi III wrote: »

This is an industry where women are exploited moreso than most. You can pretend that’s not true if it makes you feel better about your ****, but it is.

The entire porn industry is definitely rife with exploitation of women, sadly many are now of the view that stuff like onlyfans is any better, its still damaged women and girls trading flesh for money, how much that company profits off making young women believe its a harmless way to make money is sick. We’re definitely going to end up with a lot of suicides in future from women who are in their late teens and 20s now who believe this wont damage them mentally or in future career/ partner prospects.

GarIT

Brian? wrote: »

You think the campaign will stop now? They went after Pornhub because they were by far the biggest offender. The campaign will move on to others now. Hopefully other sites will be scared enough to take pre-emptive action.

Yes I do believe it will stop now. It has stopped already.

Gruffalux

KiKi III wrote: »

This is an industry where women are exploited moreso than most. You can pretend that’s not true if it makes you feel better about your ****, but it is.

I saw someone recently note that things that people knew all along before were pretty damn crap for women, like porn and prostitution, are being given a neoliberal reframing as "empowering".
Thus one gets the drivel mantra "sex work is work".
Yes. It is work. So is slavery. So is servitude. What is the word work supposed to achieve in that sentence?

2 US pals of mine work/worked close to the business, one a stripper, one a bouncer in a strip club. They both say there are undeniably a lot of very damaged people in the business. But this is not all that acceptable to note. There are a lot of very unsexy health problems from brain trauma to prolapse.

Of course people love the release the business enables because sex is one of the most fundamental drives and who doesn't love regularly orgasming, but to allow that primal urge to blind one to what is going on in real time is not great.

Feisar

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.

I agree with you in principle however in reality the sex industry would appear to have more than it's share of people from broken homes/history of abuse/drug abuse. It would appear to prey upon the vulnerable.

Eric Cartman

Feisar wrote: »

I agree with you in principle however in reality the sex industry would appear to have more than it's share of people from broken homes/history of abuse/drug abuse. It would appear to prey upon the vulnerable.

Absolutely. The porn business does take in a severely over representative number of very damaged people.

Goodshape

Gruffalux wrote: »

I saw someone recently note that things that people knew all along before were pretty damn crap for women, like porn and prostitution, are being given a neoliberal reframing as "empowering".
Thus one gets the drivel mantra "sex work is work".
Yes. It is work. So is slavery. So is servitude. What is the word work supposed to achieve in that sentence?

2 US pals of mine work/worked close to the business, one a stripper, one a bouncer in a strip club. They both say there are undeniably a lot of very damaged people in the business. But this is not all that acceptable to note. There are a lot of very unsexy health problems from brain trauma to prolapse.

This is one of those things where you're not wrong – I'd only question the framing or the context of your point of view.

Because sex work is work. There are people who are empowered by the work they do. There are people who work to pay the bills and don't care much about it. There are people who feel forced into work maybe even to the detriment of themselves.

You won't find a line of work where that isn't the case.

If you want to abolish all work I'm right there with you (honestly. I think as a society less work for everyone should be something we strive for). But porn is work and work is work.

Expunge any other notion from your mind and you're left with lots of different businesses which rely on user generated content with an inability to filter out 100% of illegal content. Yet one specific business has been taken to task for it as if it's their reason for existing, and their revenue streams have been revoked.

Maybe you see that as a first step on the path – the others are next. That's fair enough I guess. But I doubt the others are next, and the whole thing seems heavy handed to me.

BorneTobyWilde

It was ridiculous and I questioned it on here before, who verifies the ages of those in uploaded content. You can have two young people performing sex acts on each other, they could be 16, they could be 19, but no one knows and pornhub would host millions of such videos, not knowing one way or the other the ages, or if it was uploaded with consent, or if the uploader was even the owner of such content.

Gruffalux

Goodshape wrote: »

This is one of those things where you're not wrong – I'd only question the framing or the context of your point of view.

Because sex work is work. There are people who are empowered by the work they do. There are people who work to pay the bills and don't care much about it. There are people who feel forced into work maybe even to the detriment of themselves.

