PornHub in trouble..

[oggbashan]

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/mastercard-investigate-claims-child-abuse-211028091.html

Mastercard said it is investigating whether one of its customers, the popular adult site Pornhub, features videos of child assault and other illegal activity, after a New York Times column alleged the site contained numerous examples of abusive and illegal content featuring minors.

“We are investigating the allegations raised in the New York Times and are working with MindGeek’s bank to understand this situation, in addition to the other steps they have already taken,” Mastercard said in a statement to Bloomberg News, referring to Pornhub’s parent company, which accepts Mastercard payments via an intermediary. “If the claims are substantiated, we will take immediate action.”

Visa is taking similar steps.

 

[yowser]

The NYT piece really was quite disturbing. It sounds like pornhub, like most social media sites, just throws up its hands regarding monitoring content. 'We just host what individuals upload' and all that is fine until underage individuals have content posted without their consent (or often even knowledge.)

The case studies were devastating, a fourteen year old girl who followed her first boyfriend's request to send him a nude video, then, as is so easy, it got loose in the web (and eventually pornhub) and she wondered why her classmates pulled out their phones, pointed at her and snickered when she came to class.

It is a reminder why Laurel is so strict about underage sexual issues here at Lit.

Times article at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html

 

[ChuckWolf]

The credit card companies DO NOT fool around when it comes to this stuff.

On XHamster, there's an automatic filter on certain words in the erotic story section.

A word like "force field" would come out as "***** field" and "college kids" would come out as "college ****".

 

[SimonDoom]

It is a reminder why Laurel is so strict about underage sexual issues here at Lit.

Times article at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html

I think it's a very different issue.

Erotic fiction concerning people under 18 is completely different from child porn, because it does not feature real, underage human beings. They are two completely different things. It is not illegal to write fictional stories about people under 18 having sex. It is illegal to make a movie or to take photos of real people under 18 having sex (in most jurisdictions). In one case real, live human beings are being exploited, and in the other they are not.

I understand why Laurel wants the Site to steer clear of this material, but it's a very different issue from what's allegedly going on at Pornhub.

 

[Rustyoznail]

I understand why Laurel wants the Site to steer clear of this material, but it's a very different issue from what's allegedly going on at Pornhub.

Actually, at the basic level it's the same - money. Both sites exist to create an income for their owners, and anything that disrupts can be catastrophic.

Laurel has taken a hard line to ensure not a whiff of scandal can disrupt the business. Pornhub and others have grown to a point where it is impossible to accurately review everything. Admittedly their job is much harder. How can you definitely prove someone is over 18 based on looks alone?

With the other things in the article - drugged rape, coercion or straight-up blackmail, revenge posts, etc. They are here to stay. There will be somewhere for those to be posted. Pornhub is arguably one of the more responsible sites. There are hundreds of others that don't give a damn what's posted - and then you dive into the dark web...

 

[horrorotic]

I've been watching porn on PH for years. Trust me I watch a lot of porn, probably too much and I have never seen anything involving a minor or even someone role playing one

MC and Visa are always witch hunting porn

meanwhile "Cuties" is considered okay.

Just another attack on porn.

 

[jaF0]

With the other things in the article - drugged rape, coercion or straight-up blackmail, revenge posts, etc.

Who is to say those aren't staged or acted out the same way they are on TV? Wouldn't you have to get everyone depicted into a sworn deposition?

 

[SimonDoom]

Actually, at the basic level it's the same - money. Both sites exist to create an income for their owners, and anything that disrupts can be catastrophic.

Laurel has taken a hard line to ensure not a whiff of scandal can disrupt the business. Pornhub and others have grown to a point where it is impossible to accurately review everything. Admittedly their job is much harder. How can you definitely prove someone is over 18 based on looks alone?

With the other things in the article - drugged rape, coercion or straight-up blackmail, revenge posts, etc. They are here to stay. There will be somewhere for those to be posted. Pornhub is arguably one of the more responsible sites. There are hundreds of others that don't give a damn what's posted - and then you dive into the dark web...

