A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#311

Post by fennecfoxen » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #300

fennecfoxen wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially since their job is to ask questions. That's a stretch. What else will you have us believe? That the New York Times intends to be a politically neutral voice of reason? No, sir. Maybe in the 1950s, maybe before the Internet, in those halcyon days when newspapers had a good slice of the nation's ad money and lots of competitors and earned money by attracting from a broad swath of readers to earn money from…

> The job description of contemporary journalists, and especially journalists at the New York Times, is to build narratives™ and use them to influence the world. That's what you'll learn about pursuing a modern journalism degree, and that's what will get you career success at the Grey Lady — doubly so since the Trump election. No, you're conflating different things. That's the job of an op-ed columnist, which is what…

> The news section is different, and it's job is to report facts. The news and opinion sections are run as totally different organizations in well-run newspapers.

You have definitely described an ideal. It's a reasonable ideal, even when those who follow it fall short. But do you actually contend that this ideal is shared by those at the New York Times and do you feel your words describe their newsroom accurately? That is the specific paper before us, after all.

> Also, City Journal is even more ideological and biased than the New York Times.

Perhaps so! Sometimes this is a positive feature; those who are biased do have an incentive to investigate facts, and uncover the truths their enemies would prefer to remain hidden. No doubt that this has been a major reason for the New York Times' success with their coverage on Trump, which contains many damning facts.

Is this a positive feature insofar as this article on OnlyFans is concerned?

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#312

Post by PastaMonster » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 5:55 PM UTC

I've read through the comments. Pornhub debacle is mentioned often. No one here is mentioning that many people have fantasies like a rape fantasy, a teenage fantasy, etc. A good search algorithm picks up on that and will make suggestions based on your previous searches/watched videos and the videos other people with similar interests have watched. This should be obvious. The videos have bad unspecified titles because it's easier to find. People are unspecified in their search terms. They don't search for "rape fantasy" they search for "rape". They don't search for "feet fetish" they search for "feet". What is it people don't get about this?

I think people should just mind their own business and stop policing what other people do. "If you don't like it don't watch it". As long as it's not illegal leave people alone with their fantasies. Don't be so damn judgmental. It's just sad how sexually repressed some people are and that they think they have the right to control other people. It feels like we are one step from starting to burn "witches" and books again.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#313

Post by MichaelGroves » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 5:59 PM UTC

Gimpei wrote: post #190

bostonalt wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To play the devil's advocate. Let's say a columnist in the WSJ wrote a piece with a bunch of first hand stories of people who were murdered by ex-cons who had been released early. And as a result the decarceration movement was stalled. Would you be okay with that? Anecdote focused reporting is very manipulative. Aggregate statistics matter. Context matters. Knock on effects matter.

> Would you be okay with that?

What does it even mean to be "okay with that" in this context? I certainly think it should be legal for newspapers to publish opeds arguing for harsher sentencing, just as it should be legal for newspapers to publish opeds calling for more lenient sentencing. I am okay with both. If I said it was only okay when I happened to agree with it, that would make me an authoritarian.

All the people hand-wringing about newspapers advocating against causes they believe in should spend less time wishing their opponents didn't exist, or weren't permitted to speak, and spend more time writing advocacy articles of their own. If you think anecdotes are more effective than statistics, then go dig up some anecdotes of your own. You're never going to stop your opponents from using anecdotes.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#314

Post by 55555 » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #272

afavour wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all seems extremely hand-wavey to me. > the bit about related suggestions sort of implies to a non-techie that Pornhub employees are generating these suggestions They are, in a sense. They're not actively doing it in person but the code they wrote is generating those suggestions. Changing the code is within their power, yet they don't. If the code processing payments accidentally started charging everyone $0 you…

> Why not fix the code that suggests rape videos? Deciding what is and isn't rape is an AI-hard problem.

Pornhub literally hasn't even let you search "rape" in years. Go ahead and search it. 0 results. This precedes the now infamous editorial. Same with "forced" and "brutal".

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#315

Post by ChrisKnott » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #79

MBCook wrote: post #57

There was also a recent BBC investigation into OnlyFans that found they constantly bent their rules for popular content makers and had a real problem with sub-18 people on the platform. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58255865

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.

> "in the UK, facesitting, spanking and “water sports” are illegal."

