Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

131–140 of 141 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be more specific on why you think the people who sent emails are "evil" and deserve to be judged? And I'm talking about moral aspect here, not legal. > They are clearly nothing but malicious, bigoted and evil. Try to look at it this way. Jane Doe lived in a society (family, coworkers, friends) where she was respected and was considered to be good, ethical and honourable person. At the same time she wanted to…

> to report Jane and act in the society's interest, or not report Jane and act in her interest. Why is it in society's interest (or rather someone's twisted representation of society) that Jane be reported? Has she killed/harmed anyone or did any damage? > If she's a teacher, her students parents may not want a porn actor to teach their children And some people (still) don't want to interact people of certain ethnici…

> Why is it in society's interest (or rather someone's twisted representation of society) that Jane be reported? Has she killed/harmed anyone or did any damage?

Sorry for not making this explicit enough. What I meant by "society's interests" is interests of each individual who is related to Jane. I assume that if we approached, say, Jane's parents and asked them whether they would want to know that their daughter is doing porn, in case she is, they would say yes. This makes knowing it one of her parents' interests. The same applies to other people, like Jane's friends and colleagues.

Killing and injuring people is not the only way to harm them. Not letting people get what they want is also harm to their interests.

So reporting Jane is in the interests of those people, who want to know about it.

> And some people (still) don't want to interact people of certain ethnicity, religion, disability, etc. Thankfully we have realised the stupidity of this and have laws to deal with it.

All the characteristics you list here are the ones which people do not choose, but are born with. This is what makes it immoral to differentiate people based on these characteristics. (I'm not sure if religion should be on this list. Religion is something you could hypothetically choose, but at the same time most people don't get to choose it, they are taught from the childhood that they'll burn in hell for having doubts in it.)

But there are other characteristics like person's ideological preferences and views (this is close to religion, if you ask me) which we still can use to differentiate people, and decide whether we want to interact with them and work with them. For example, I think it's perfectly fine not to want to talk to someone if that person is sexist or racist. Being a porn performer is one of such things -- people voluntarily choose to do this, and it also tells something about their views.

> Also, if she's working, shouldn't she be judged by her performance at work, and not what happens outside?

Indeed she should.

If things happening at and outside her work are two completely unrelated areas, then I completely agree with you. For example, this is the case if she works, say, as a programmer. But I don't think the same applies for teachers. Teachers do not only teach children math, they also take part in children's upbringing -- students spend a lot of time around their teachers (especially if it's a boarding school) and they absorb many things they hear and see. And many parents may not agree with teachers attitudes to certain things, and they may not to expose their children to these attitudes.

Also, students do not live isolated from the outside world. They use internet, they talk to one another, and they may find out that their teacher does porn. So no, things happening outside of work do matter for a teacher.

> So what? How does this give them the right to know what's going on [...]?

It doesn't give them right, but it makes them want to know if the teacher is doing porn. They don't need anyone to give them right to receive an anonymous email.

> [...] why do you consider it to be someone's moral duty to disclose it?

I never said I do.

> Because she's lying to harm anyone or gain anything from it; nobody is getting hurt by the lie. She's "lying" because society still attaches some stupid stigma around pornography and she doesn't want the fallout on her career/relationships when people like you catch wind of this.

About the harm, see the first paragraphs.

I get your perspective on this. You think that the stigma people attach to porn is "stupid", therefore the people who do that are stupid too and their interests and feelings do not matter.

To me, it looks like you're trying to dismiss other opinions only because they are different from yours or because they are bad according to your ideology. More or less like members of one religion "prove" other religions wrong by refering to the scriptures of their own religion.

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

#132
post #128
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can you be more specific on why you think the people who sent emails are "evil" and deserve to be judged" Sure. they did something to harm another person without any real benefit to society. I know you argue that "her students parents may not want a porn actor to teach their children" but of course there is no actual harm of a porn actor teaching children. Parents only object to the idea that a porn actor is teachin…

So if a murderer teaches children (never murdering them) or a fraudster, or a stripper, then that’s okay if no one knows? People avoid them for a good reason. The image drawn in the story is far better than reality is. At least one of these “girls” was charged of theft and underage alcohol, with issued arrest warrants. You know the lack of morality doesn’t come alone, otherwise it would not be a big deal. >Someone ta…

You can't really wield 'social reaction' like that.

In many western societies in 2020, for example, many people's learned reaction to loud puritanism is to casually wonder what skeletons are being so desperately hidden.

I'd be much more comfortable with my children's math teacher stripping or doing porn than being some puritanical moral crusader, just based on recent history.

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

#133
post #130

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.

Nope. Public relation to this did it. Sending emails did nothing, just like a person who calls the police doesn’t imprison or even judge a potential suspect.

What about citizens outing gays in countries where homosexuality is a crime? Don't they judge and imprison their neighbours in some sense?

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

#134
post #29
post #4

My wife fell victim to this before we met. I'm curious how we'd go about filing a case against the website. I send a message to the FBI a few years ago and never heard anything.

Battling Against Demeaning and Abusive Selfie Sharing (BADASS) has a lot of experience helping people get the content legally taken down from hosting sites. https://badassarmy.org

thanks for bringing this to my attention, sent a small donation their way

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

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With little or no thought or concern for what happens next.