Money motivates the actors in both cases, but it does not demonstrate the moral difference between the two circumstances. There is an important moral difference, and it's important to draw the distinction.

There's nothing illegal about writing a fictional story about people under 18 having sex. There are countless mainstream stories, and movies, and TV shows that do exactly this. The squeamishness some on this Site have about this subject seems odd to me. Nevertheless, I understand why the Site's owner might want to steer clear of this top. But the peculiar result is that subject matter that a child can watch on network television would be barred by this adult story Site. It's peculiar.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I've been watching porn on PH for years. Trust me I watch a lot of porn, probably too much and I have never seen anything involving a minor or even someone role playing one

MC and Visa are always witch hunting porn

meanwhile "Cuties" is considered okay.

*sigh*

"Cuties" encourages the sexualisation of minors in the same way that "Alien" encourages people to go stick their face close to alien egg pods.

It depicts a girl who's pressured by her classmates into wearing revealing clothes and sexting, leading to her being humiliated and bullied. Eventually she ditches the sexy outfit (and the traditional outfit her parents want her to wear) in favour of jeans and a T-shirt.

But American audiences missed the sarcasm in the title and the Religious Right took the opportunity to whip up a good ol' moral panic.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There's nothing illegal about writing a fictional story about people under 18 having sex. There are countless mainstream stories, and movies, and TV shows that do exactly this. The squeamishness some on this Site have about this subject seems odd to me. Nevertheless, I understand why the Site's owner might want to steer clear of this top. But the peculiar result is that subject matter that a child can watch on network television would be barred by this adult story Site. It's peculiar.

It's not automatically illegal to write fiction about under-age sex, no, and there are plenty of examples out there in mainstream punishing. But neither is it automatically safe. His stories were ruled to be "obscenity" without enough literary merit to be protected by the First Amendment.

Given the risk of legal standards shifting over time, and the impossibility of a site like Literotica assessing each under-age story individually to determine whether it has enough literary merit to protect it, I can understand Laurel wanting to draw the line a long way away from that territory. Imagine the nightmare if, say, a new SCOTUS shifted the boundaries of what's considered permissible online, and Literotica had to go back through 20 years of archived stories to figure out what needed to be taken down.

 

[SimonDoom]

*sigh*

"Cuties" encourages the sexualisation of minors in the same way that "Alien" encourages people to go stick their face close to alien egg pods.

It depicts a girl who's pressured by her classmates into wearing revealing clothes and sexting, leading to her being humiliated and bullied. Eventually she ditches the sexy outfit (and the traditional outfit her parents want her to wear) in favour of jeans and a T-shirt.

But American audiences missed the sarcasm in the title and the Religious Right took the opportunity to whip up a good ol' moral panic.

Agree 100%.

The reaction to this movie has been ridiculous, but the American promoters of it are partly to blame because of the poster they chose to adopt for it.

The movie is, in part, about the sexualization of young girls, but it's not a celebration of it. If you actually take time to watch it you can see this. The dance sequence near the end is disturbing, but that's because the movie wants you to be disturbed, not because it wants you to be turned on. There's a huge difference.

 

[Rustyoznail]

Money motivates the actors in both cases, but it does not demonstrate the moral difference between the two circumstances. There is an important moral difference, and it's important to draw the distinction.

There's nothing illegal about writing a fictional story about people under 18 having sex. There are countless mainstream stories, and movies, and TV shows that do exactly this. The squeamishness some on this Site have about this subject seems odd to me. Nevertheless, I understand why the Site's owner might want to steer clear of this top. But the peculiar result is that subject matter that a child can watch on network television would be barred by this adult story Site. It's peculiar.

Sure, but the site has taken a pragmatic stance that they aren't going to paint a target on their head for the pearl clutchers to aim at. And we, as writers here, don't need any bad publicity that could threaten the financial viability of the supporting features of Lit.

