211–220 of 457 posts
The winner here might actually be the majority of NSFW content makers on OF who are mortgaging their future reputations for very small payouts. (not a judgment on what they do but the reality of the situation
You post this exact comment on every recent thread about OF.
Postcultrev says the rules about proving consent etc make it a lot harder for small indie producers. But is it really that hard for them to prove consent and identity for a small number of performers? I suspect that’s a lot harder for a bigger platform, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rumor has it that OF is the next target of Exodus Cry
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry “ Exodus Cry is a non-profit advocacy organization seeking the abolition of the legal commercial sex industry, including pornography, strip clubs and sex work, as well as illegal sex trafficking. The organization originally developed out of a weekly prayer group founded in 2007 by Benjamin Nolot, a filmmaker and member of the charismatic Christian International House of Pray…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A generic argument: prostitution allows woman without any skills to earn plenty of money which might convince women do go this way even if they don't really enjoy it. The same argument could be made about IT. Prostitutes sell their private parts, programmers sell their brains.
Earning money without enjoying it is what coalminers and rubbish-collectors do. People who enjoy their jobs are the lucky ones.
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…
That's the first leap in logic, the second is this: > The new MasterCard rules are a direct result of this, which basically means an overwrought Christian anti-sex fever dream is now dictating sexual content online. That's right, the state of everything was "dictated" by a guy writing an article.
So article wasn't the source, it was just another piece in the path of Exodus Cry's rampage. They have a huge legal team and they've been attacking this from every imaginable angle.
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
Downvote me all you want for feeling that way.
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…
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...
> It is monetizing video compilations with titles like “Screaming Teen,” “Degraded Teen” and “Extreme Choking.” Look at a choking video and it may suggest also searching for “She Can’t Breathe.”
imply Pornhub is going out of it's way to specifically monetize rape or child videos, when the truth is they monetize every single video on their platform. If it was as easy as creating some sort of child or rape filter and de-monetizing those videos as the sentence seems to imply they should be doing, they would just remove the videos entirely, not de-monetize them.
And the bit about related suggestions sort of implies to a non-techie that Pornhub employees are generating these suggestions, and it's not the only place in the article they make this point.
The reality isn't an evil mustache-twirling Pornhub employee sitting at a desk and brainstorming "Ah yes, if they searched for ‘Young Asian’ they probably want to search for 'young tiny teen. The reality is an algorithm detecting patterns in user searches, and some of those users are sick people, and there's basically no level of human moderation of videos or search terms happening at the scale of usage Pornhub gets.
Sentences like
> Mindgeek’s moderators are charged with filtering out videos of children, but its business model profits from sex videos starring young people.
Implies that Pornhub is getting a substantial amount of it's profit from illegal porn, which I highly doubt is the case and the article provides no evidence of.
Again, I agree overall with the content of the article, and approve of Pornhub's reaction to only allow verified videos (which was suggested by the article). I'm not angry at Nicholas Kristof for sensationalizing some things, as it appears that is what it took to actually make something happen. But the article is definitely skewing towards misleading in some sections to get more reach.
Looking forward to when (aptly-named) MasterCard will ban those other networks that put young girls often less than 13 in a behavioral treadmill of entertaining other users with their photos for pithy "likes" that don't even translate to monetary rewards. Should I hold my breath?
Aren't the payment processors not abusing their dominant position, like what happened a decade ago with Wikileaks? At least at that time they had the excuse they were pressured by the US government. What's motivating them this time? Do we need some sort of liability safe-harbor for payment processors?