321–330 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there really are minors on there, I'm glad they're being forced to clean up their act. Downvote me all you want for feeling that way.
How old does a person have to be to start deserving blame for their choices of sexual activity? Can you come off anonymous and let me know?
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…
I've never heard a good argument against prostitution. The arguments that I hear are against trafficking, rape, child molestation; which are all non-sequiturs: true and valid statements that do not support the argument itself. Can anyone here argue against prostitution per se? I'll listen.
It's said to objectify women. More specifically, the Johns are treating women's bodies as something that can be traded commercially. The more that is normalised, the more it damages all women - not just prostitutes. If you don't think objectifying women harms them, then that's not a "good" argument, I guess. FTR, I'm against laws controlling consensual sex. Not all harmful behaviour should be criminalised.
The problem that's particular to sex work is legal systems that fail to prevent coercion. This is exacerbated by religious advocacy groups that try to make sex work harder without making it safer.
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.
> "in the UK, facesitting, spanking and “water sports” are illegal." In what sense are those things illegal?
Interesting article about a protest in 2003
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…
Isn't this the crux of the issue? That's what Mastercard is saying, too. As long as you've super duper verified that this video is legit consenting adults, you're good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
By comparison, critics described pornhub as:
> Human beings of all ages, races, genders, and sexualities are being abused while Pornhub pockets profits from selling said abuse and exploitation online. It's nearly impossible to stress strongly enough the fact that these cases are far from anomalies.
https://exoduscry.com/downloads/Statement-of-Inclusion.pdf
This is utterly disingenuous. If dozens of instances out of tens of millions isn't an anomaly, what is?
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."
It's more complex than that. For one thing the current porn industry does have some ethical issues. Even people not opposed to pornography per se have issues. But beyond that, the zealously anti-porn crowd isn't just Christians. It's something of an unholy alliance -- you have more than a few ultra-woke, a smattering of the Q crowd type, and of course the good ol' fashioned core of Catholic and Baptist types. Plus no…
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...
I don't disagree with the article overall, but it is very sensationalized. Statements like this > 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 singl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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? Th…
It's an interesting observation that the people who have an axe to grind about, say, the New York Times being "biased" very frequently do not live up to their own purported ideals of neutrality nearly as well as the NYT does (i.e. the critics are hypocrites who are salty that someone dares to speak a different opinion than them).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
For the second time, out of the tens of millions of videos on the platform critics found illegal content numbering in the dozens. Their enforcement was sufficient to drive down illegal content to literally one in a million rate of occurrence. Weighted by number of views on videos, it's probably an even smaller fraction of that. The filter was sufficient to make illegal content something that the overwhelming majority…
Can you say that was all of it? Frankly, I don't see how anyone can have any confidence that PornHub's previous moderation practices were effective. Some of the stuff they have to remove is too hard to detect without context which is not present in the content itself. Also, those practices put the onus on the wrong party (e.g. forcing someone who had illegal or otherwise improper videos of themselves uploaded to find them and play whack-a-mole as they got reuploaded).
> The filter was sufficient to make illegal content something that the overwhelming majority of people - almost everyone - will never see when using their platform.
And now they have an even more effective filter.
And you're twisting the goalposts: "the overwhelming majority of people" aren't going to seek out illegal content, so talking about what the "majority sees" is actually ignoring the problem.