Pornhub

GarIT

Without greeting into all the details. I believe these changes are positive. But they were pushed by a Christian extremest/fundamentalist organisation who's stated goal is to get porn off the internet and to end sex work including acting in porn. They also openly hate the LGBT community and have campaigned against abortion.

PornHub was specifically targeted because it was a large porn site. The purpose of the article was to make the porn industry look bad.

Are there problems, sure huge ones. And it's good they are being worked on by PornHub but the targeting of PornHub wasn't out of any genuine concern for the issues mentioned.

Twitter is the largest porn site in the world, also believed to be the largest child porn site in the world. But they don't give a **** about twitter, they have gotten what they wanted by damaging PornHub and now their campaign is over, they won't be encouraging going after other companies.

Gruffalux

GarIT wrote: »

Without greeting into all the details. I believe these changes are positive. But they were pushed by a Christian extremest/fundamentalist organisation who's stated goal is to get porn off the internet and to end sex work including acting in porn. They also openly hate the LGBT community and have campaigned against abortion.

PornHub was specifically targeted because it was a large porn site. The purpose of the article was to make the porn industry look bad.

Are there problems, sure huge ones. And it's good they are being worked on by PornHub but the targeting of PornHub wasn't out of any genuine concern for the issues mentioned.

Twitter is the largest porn site in the world, also believed to be the largest child porn site in the world. But they don't give a **** about twitter, they have gotten what they wanted by damaging PornHub and now their campaign is over, they won't be encouraging going after other companies.

I actually don't care if it is some fundies who spear-headed a campaign, what has that got to do with the right or wrong of anything. I don't care if they don't like porn - they are still correct about the rape content that Pornhub would not take down.
As it happens there are so many issues in the world now that will hardly be touched by the ordinary media or mainstream activism, and those issues one ends up reading about in odd places, like the Epoch times, or The Federalist, or topics are only broached on off beat independent news sites.

This is because there is an acceptable position that we all must embrace like good soldiers and anything that threatens that ''liberal'' consensus or the shared narrative is simply not a goer for a lot of media.
An example would be how the stories of Hunter Biden being investigated were outright called fraudulent by the biggest websites like Twitter before the election, and posting privileges were purposely removed from well-known platforms like the NY Post in order to suppress a story, but now that the suppression of fact has done its job, the story can be unleashed.
Ditto use of pubertal blockers on children. There is loads of **** going on that is left to the weirdoes to point out. I have been on many marches where one is plagued by republicans and hard core socialists with their flyers and tightly typed revolutionary magazines - that's life, sometimes one has to share road with people with whom one does not jibe.

There is porn. There should be porn. People like porn. Porn is useful. There is also a large amount of very vile and violent porn and it is debatable as to whether it serves any function other than to degrade the actors and the viewers. But that is another matter.
Regardless there should not be rape videos or abuse of trafficked people hosted on a very large and popular website that should by virtue of its influential and lucrative position in the market maintain a very strict duty of care. Why bother to defend a site that knowingly does not do that?

Hopefully now other sites like Twitter, which can be an absolute cesspit, will be targeted. By Bible-reading hair-shirt-wearing googly-eyed millenarians, for all I care. For a start Twitter could take out of their terms and conditions the right of posters to discuss their sexual attraction to minors. The place is swarmed by debased people who in another time should be taken out and shot, quite frankly. But that is another day's work.

BorneTobyWilde

GarIT wrote: »

Without greeting into all the details. I believe these changes are positive. But they were pushed by a Christian extremest/fundamentalist organisation who's stated goal is to get porn off the internet and to end sex work including acting in porn. They also openly hate the LGBT community and have campaigned against abortion.

PornHub was specifically targeted because it was a large porn site. The purpose of the article was to make the porn industry look bad.

Are there problems, sure huge ones. And it's good they are being worked on by PornHub but the targeting of PornHub wasn't out of any genuine concern for the issues mentioned.

Twitter is the largest porn site in the world, also believed to be the largest child porn site in the world. But they don't give a **** about twitter, they have gotten what they wanted by damaging PornHub and now their campaign is over, they won't be encouraging going after other companies.

