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

Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 175 posts

Re: Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

#151

Post by Dma54rhs »

adrian_b wrote: post #99
manigandham wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this is considered critical infrastructure today, that's the point. What's important to you is entirely subjective and these are private companies that can apply their terms however they see fit. Visa/MC can easily say that ACH and cash payments exist as an alternative. If you feel that monopolistic powers by major tech companies need more oversight then that should apply equally. I don't see why communicatio…

Visa/MC are really critical infrastructure, because for many people they are the main means of payment or even the only one. In most cases they are the only existing means for making remote payments. I would have much preferred a world in which the remote payments would not have been done by credit cards, but by wire transfers (with much lower fees than the current fees for wire transfers), but we do not live in such…

There are plenty of alternatives though, they don't own anything to porn industry. They just don't want to associate themselves with these people and it's their right to do so.

Re: Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

#152

Post by fwip »

manigandham wrote: post #97
fwip wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument always reminds me of the evergreen dril tweet: https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en (cw: profanity). You've rhetorically zoomed out so far that only the most abstract description of the category of the action is up for discussion. But this is begging the question - there's no reason that this must be the case. This rhetorical trick of categorizing all of these as "private companies…

I compared these situations because both are about explicility illegal activities clearly defined by law. They're more similar than different. Your personal opinion on which decision you support is just that, your personal opinion, and only reinforces my point about the subjectivity and inherent hypocrisy of it all and whether private company action over state prosecution is the correct course of action.

Just because something is subjective does not mean it is hypocritical.

Re: Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

#153

Post by AnthonyMouse »

yarcob wrote: post #136
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, according to the article, it was really hard to get Pornhub to remove illegal videos. You're saying that if you go to them with a court order, they don't comply with it? So then have the court find them in contempt. This requires no involvement from Visa or Mastercard. > And since videos could be downloaded and uploaded by anyone, removed videos quickly showed up on the website again and again. How are the…

> You're saying that if you go to them with a court order, they don't comply with it? No, I'm saying it's hard for sex abuse victims to get their videos off Pornhub. > How are they supposed to know it's the same video? If they can't even prevent re-uploads of known illegal videos, maybe they should never have allowed user uploads at all.

> No, I'm saying it's hard for sex abuse victims to get their videos off Pornhub.

If they go to the police, who have the ability to get a court order, and they don't, isn't your issue with the police?

> If they can't even prevent re-uploads of known illegal videos

How do you propose that they know that it's the same video? Trivial checks like whether it's byte for byte identical are just as trivially bypassed by the uploader, e.g. by reencoding. Anything more complicated than that will fail to match with 100% accuracy, especially when the uploader is trying to cause that to happen. And then you would still have people complaining that the videos are there again.

This isn't a job for the platform. It's a job for the police.

Re: Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

#154

Post by AnthonyMouse »

marcinzm wrote: post #150
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do find it funny how "this site is filled with a lot of rape and child porn" is being framed as "it's being cancelled for no reason." It's because this is the wrong way to deal with that issue. The fairly obviously correct way to do it is that you have law enforcement investigate instances of child pornography, arrest the creators for it, and then issue a court order to the hosting sites to remove the specific in…

Most legal systems have concepts of being an accomplice, criminal negligence, constructive possession and so on. So it seems reasonable that a website which help crimes be committed or hosts illegal content on its servers should have some liability or requirements on taking reasonable preventive measures. Especially if the website is made aware that such crimes are being committed.

> Most legal systems have concepts of being an accomplice, criminal negligence, constructive possession and so on. So it seems reasonable that a website which help crimes be committed or hosts illegal content on its servers should have some liability or requirements on taking reasonable preventive measures.

That doesn't follow at all. If you get on a Greyhound bus with the intent to get to a place to commit a sex crime, Greyhound would "help crimes be committed" by carrying you to your destination, but they're not the police and it's not their job to investigate you before allowing you to travel.

> Especially if the website is made aware that such crimes are being committed.

There are two different versions of "made aware" here.

One is that a court has decided that something is illegal and ordered them to take it down. I have a hard time believing that they don't comply with that.

