Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#81

Post by ck425 »

jariel wrote: post #72
ajmurmann wrote: post #53

> In November 2015 60 emails and phone calls called for her to be expelled. The emails went to the dean of the law school, and to the head of the student body with links to the video. What kind of evil person does this? Is there anything these monsters can be prosecuted for? At least the people who made the movies had a motive in greed. The people who sent these emails wouldn't even gain anything. They are clearly no…

Obviously these women were victimised, but this is a completely separate issue from those 'sending emails' as those who were doing that would have been completely unaware of the mitigating circumstances and therefore operating under the assumption said women were simply 'making porn'. You're essentially insinuating that it's 'evil' to consider that 'doing porn' is possibly inconsistent with the values of an instituti…

It might not be normative in parts of the world (even the western world) but I still have the right to hold that view and to condemn those who emailed to try destroy the woman's career as immoral (evil is a terrible term).

Regardless of your disagreement with my view I have the right to hold it. And based on recent history I'd bet I'm on the right side of history here.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#82

Post by ck425 »

missosoup wrote: post #71
celticmusic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have videos of these woman stating they weren't under the influence of anything and explicitly giving permission for the videos to be used in any way. I bet you there are plenty of women who walked away because they recognized the lie, either when asked to do that specific video or sooner. What the poster above you was attempting to do is possibly educate others about not being naive. That has real value that yo…

America has this weird thing where pointing out that the victim wasn't completely robbed of their agency and made some dumb decisions == victim blaming. Especially in incidents related to sex. To recap, someone commented that there's a lesson to be re-iterated here about sharing videos, and someone else got offended by that . It's weird to imagine a society where people get offended when presented with instructions f…

You have to look at that in historical terms. Until very recently the vast majority of sexual exploitation cases where dismissed using a form of victim blaming, normally by pointing out the agency the victims still had but didn't use.

I'm not saying you're wrong but people are understandably hyper sensitive to those points as until very recently they would be used to dismiss victims. It'll take a period of time (atleast a decade, likely a generation) where victims are regularly listened to before that sensitivity starts to go away.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#83

Post by ck425 »

fenwick67 wrote: post #52
wruza wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We discuss porn industry and porn site’s implementation and ux details at work, both men and women. It’s 2020. Do you know I breathe air and eat food?

Please don't talk about porn at work. Sincerely - anybody who has a shred of professionalism

I think there's a vast difference between discussing porn and discussing the technical details of porn websites. I'd never discuss the former at work but I have discussed the latter, albeit only with colleagues I know well and when it was directly relevant to technical problems we were discussing. Also not in communal areas.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#84

Post by scotty79 »

elfexec wrote: post #80
scotty79 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending emails (and any other reaction to public availability of the videos) was what actually did the lasting harm. If you did harm then being motivated by your morality or religion doesn't justify what you did. It just explains why you did wrong and why you behaved evil.

> If you did harm then being motivated by your morality or religion doesn't justify what you did. All morality results in harm. Good does harm to evil - that's the point. Now what is good and what is evil? It's different from people to people, culture to culture. Not only that, it changes with time.

> All morality results in harm.

Absolutely not. Helping others is a moral action and results in no harm (when done properly).

> Good does harm to evil - that's the point.

No. The point of mortality is to prevent harm done by evil and prevent proliferation or even existance of evil. Harming evil is just a tool to deter it. Not particularly effective tool strategically.

> Now what is good and what is evil? It's different from people to people, culture to culture. Not only that, it changes with time.

Also tools used by good and evil change with time. Even some tools switch sides.

Shaming prostitutes was probably effective tool of good when your village of 100 people was threatened by spread of incurable, untreatable, debilitating sexually transmitted disease. Shaming nowadays is mostly a tool of evil bigotery.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#85

Post by FDSGSG »

ajmurmann wrote: post #53

> In November 2015 60 emails and phone calls called for her to be expelled. The emails went to the dean of the law school, and to the head of the student body with links to the video. What kind of evil person does this? Is there anything these monsters can be prosecuted for? At least the people who made the movies had a motive in greed. The people who sent these emails wouldn't even gain anything. They are clearly no…

> Is there anything these monsters can be prosecuted for?

Quite possibly the federal cyberstalking statute.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#86

Post by burntoutfire »

ck425 wrote: post #81
jariel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously these women were victimised, but this is a completely separate issue from those 'sending emails' as those who were doing that would have been completely unaware of the mitigating circumstances and therefore operating under the assumption said women were simply 'making porn'. You're essentially insinuating that it's 'evil' to consider that 'doing porn' is possibly inconsistent with the values of an instituti…

It might not be normative in parts of the world (even the western world) but I still have the right to hold that view and to condemn those who emailed to try destroy the woman's career as immoral (evil is a terrible term). Regardless of your disagreement with my view I have the right to hold it. And based on recent history I'd bet I'm on the right side of history here.

Maybe the emailers wanted to maintain the reputation of the law school? I mean, if a law school becomes known for graduating porn actresses (even if both ex and amateur), it's reputation could diminish somewhat. Isn't there something in the law about lawyers needing to be of solid integrity (decent upstanding citizens)? Taking money to have sex with stragers while agreeing to be filmed could be seen as a demonstration of poor morals by many.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#87

Post by JordanFarmer »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #42
mysterydip wrote: post #22

(no disrespect intended to the victims in this story when I say this) This is a cautionary tale in the world we live in today: Once something is recorded, it could be anywhere. Even without willful intent on the part of the owner, phones get lost or stolen, old hardware gets sold on ebay, cloud accounts get compromised, etc. Have fun, but be careful.

This does indeed come off as disrespectful. These videos weren’t “leaked”, they weren’t found on someone’s old phone. The people who shot the video LIED to the participants in order to coerce participation. They paid other people to lie to them as well in order to create a more complete deception. Then they posted the videos in exactly the way they said they would not do. They also provided drugs and alcohol to the p…

College aged women trusted porn producers? Wow, talk about lack of street smarts. Among people working different professions, how highly would you trust a porn company? These women made pornos. They had sex with a total stranger while a crew stood around and watched while filming them them, I mean just think about that. They actually thought, "oh well, only one person will ever see it"? This whole thing is a sad story, but wow, i just can't imagine American born and raised girls going along with this...

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#88

Post by progval »

celticmusic wrote: post #51
progval wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> implies a naivete that we should trust others - to do only what they say they will, with things that are precious to us. We trust strangers all the time. For example when driving, because we expect dangerous people to be sufficiently de-incentived from driving. Or when doing groceries, because we expect companies not to poison us. Or when riding in a stranger's car, even though they could rob and/or harm.

terrible examples, in all instances we have laws in place and people who's jobs it is to ensure the safety. Your point has some legitimacy, but your examples are severely flawed.

> in all instances we have laws in place and people who's jobs it is to ensure the safety

Yes, and that was exactly my point. We (can) have laws and enforcement for the issue this article is about too.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#89

Post by Cougher »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #69

This whole thing is idiotic. The lying producers are assholes. The women are idiots for trusting anything told to them in this context by complete strangers motivated only by money. In the words of Shakespeare, "all are punished". >“These are millennial women who grew up with the internet – they knew the consequences of pornographic videos ending up online which is why they asked where the videos were going before th…

It's almost like there are people who have developed an ability to trick people into doing things that they wouldn't normally do via some sort of plan of deception. But we know that can't possibly be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#90

Post by wruza »

ffdjjjffjj wrote: post #58
wruza wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We discuss porn industry and porn site’s implementation and ux details at work, both men and women. It’s 2020. Do you know I breathe air and eat food?

Are you in the US?

In Russia.
Post reply on HN