It's funny that it's the Bible Belt than visit Pornhub more than any other part of the states. Utah and Mormon country is biggest vistors, so much so they made porn especially targeting them like mormonboyz and mormongirlz .

GreeBo

Brian? wrote: »

The answer to all of your questions has been said more than once now:

1. They knowingly hosted videos of girls being raped. They knew because the girls complained and their complaints were ignored.

2. MasterCard and Visa did the morally correct thing and withdrew their services as those services had been used by Pornhub to profit from the rape or girls.

3. MasterCard and Visa are private companies and can refuse service to anyone they please.

4. **** Pornhub. They knowingly profited from the rape of girls.

When you’re defending the rights of a company that profited from the rape of girls, it’s pretty safe to say you’re on be wrong side.

1, I'm not defending PornHub *at all*, so please don't imply that I am. I'm merely posing the question around the actions of the credit card companies
2, you didn't answer any of my questions.

If you think CC companies are acting based on morals then God help ya.

cdeb

In fairness, all your questions have been answered there and before.

Which one do you think hasn't been?

GreeBo

Gruffalux wrote: »

I actually don't care if it is some fundies who spear-headed a campaign

The problem is the power they yield. You can destroy an internet company very quickly be removing cc access to it's customers. What if they targeted online craft breweries next for example?

Again, before you go down that road again, I'm not bloody defending PornHub here!

The other side of it is all the people desperately worried about some porn actors being coerced to perform, yet these same people ignore the wholesale child abuse by major companies like Nike or Coke.

GreeBo

cdeb wrote: »

In fairness, all your questions have been answered there and before.

Which one do you think hasn't been?

Is it right that they can risk a business closing down?
Is it right that a basic service that is pretty much controlled by two companies in the world can be withdrawn from a legally operating entity?
Why haven't they find the same to every other company in the same position?
It's it right that they can play favourites?
Isn't it a coincidence that they both did it at the same time?

cdeb

Pretty much all of those have been answered (with the exception of the last one - though GarIT's comments may explain it)

If a corporate agreement was breached, then the credit card companies are under no obligation to keep offering services. And if the agreement was breached, that's PornHub's fault. That's standard business practice anywhere.

I've asked you before why you keep saying "legally trading entity" while ignoring the illegal content hosted by PornHub - and I'll ask you again now. Is it "legally trading" to provide an outlet for child porn, rape, etc and do very little about the hosted videos even when specifically requested? It doesn't sound clear-cut to me.

There's other credit card providers out there - AmEx or Bank of America for example.

GreeBo

cdeb wrote: »

I've asked you before why you keep saying "legally trading entity" while ignoring the illegal content hosted by PornHub - and I'll ask you again now. Is it "legally trading" to provide an outlet for child porn, rape, etc and do very little about the hosted videos even when specifically requested? It doesn't sound clear-cut to me.

But it clearly is a legally trading entity? Do you know many illegal entities registered in the US and dealing with international credit card companies.

If it's illegally trading, then where are the lawsuits from the various US states or supreme court? Where are the FBI investigations? Why are other companies the only ones acting?

There's other credit card providers out there - AmEx or Bank of America for example.

How widespread do you reckon their use is exactly? AMEX charges an arm and a leg and is little used outside corporate world. Baml isn't exactly as ubiquitous as porn is

GreeBo

cdeb wrote: »

Pretty much all of those have been answered (with the exception of the last one - though GarIT's comments may explain it)

Answer them outside the content of PornHub though. My questions are all regarding the actions of visa and MasterCard, the answers are all regarding the actions (or inactions!) Of PornHub.

Kraftwerk

GreeBo wrote: »

The problem is the power they yield. You can destroy an internet company very quickly be removing cc access to it's customers. What if they targeted online craft breweries next for example?

Again, before you go down that road again, I'm not bloody defending PornHub here!

The other side of it is all the people desperately worried about some porn actors being coerced to perform, yet these same people ignore the wholesale child abuse by major companies like Nike or Coke.

So anyone who drinks coke can't criticise sexual exploitation? And what if visa go after craft breweries after suspending service to a website found hosting rape and underage porn?