You won't find a line of work where that isn't the case.

If you want to abolish all work I'm right there with you (honestly. I think as a society less work for everyone should be something we strive for). But porn is work and work is work.

Expunge any other notion from your mind and you're left with lots of different businesses which rely on user generated content with an inability to filter out 100% of illegal content. Yet one specific business has been taken to task for it as if it's their reason for existing, and their revenue streams have been revoked.

Maybe you see that as a first step on the path – the others are next. That's fair enough I guess. But I doubt the others are next, and the whole thing seems heavy handed to me.

I would have liked to stop reading after the first phrase; being not wrong is what I love

Work is crappy in lots of ways. Even lovable work is made a bit crappier by HAVING to do it because we need the money.
I have done really hard types of work from being an industrial toilet cleaner to very tough agricultural labour to assembly lines on night shift. It would be hard to imagine any of them coming close to having to pretend to love 100 different stranger- owned dicks in your orifices in any given week every week just to pay the bills.

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalux wrote: »

I saw someone recently note that things that people knew all along before were pretty damn crap for women, like porn and prostitution, are being given a neoliberal reframing as "empowering".
Thus one gets the drivel mantra "sex work is work".
Yes. It is work. So is slavery. So is servitude. What is the word work supposed to achieve in that sentence?..

You are just sex-exclusionary. That makes you a Serf.

You're a SERF TERF. A cisSERFTERF.

Goodshape

Gruffalux wrote: »

I would have liked to stop reading after the first phrase; being not wrong is what I love

Work is crappy in lots of ways. Even lovable work is made a bit crappier by HAVING to do it because we need the money.
I have done really hard types of work from being an industrial toilet cleaner to very tough agricultural labour to assembly lines on night shift. It would be hard to imagine any of them coming close to having to pretend to love 100 different stranger- owned dicks in your orifices in any given week every week just to pay the bills.

That's entirely your prerogative. I do know people have been professional porn stars and they think nothing much of it. A good career while it lasted.

I also know someone who worked on a fishing trawler because he couldn't find anything else. Weeks at sea.

Personally my biggest aversion to doing porn is probably the moral panic I'd expect from friends, relatives, and just the general public who think there must be something inherently wrong with that choice of work. If it weren't for that, it'd probably be somewhere above the fishing trawler job on the list of possibilities.


(although... it'd be a very long list to include either option, tbh. Difficult to shake those Irish Catholic morals, no mater how hard I try! And my scrawny self wouldn't last a day on fishing trawler.)

GreeBo

KiKi III wrote: »

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

Erm, you think there aren't millions of people watching content via file sharing??

GreeBo

KiKi III wrote: »

How do you feel about them profiting off your usage (through advertising) while hosting that content?

How do you feel about their hosting provider profiting?
How about your ISP? How about the ad software providers? Where do you draw the line?

GreeBo

KiKi III wrote: »

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

Ah that's such disingenuous nonsense.
People can have an issue with a service provider effectively shutting down a legal business without being against protecting "vulnerable teenage girls" /insert appropriate hand wringing.

Gruffalux

Goodshape wrote: »

Personally my biggest aversion to doing porn is probably the moral panic I'd expect from friends, relatives, and just the general public

My biggest aversion is slobber. Smelly randomer's slobber. Ewww.

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

How do you feel about their hosting provider profiting?
How about your ISP? How about the ad software providers? Where do you draw the line?

Do people really find it hard to comprehend that one of the biggest names in porn have a responsibility towards the other actors in the porn industry. A much larger responsibility than Virgin Media for example.

I don't think it's such a large expectation?

GreeBo

Brian? wrote: »

You think the campaign will stop now? They went after Pornhub because they were by far the biggest offender. The campaign will move on to others now. Hopefully other sites will be scared enough to take pre-emptive action.

But PornHub had removed all the user content 2 days before visa took action... Aka pre emptive action.

GreeBo

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.

So you avoid any brand that exploits then?
No roses or nestle or Nike or Coke?

Or do you pretend you don't know?