Two is that somebody claims that something is illegal, but the website is neither judge nor jury and has no competence to adjudicate the claim. In this case it's not at all unreasonable to refer you to the actual court system, which will bring you back to number one.

The fact is that all of these alternatives are designed to be an end run around the constitutional protection of speech, by foisting the messy process of determining what's illegal onto a platform that can claim it isn't subject to the First Amendment, instead of a government body that is. Even though it's a government penalty being imposed for not removing what is, in practice, a body of works some of which are lawful speech.

Re: Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

#156

Post by Toxic_Handcuff »

elliekelly wrote: post #146
pdkl95 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DZfUzxZ2VU Both the video for interviews and the bibliography links in the description.

Surely you’re joking. Is this person a sex worker? Or do they have any qualifications to speak on the subject of sex work? Because it seems like a channel dedicated to alt-right/far-right talking points and I don’t consider a Steve Bannon superfan to be an authoritative speaker on the topic of what sex workers want when it comes to their safety.

Philosophy Tube is a left wing Youtube channel, what are you talking about?

Re: Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

#157

Post by jedmeyers »

emteycz wrote: post #54
jedmeyers wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible but the majority of stakeholders need to be actively engaged in managing that entity. Otherwise it will be taken oven by the bad actors trying to primarily benefit themselves.

Yeah, but that ceases to work once that entity is too large. I personally think the limit is around 50 or so, but I don't see the need for union in a 50-head company. I've literally never seen a functioning union anywhere I went (I live in Europe). Everyone I met in my life, in a bar, etc is angry at their unions.

> I personally think the limit is around 50

Incidentally, I personally think the limit for communist societies is around 50 people or so.

Re: Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

#158

Post by manigandham »

LatteLazy wrote: post #127
ars wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean you are against AWS, Google, and Apple shutting down Perler? All of those are large enough, and are quasi-monopolistic to meet your definition.

I'm not OP, and I'm not a trumper or Conservative but I am 110% into free speech and I don't like the parler ban. That said, it's really not equivalent. There are 101 other services if AWS turn you down. You can still access the parler site from an apple/android phone too. On android you can still install the app, just not via the play store. Censorship is incidious because many people support at least some. So you c…

Except that ban was clear collusion by Google, Apple and Amazon against a single organization.

It's concerning when an alternative no longer just means an alternative of the same service but also the entire infrastructure stack. We've seen similar situations during the digital piracy era of the early 2000s.

Re: Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

#159

Post by pdkl95 »

elliekelly wrote: post #146
pdkl95 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DZfUzxZ2VU Both the video for interviews and the bibliography links in the description.

Surely you’re joking. Is this person a sex worker? Or do they have any qualifications to speak on the subject of sex work? Because it seems like a channel dedicated to alt-right/far-right talking points and I don’t consider a Steve Bannon superfan to be an authoritative speaker on the topic of what sex workers want when it comes to their safety.

> Surely you’re joking.

100% serious.

> Is this person a sex worker?

He's a philosopher with an acting day job.

Did you miss where I said "the video for interviews"? The video contains an interview with a sex worker and many short comments by people working in various parts of the sex industry.

> Or do they have any qualifications to speak on the subject of sex work?

He has a degree in philosophy, which is why he mainly discusses the logical implications of various topics. For actual opinions on sex work, he interviews people with first hand knowledge. I also mentioned the presence of a bibliography in the video description.

> seems like a channel dedicated to alt-right/far-right talking points

Where did you get that idea? Philosophy Tube is very strongly on the left. The most popular video on the channel is a very good introduction to antifa.

> a Steve Bannon superfan

LOL - The 2nd most popular video on the channel[1] - which I recommend watching - focuses on explaining how Steve Bannon lies, and a warning about how Bannon's rhetoric will eventually lead people into fascism.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO6uD3c2qMo

Re: Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk

#160

Post by postalrat »

bdcravens wrote: post #21
TedShiller wrote: post #3

Bitcoin

This has been done before by others in response to credit card networks cutting the cord, and it never replaces the lost revenue.

The way things are going crypto may actually become a real currency and you would never need to convert to dollars.

I don't own any crypto and never thought I'd be saying this so soon but things have changed a lot in the past 6 months.

Post reply on HN