The sort of article this reporter has spent many, many hours researching comes around on a regular basis. Pornhub will survive. I'm sure it funnels a few dollars into the credit card companies they'd be reluctant to cut off.

 

[Saffyre]

Porn is not an unknown subject to me but I had to google to find out what “cuties” porn was and I’d never heard of this film, also called “Cuties,” and have never come across it on Netflix while searching for films to watch. Is it perhaps the press creating a story as they have done forever?

The film is not one which, from its description, I would want to watch but it’s up to Netflix as to whether they show it.

As for Pornhub I’m sure, if necessary, they would take down any videos considered too close to the mark and leave it up to the hundreds, or is it thousands, of other porn sites out there to show them if the feel that’s the best business decision. I doubt if any of the young ladies in the videos are below 18 even though they may look as if they may be. But I appreciate they are deliberately made to appear as if they are to satisfy those who are interested in and find satisfaction in the idea.

Storm in a teacup. America can be a strange place. The producer of the majority of the worlds porn and at the same time hypocritically prudish about it. One hand on their heart and a finger, or three, up their arse. On occasions they can be completely out of step and very juvenile compared with the rest of the world when dealing with delicate subject matter.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Agree 100%.

The reaction to this movie has been ridiculous, but the American promoters of it are partly to blame because of the poster they chose to adopt for it.

The movie is, in part, about the sexualization of young girls, but it's not a celebration of it. If you actually take time to watch it you can see this. The dance sequence near the end is disturbing, but that's because the movie wants you to be disturbed, not because it wants you to be turned on. There's a huge difference.

Interesting comparing it with "Little Miss Sunshine". That one features a much younger child, and it's played more for laughs than as critique, but I don't recall it drawing anything like this reaction. Agree that the promotion was poorly gauged but I suspect it's also about showing up at the right moment in the culture wars.

 

[NotWise]

Agree 100%.

The reaction to this movie has been ridiculous, but the American promoters of it are partly to blame because of the poster they chose to adopt for it.

The movie is, in part, about the sexualization of young girls, but it's not a celebration of it. If you actually take time to watch it you can see this. The dance sequence near the end is disturbing, but that's because the movie wants you to be disturbed, not because it wants you to be turned on. There's a huge difference.

I saw the trailer and the poster, and read some commentary. Netflix did make a mistake with the poster.

To me, the backlash against Netflix is a little ridiculous. The hundreds of local dance competitions all over the country can be worse than anything I saw in the trailer -- and those over-sexualized child performances are done with the complete knowledge and cooperation of the dancers' parents.

 

[naughtymind]

*sigh*

"Cuties" encourages the sexualisation of minors in the same way that "Alien" encourages people to go stick their face close to alien egg pods.

It depicts a girl who's pressured by her classmates into wearing revealing clothes and sexting, leading to her being humiliated and bullied. Eventually she ditches the sexy outfit (and the traditional outfit her parents want her to wear) in favour of jeans and a T-shirt.

But American audiences missed the sarcasm in the title and the Religious Right took the opportunity to whip up a good ol' moral panic.

Indeed. I thought “Cuties” was quite a brilliant movie personally, and in no way did it endorse the hyper sexualization of minors! To me, part of the brilliance was that it found a way to both criticize such commercialization of underage girls sexuality, while at the same time recognizing a normal curiosity about sexuality, recognition, and cultural acceptance. It also pointed out, correctly imo, the role that religions have played in negatively stigmatizing women’s sexuality. I doubt that most of the people screaming about it actually watched the movie personally, and those few who did obviously missed the messages by a mile and a half.

 

[colddiesel]

Policing the internet is tricky particularly as international standards and laws vary so much. Take Japan for example. They produce far more porn per head than the USA, their age of consent is 14, they are puritanical in pixilating genitals but they produce thousands of shota (shotacon) and lolicon videos which clearly depict very young people.

Mastercard and Visa will have problems with that material and there is stacks of it on Pornhub and elsewhere..

