171–180 of 457 posts
I believe his argumentation that this is a push by Christian organizations might be correct, but I believe he's deluded in that he appears to think that he's speaking for the majority. "65% of adults in the United States identified themselves as Christians."
65% of people saying they’re Christian in a survey doesn’t mean 65% of people are part of the most strict faction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, in this particular case huge companies did make changes on the basis of this newspaper column. It's not common, but it's what happened here. It was an incredibly visible and influential accusation that seemingly came out of nowhere from arguably the most prestigious newspaper in the country, and legitimate businesses like PornHub and MasterCard are terrified of brand association with child porn and sex traf…
> businesses like PornHub and MasterCard are terrified of brand association with child porn and sex trafficking With PornHub that makes sense because the type of content they provide is the crux of their businesss. But does anyone care or know what MasterCard is associated with? I would not even think to blame PG&E for providing electricity, even if the recipient turned out to be doing some super illegal things with…
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same crap as the ad-pocalypse. Journalists with an agenda use a disingenuous tactic, if they have a problem with a person or entity, they'll call up their sponsors, business partners, vendors, etc, and say "we're writing an article on X's platform which has been found to have (controversial material framed in a negative context), are we to believe that you're supportive and would your company care to comment…
Defending CP and revenge porn is such an odd hill to die on. Please tell me what was wrong about the NYT's opinion piece? That it painted a visceral picture of a literal child whose exploitations continued to be put on PornHub to profit off of? You give a lot of generic accusations without anything substantial. Are you upset that companies now have to answer for their actions? Why is that a bad thing? A private compa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the advantage to tweet threads like this is that other users can reply directly to any one of the n tweets in the thread, rather than commenting on the thread as a whole. Agreed that it can be clunky to read depending on the platform, but there's a reason lots of prominent personalities and bloggers still use them.
> Part of the advantage to tweet threads like this is that other users can reply directly to any one of the n tweets in the thread, rather than commenting on the thread as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_styl... Too bad the inline reply style got lost in email culture, but it's good to know it's alive and well on Twitter!
To me, at least, the inline replies were always a signal that a conversation was about to degenerate into an interminable running battle over minutiae.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The content they’re talking about is reprehensible. (Beastiality, incest, prostitution) but I’m wary of things being labelled “illegal” since in the UK, facesitting, spanking and “water sports” are illegal. So it’s easy to cite 1 case of beastiality and later say there are “200,000 illegal articles” when 199,999 could be spanking.
> prostitution I argue: prostitution is illegal but not reprehensible.
I can understand wanting to fight revenge porn, child porn, human traficing and exploitation, but we’re also making it unreasonable for prostitutes, porn stars and cam girls to do their job. And I kinda doubt that these rules makes much difference to the unlawful actors in those businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same crap as the ad-pocalypse. Journalists with an agenda use a disingenuous tactic, if they have a problem with a person or entity, they'll call up their sponsors, business partners, vendors, etc, and say "we're writing an article on X's platform which has been found to have (controversial material framed in a negative context), are we to believe that you're supportive and would your company care to comment…
Defending CP and revenge porn is such an odd hill to die on. Please tell me what was wrong about the NYT's opinion piece? That it painted a visceral picture of a literal child whose exploitations continued to be put on PornHub to profit off of? You give a lot of generic accusations without anything substantial. Are you upset that companies now have to answer for their actions? Why is that a bad thing? A private compa…
Right now we have a moral panic, fuelled by a microscopic proportion of content on a site, being used to fuel laws and economic exclusion to remove freedom of action from an entire industry. The consequences are, if not obvious, entirely predictable. Porn will balkanise, and what regulation exists (very strict in its production, relatively strict in its dissemination) will disappear. Sites like only fans being shut down - as with backpage, will force sex worker into enormously more dangerous street work, and ultimately lead to a vast amount of exploitation. And all this will happen, in practice not to protect the vanishingly smaller numbers of trafficked women, or children who appear on these platforms. But because an ungodly coalition of rabbidly anti-porn, anti-sexwork Christian fundamentalists, and anti-porn, anti-sexwork radical feminists have undue political influence.
Seen this thread going around, but it seems like it skips over the important bit. > So why the rule changes? Because last December the New York Times published an opinion piece by Nick Kristof caller “The Children of Pornhub” that accused the site and its parent company of profiting off revenge porn, child porn and sex trafficking. How do you get from 'opinion piece in a newspaper' to 'gigantic transnational financia…
It's the same crap as the ad-pocalypse. Journalists with an agenda use a disingenuous tactic, if they have a problem with a person or entity, they'll call up their sponsors, business partners, vendors, etc, and say "we're writing an article on X's platform which has been found to have (controversial material framed in a negative context), are we to believe that you're supportive and would your company care to comment…
Go ahead and have a read, I'll wait.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...
I assume these rules will make accepting paymets impossible for any adult site with live-streaming, and for Cam sites, that's their core business.
Potential answers include a move to cryptocurrency to avoid payment processors, or a move to strictly non-explicit content to appease them.
In the near term, either would decimate these sites. In the long term, crypto might be better for performers, as the cam sites could take a far smaller cut of payments.
Seen this thread going around, but it seems like it skips over the important bit. > So why the rule changes? Because last December the New York Times published an opinion piece by Nick Kristof caller “The Children of Pornhub” that accused the site and its parent company of profiting off revenge porn, child porn and sex trafficking. How do you get from 'opinion piece in a newspaper' to 'gigantic transnational financia…
The other question to ask is whether that piece came out of the blue or because someone was talking it up with Kristof. The author of that twitter thread thinks it’s inspired by an evangelical group (Exodus Cry) and it seems highly unlikely that they’d only be talking with him. It seems more likely that companies like MasterCard are hearing from them, politicians who are getting lobbied by their supporters, etc. and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same crap as the ad-pocalypse. Journalists with an agenda use a disingenuous tactic, if they have a problem with a person or entity, they'll call up their sponsors, business partners, vendors, etc, and say "we're writing an article on X's platform which has been found to have (controversial material framed in a negative context), are we to believe that you're supportive and would your company care to comment…
Defending CP and revenge porn is such an odd hill to die on. Please tell me what was wrong about the NYT's opinion piece? That it painted a visceral picture of a literal child whose exploitations continued to be put on PornHub to profit off of? You give a lot of generic accusations without anything substantial. Are you upset that companies now have to answer for their actions? Why is that a bad thing? A private compa…