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

Do people really find it hard to comprehend that one of the biggest names in porn have a responsibility towards the other actors in the porn industry. A much larger responsibility than Virgin Media for example.

I don't think it's such a large expectation?

Which porn industry actors are you referring to here?

I don't think any actors are involved in real rape or abuse videos, do you?

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

Which porn industry actors are you referring to here?

I don't think any actors are involved in real rape or abuse videos, do you?

Not literally actors as in 'performers' - actors as in other players/participants in the industry. A responsibility to not do business with those exploit and as an industry leader to set an example and show that exploitative measures and harm should be reduced.

GreeBo

km991148 wrote: »

Not literally actors as in 'performers' - actors as in other players/participants in the industry. A responsibility to not do business with those exploit and as an industry leader to set an example and show that exploitative measures and harm should be reduced.

Huh?
You said that PornHub had a responsibility to the other actors.
Who is it that you don't want PornHub to do business with here??

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

Huh?
You said that PornHub had a responsibility to the other actors.
Who is it that you don't want PornHub to do business with here??

I'm talking about all the people involved in the process of producing porn. Thats producers, content providers, hosts, and yes, even the ISPs like you mention.

The question was around how do people feel about them profiteering from ethically questionable content even if you do not believe you are watching any actual ethically dodgy stuff.
You then went on to talk about all sorts of other participants in the process of porn delivery.

My point is simply: Pornhub are a huge player in the porn industry, therefore I would expect them to have a greater responsibility to ensure that porn is produced without exploitation. A much larger responsibility than the advertising networks, or the ISP or anyone else you mentioned.

In this case tho - it seem that they didn't really give a sh!t and were only forced into taking action when the card companies decided that they were going to take responsibility and enforce their terms (even if it meant loosing some money).


So to answer your question - who would I not want them to do business with - all the dodgy fu(ks that force people to make porn against their will. The ones that see young folk as $$ signs and give them feck all. The ones that harass or bully them into it on the pretence of a modelling career or use them to pay off drug debts. Or just the si(k fu(ks that are abusive and like to control people and degrade them (I don't mean degrading fantasy porn acted out).

More porn, less abuse - thats what I want to see!

Brian?

GreeBo wrote: »

But PornHub had removed all the user content 2 days before visa took action... Aka pre emptive action.

How does that negate my point? They were threatened and reacted. That's not preemptive thats reactionary.

GreeBo

PornHub weren't working with anyone who was producing anything you mentioned, the issue was user uploaded content, which they removed days before the cc companies withdrew their services.

GreeBo

Brian? wrote: »

How does that negate my point? They were threatened and reacted. That's not preemptive thats reactionary.

So on what grounds are they withholding their services now?
Do you think it's valid? Especially considering the impact it's having on performers they work with?

cdeb

Are they still withholding their services now?

Possibly there's an issue that they require proper moderation to be put in place to avoid this issue to recur. They're private enterprises and are entitled to trade with whoever they wish. If the other trading party doesn't like that, they're free to change provider.

I think there's a lot of focus on "work" in this, and while some people obviously do work in the sector, the real issue is around rape, revenge porn, underage porn, and other nasty and definitely objectionable elements, none of which come under the heading of "work"

jimmycrackcorm

Feisar wrote: »

I agree with you in principle however in reality the sex industry would appear to have more than it's share of people from broken homes/history of abuse/drug abuse. It would appear to prey upon the vulnerable.

This idea and also the whole argument that prostitutes are mostly sex trafficked are thrown out as if they are actual facts with no or dubious sources.

The reality is that the vast majority of women are involved because it is very easy money for them. Who is taking advantage - the man who exploits the woman's desire for money, or the woman who is exploiting the man's desire for sex?

Brian?

GreeBo wrote: »

PornHub weren't working with anyone who was producing anything you mentioned, the issue was user uploaded content, which they removed days before the cc companies withdrew their services.

They should have done it when the girls who were raped complained.

Brian?

GreeBo wrote: »

So on what grounds are they withholding their services now?
Do you think it's valid? Especially considering the impact it's having on performers they work with?

Are they withholding their services?