I'm pretty sure they see what happens next as justice. Not that I agree with it but I imagine they feel pretty okay with the outcome given their moral beliefs.

imagine believe that its your personal prerogative to act as judge and jury to everyone else around you.

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

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to report Jane and act in the society's interest, or not report Jane and act in her interest. Why is it in society's interest (or rather someone's twisted representation of society) that Jane be reported? Has she killed/harmed anyone or did any damage? > If she's a teacher, her students parents may not want a porn actor to teach their children And some people (still) don't want to interact people of certain ethnici…

> Why is it in society's interest (or rather someone's twisted representation of society) that Jane be reported? Has she killed/harmed anyone or did any damage? Sorry for not making this explicit enough. What I meant by "society's interests" is interests of each individual who is related to Jane. I assume that if we approached, say, Jane's parents and asked them whether they would want to know that their daughter is…

Being interested in something makes it “of interest” to you.

For something to be “in your interest” we mean “for your health and well-being.” In this case, there is no reason that a person’s involvement in porn is of any interest to the children and parents involved. In fact making them aware of the fact is acting against their interests by directly harming them.

If you consider that people with different tastes to yours are a hazard to children, where is the line? Is a teacher allowed to moonlight as a bartender?

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

#137
http://forum.doporn.com/showthread.php?tid=3528

This is a GirlsDoPorn page of one of their performers.

https://hdpornhub.co/girlsdoporn/girlsdoporn-e487-full-hd-am...

This is a video of that performer. In the first 2-3 minutes, when the cameraman asks girls questions, she says that she has a boyfriend and she didn't tell him she's doing porn.

I'll tell you what kind of "evil" person does this. The kind of person who feels empathy for the cheated boyfriend, and who wants people to know the truth. She's a slut and a liar, and she deserves to be revealed.

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

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it in society's interest (or rather someone's twisted representation of society) that Jane be reported? Has she killed/harmed anyone or did any damage? Sorry for not making this explicit enough. What I meant by "society's interests" is interests of each individual who is related to Jane. I assume that if we approached, say, Jane's parents and asked them whether they would want to know that their daughter is…

Being interested in something makes it “of interest” to you. For something to be “in your interest” we mean “for your health and well-being.” In this case, there is no reason that a person’s involvement in porn is of any interest to the children and parents involved. In fact making them aware of the fact is acting against their interests by directly harming them. If you consider that people with different tastes to y…

https://www.lexico.com/definition/interest

OED will disagree with your remark. It says that one of the meanings of the word "interest" is "the advantage or benefit of a person or group" (see example sentences and synonyms), which is kind of what I meant by "in your interest".

Anyway, in my first comment I specified very clearly what I meant by "interest" of a person -- it was whatever the person wants. And it's very easy to find out what's in the person's interest, you just need to ask them what they want.

> In fact making them aware of the fact is acting against their interests by directly harming them.

Looks like you suggest a sweet lie instead of a bitter truth. I prefer the bitter truth.

> If you consider that people with different tastes to yours are a hazard to children, where is the line?

Again, you pretend to misinterpret what I said to make it easier to criticize.

The tastes I consider harmful to my children (future children, I should add; I don't have any yet) are not exactly equal to the tastes which are different from mine. There are plenty of things which I don't enjoy, but which I'd like my children to appreciate better. And vice versa, there are things I kind of like, but I'd want my children to be less susceptible to them.

And my point wasn't whether porn performers should teach in schools or not, it wasn't about my preferences. What I said is that some parents may prefer not to let porn performers teach their children, and we should respect their preference.

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

#139
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because? Seeing US/non-US comments I think that is your local quirk. Nobody discusses porn video content and actors themselves, except “bald guy from brazzers” and other folklore. Otherwise it is the same technology, much better and advanced than e.g. youtube freezing crapware show. Idk why someone should not discuss that. Because if you know that it means you watch porn?

Talking about video infrastructure that happens to be on a porn site, sure whatever.

But, lots of people are uncomfortable talking about sex at work. I'm just trying to do my job, I don't want to have to talk with you about whether I know who "bald guy from Brazzers" is, why I do or dont, which porn sites I go to etc. My sex life, porn consumption or lack thereof is none of my co-workers' business, and keeping your nose out of other people's is a good default. Especially if you have GLBTQ+ coworkers, you can easily ostracize them.

In my experience, once sex and porn start trickling into the conversation, conversations seem to devolve into fratboy territory. Just keep it away from me. I literally quit my last job because of the fratboy vibe, my boss asked me if my wife's pregnancy "made her horny" and that was the last straw.

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

#140
post #4

My wife fell victim to this before we met. I'm curious how we'd go about filing a case against the website. I send a message to the FBI a few years ago and never heard anything.

There is a pro-bono organization called SIMP (Statutory Implications for Male Predators) dedicated to taking on these cases specifically where young women have been tricked into working in pornography without proper instruction and disclosure about how these productions will be disseminated and what the full consequences may be for themselves and their loved ones. I consider these people monsters of the worst sort, a…

I couldn't find SIMP via Google. Do you happen to have more information on the group? Thanks.
Post reply on HN