For a guy who claims is not defending Pornhub you're coming up with some rather dumb arguments to criticise anyone who doesn't think it's a bad thing that payment services are reluctant to support rape porn providers.

GreeBo

Kraftwerk wrote: »

So anyone who drinks coke can't criticise sexual exploitation? And what if visa go after craft breweries after suspending service to a website found hosting rape and underage porn?

For a guy who claims is not defending Pornhub you're coming up with some rather dumb arguments to criticise anyone who doesn't think it's a bad thing that payment services are reluctant to support rape porn providers.

You can criticise sexist exploitation all you want, but I'm questioning how you can do it while wearing your Nike trainers and drinking your coke that you paid for with your visa card, all without seeing the inherent irony and contradiction?

Is it that Coke is just so damn tasty that the exploitation is worth it? Or just that it's so much easier to point the finger at PornHub as you don't actually have to bother your arse doing anything yourself?

I'm all for PornHub removing any illegal content, all for it, but if you are incapable of extrapolating any further than PornHub = bad then this is a pretty pointless conversation.

If you can elevate yourself beyond that for two seconds you'll see that my questions are about the power these two credit card companies hold and whether or not that is correct and justified. I have repeatedly denounced any and all illegal content, but I fear that you are incapable of reading what I'm actually posting and instead see it as me (somehow) condoning PornHub.:rolleyes:

Sir Oxman

Gruffalux wrote: »

I actually don't care if it is some fundies who spear-headed a campaign, what has that got to do with the right or wrong of anything. I don't care if they don't like porn - they are still correct about the rape content that Pornhub would not take down.
As it happens there are so many issues in the world now that will hardly be touched by the ordinary media or mainstream activism, and those issues one ends up reading about in odd places, like the Epoch times, or The Federalist, or topics are only broached on off beat independent news sites.

This is because there is an acceptable position that we all must embrace like good soldiers and anything that threatens that ''liberal'' consensus or the shared narrative is simply not a goer for a lot of media.
An example would be how the stories of Hunter Biden being investigated were outright called fraudulent by the biggest websites like Twitter before the election, and posting privileges were purposely removed from well-known platforms like the NY Post in order to suppress a story, but now that the suppression of fact has done its job, the story can be unleashed.
Ditto use of pubertal blockers on children. There is loads of **** going on that is left to the weirdoes to point out. I have been on many marches where one is plagued by republicans and hard core socialists with their flyers and tightly typed revolutionary magazines - that's life, sometimes one has to share road with people with whom one does not jibe.

There is porn. There should be porn. People like porn. Porn is useful. There is also a large amount of very vile and violent porn and it is debatable as to whether it serves any function other than to degrade the actors and the viewers. But that is another matter.
Regardless there should not be rape videos or abuse of trafficked people hosted on a very large and popular website that should by virtue of its influential and lucrative position in the market maintain a very strict duty of care. Why bother to defend a site that knowingly does not do that?

Hopefully now other sites like Twitter, which can be an absolute cesspit, will be targeted. By Bible-reading hair-shirt-wearing googly-eyed millenarians, for all I care. For a start Twitter could take out of their terms and conditions the right of posters to discuss their sexual attraction to minors. The place is swarmed by debased people who in another time should be taken out and shot, quite frankly. But that is another day's work.

Absolutely spot on

Kraftwerk

GreeBo wrote: »

You can criticise sexist exploitation all you want, but I'm questioning how you can do it while wearing your Nike trainers and drinking your coke that you paid for with your visa card, all without seeing the inherent irony and contradiction?

Is it that Coke is just so damn tasty that the exploitation is worth it? Or just that it's so much easier to point the finger at PornHub as you don't actually have to bother your arse doing anything yourself?

I'm all for PornHub removing any illegal content, all for it, but if you are incapable of extrapolating any further than PornHub = bad then this is a pretty pointless conversation.