It is difficult for the USA to enforce standards in other countries when they generally don't support international notions of legal jurisdiction. And does MC and Visa really want to take on that role and shut itself out of 60% of the world market (South and East Asia).

Possibly MC and Visa are posturing a little because enforcement is difficult and costly.

 

[RandyVicar]

Pornhub is definitely responding to this new scrutiny by the NYT and/or credit card co's. There are a couple of threads on Reddit to the effect that all user playlists with the word "hypno" in them have been deleted without notice. PH has also recently disabled downloads. I don't know what else has been or will be deleted/changed but I think we can expect more from them in the near future. For example, requiring uploaders to identify themselves.

It's easy to imagine a FOSTA/SESTA style law with a death sentence for a single instance of coerced or permissionless porn. I wouldn't be surprised to see PH eliminate amateur porn entirely, unless the member supplies a release.

Sex workers have already lost the right to advertise and evaluate clients. it's easy to imagine coercion as a pretext for tightening the screws on porn generally.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

When was it that Tumblr went non-porn? Three years? Four years? And it's it still a top porn site?

 

[ElectricBlue]

When was it that Tumblr went non-porn? Three years? Four years? And it's it still a top porn site?

December 2018, so two years. My dash has hardly changed (classy erotica, natch ), there are fewer porn bot sites latching on, but after a year it was much the same. The biggest loss was the effect on a whole bunch of superb photographers' models loosing a platform, because nipples got them badged as smut. That was a shame, because they were real people in real skin.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

Regarding PH, I think this is a money grab, and NOT done in reaction to the NYT piece. Nothing moves that fast, certainly not a huge web site like PH. On tuesday 8 Dec they removed the download link, uploaders have to be verified, and moderation was improved. That's a big change.

So how is this a money grab? Many (all?) of us have wondered how PH makes money. Why would anyone pay for PH Premium with all that free stuff out there? The ad click throughs can't be that lucrative. Then along came Onlyfans, and the path to $$$ became apparent. With this change, verified models can sell their content on PH to a HUGE audience already familiar with PH's layout. This is a path to PH making big $, and perhaps Onlyfans collapsing.

 

[Emirus]

. Sex workers have already lost the right to advertise and evaluate clients. it's easy to imagine coercion as a pretext for tightening the screws on porn generally.

Sex workers have lost the right to advertise? I bet that’s news to the thousands of sex workers selling their skills (although many are unskilled labour) on the internet 24/7/365. Although with you being a RandyVicar your internet usage is probably restricted by your children. As for tightening the screws on porn generally I think that ship has long since sailed because of the grip the internet now has on the world.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sex workers have lost the right to advertise? I bet that’s news to the thousands of sex workers selling their skills (although many are unskilled labour) on the internet 24/7/365.

You would bet wrong. Sex workers are very much aware of this.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-07/fosta-the-us-law-punishing-australian-sex-workers/9842722
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...advertise-online-pop-up-brothels-criminalised
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/13/17172762/fosta-sesta-backpage-230-internet-freedom
https://www.rstreet.org/2020/04/08/the-lessons-of-fosta-sesta-from-a-former-content-moderator/

 

[sirhugs]

December 2018, so two years. My dash has hardly changed (classy erotica, natch ), there are fewer porn bot sites latching on, but after a year it was much the same. The biggest loss was the effect on a whole bunch of superb photographers' models loosing a platform, because nipples got them badged as smut. That was a shame, because they were real people in real skin.

as opposed to tentacle monsters in fake skin?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

---- 24/7/365 ----

Not to be picking and I know that this is the classic way of expressing something that happens everyday year round, but shouldn't that be either 24/365 or 24/7/52?

24/7/365 is just not right. The first number denotes a day, the second denotes a week. Now everyone has added 365, what does that mean? A year. Then why express the week time frame if you're going to make an entire year. And as you have expressed the week, wouldn't the number of weeks then be appropriate?

Sorry, just a pet peeve I have.