In what sense are those things illegal?

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#316

Post by bjourne » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 6:02 PM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #200

scoopertrooper wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to criticise the article in general terms, but what specifically did you find problematic with the article itself? Go ahead and have a read, I'll wait. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...

There is nothing wrong with the article (from memory, I read it some time ago), the problem is going from "there is a small minority of users who abuse user-generated content platforms" to "zomg, this platform is a horrible and encouraging all sorts of illegal things!" One does not follow from the other. The problem with the article isn't that it exposed a problem, that part was excellent journalism, the problem is a…

You don't seem to be talking about the article that was linked to in the comment you replied to.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#317

Post by jrwoodruff » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

NortySpock wrote: post #268

jrwoodruff wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would they though? I very rarely consider which credit card processor I'm using - it's what card has the best interest/rewards/whatever, or what logo does my personal bank use on their debit cards. It's not like I can go to my bank and say "I'm done with the mastercard debit card, give me your visa debit card please"

> it's what [credit] card has the best interest/rewards/whatever ...and doesn't have a reputation in the toilet. Would you get a SatanCard(tm)? Generous 10% cash back rewards but we make our money by extorting the elderly, killing kids, addicting adolescents to hard drugs, profiteering on pollution in your hometown, kicking puppies on video, and if you die we come after your family for the money, regardless of local…

I mean, I know it's not -at all- the same but that was kind of a staple for Bitcoin. Hasn't seemed to bother anybody...

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#318

Post by shrimpx » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

formerly_proven wrote: post #128

varelse wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All it took was one useful billionaire... https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1s9f698vwhczr...

> Mickelwait, however, says there was a “fatal flaw in that they put a download button on every video.” Under current law, any site that transfers pornographic content is responsible for verifying the age of the people in it. > “Because they had a download button that actually transfers from their servers onto the devices of millions — I think it was up to 130 million a day in 2020 — of visitors to the site, they hav…

This is straight out of Silicon Valley the show, when they're giddy to see their daily active users skyrocket, only to realize that it's become a pedophile haven and they're liable for billions of dollars in back fines.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#319

Post by tablespoon » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #306

tablespoon wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and PornHub did everything feasible to try and remove and report it. That's demonstrably not true, since PornHub did do more in response to the mainstream media coverage (e.g. finally require some kind of age verification for uploaders and purge unverified content). The only way they could be contextualized to have done "everything feasible" is within a fundamentally flawed model that they created, but it's prec…

I stand by what I actually wrote: that they did everything feasible to remove and report illegal content. Having more extensive verification of uploaders does not an expanded effort to remove and report illegal content that gets posted, but rather an effort to prevent said content from being uploaded in the first place. And as you pointed out, this comes with tradeoffs in the form of a more onerous sign up process. T…

> I stand by what I actually wrote: that they did everything feasible to remove and report illegal content.

I mean they didn't even do that. Wasn't their enforcement team pretty small? The original op-ed said it was ~80 people. In any case it was inadequate.

> but rather an effort to prevent said content from being uploaded in the first place.

PornHub chose a model that made it impossible for them to deal with their illegal content problem. The distinction between legal an illegal porn is often too subtle for any solution that just looks at the content or relies on "someone else" to do the work for them. That's the core issue. It's like a factory that dumps toxic waste into a river, and then "solves" that problem by building a little filtration plant far downstream of the factory that only filters a fraction of the river water, just upstream of some city. Their solution can't work, for reasons that should be obvious. The only solution that has any chance of working is filtering the waste before it goes into the river at all, and that's essentially what PornHub has started to do with their more-thorough vetting process.

Businesses don't have the right to make compliance optional or inadequate if it doesn't work for their business model. They have to pick a business model that can be compliant.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#320

Post by chiefalchemist » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #239

surge wrote: post #143

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…

Pardon the editorial / rant but we need to all mitigate our promotion of newspeak (read: language abuse). Point here being, anyone doing this is not a journalist; the scenerio described is not journalism. In using the word it belittles and compromises the trust in legit journalism. And it gives the violators the privilege of the label without actually doing anything to live up to the definition of the word. If your p…

How is it HN can be relentless about accuracy and completeness but constantly allows newspeak to be normalized?

Yes. It does matter. Words matter. We can't giving a free pass to deceptive language and then expect change.