If you can elevate yourself beyond that for two seconds you'll see that my questions are about the power these two credit card companies hold and whether or not that is correct and justified. I have repeatedly denounced any and all illegal content, but I fear that you are incapable of reading what I'm actually posting and instead see it as me (somehow) condoning PornHub.:rolleyes:

If you could elevate yourself beyond dumb arguments like what if visa go after craft breweries or how can you criticise sexual exploitation while wearing Nikes you'd realise you're talking absolute horse ****. Be a normal human being and say its good that a scummy porn site is being forced to remove rape videos instead of trying to make out everyone else is the problem ffs.

Gruffalux

GreeBo wrote: »

The problem is the power they yield. You can destroy an internet company very quickly be removing cc access to it's customers. What if they targeted online craft breweries next for example?

Again, before you go down that road again, I'm not bloody defending PornHub here!

The other side of it is all the people desperately worried about some porn actors being coerced to perform, yet these same people ignore the wholesale child abuse by major companies like Nike or Coke.

I do actually understand what you are saying and there is some truth in the argument. There is no point in us feeling the war is won when we all continue to live off the backs of other human being's sweat and servitude in so many other ways.
It is one of the worst things about these times in my opinion - everything looks so groovy for us here in the well off places, but we are in essence forced by globalisation to be complicit in the enslavement of humans in large parts of the rest of the world for so much of our treats and comforts. It is truly crap.
So the war is not won.
Though a battle is.

In the meantime buy fairtrade and organic as much as you can afford, buy local, grow food, don't keep updating the furniture when it is grand as is, no one needs that many clothes, brands that enslave brown lives in one place and support BLM for the likes in another are hypocritical d1cks beneath contempt, and we should acknowledge the good in some credit card companies actions if they make even one faltering, belated and politically motivated stand against a company hosting real life rape videos.
Step by step. Battle by battle.

cdeb

GreeBo wrote: »

But it clearly is a legally trading entity? Do you know many illegal entities registered in the US and dealing with international credit card companies.

If it's illegally trading, then where are the lawsuits from the various US states or supreme court? Where are the FBI investigations? Why are other companies the only ones acting?

Here's a legal case for starters - https://www.businessinsider.com/girls-do-porn-victims-sue-pornhub-mindgeek-40-million-2020-12

But that's not relevant here. I'll again say that if two companies have a corporate trading agreement, and if company A breaches it (for example, by using company B's services to allow people access underage porn, rape, etc), then company B is entitled to cease it, and that's company A's fault.

GreeBo wrote: »

How widespread do you reckon their use is exactly? AMEX charges an arm and a leg and is little used outside corporate world. Baml isn't exactly as ubiquitous as porn is

Who cares? My point is that there's other options there. If you want an AmEx card, you can get one. Bank of America cards (and AmEx) are probably wider-used in America than here, where the majority of PornHub's views come from.

GreeBo

cdeb wrote: »

Here's a legal case for starters - https://www.businessinsider.com/girls-do-porn-victims-sue-pornhub-mindgeek-40-million-2020-12

But that's not relevant here. I'll again say that if two companies have a corporate trading agreement, and if company A breaches it (for example, by using company B's services to allow people access underage porn, rape, etc), then company B is entitled to cease it, and that's company A's fault.

.

Not relevant? You specifically asked me about the legality of the company!

cdeb

No, I very specifically asked you -

cdeb wrote:

I've asked you before why you keep saying "legally trading entity" while ignoring the illegal content hosted by PornHub

My point is, once again, that if two companies have a corporate trading agreement, and if company A breaches it (for example, by using company B's services to allow people access underage porn, rape, etc), then company B is entitled to cease it, and that's company A's fault. They don't have to wait for a court case or an FBI investigation to come along to take action. And if they are in the wrong, then company A should have legal recourse - but here, company A simply deleted the 75% of its content it couldn't stand over, which is rather telling to me.

km991148

Gruffalux wrote: »

I do actually understand what you are saying and there is some truth in the argument. There is no point in us feeling the war is won when we all continue to live off the backs of other human being's sweat and servitude in so many other ways.
It is one of the worst things about these times in my opinion - everything looks so groovy for us here in the well off places, but we are in essence forced by globalisation to be complicit in the enslavement of humans in large parts of the rest of the world for so much of our treats and comforts. It is truly crap.
So the war is not won.
Though a battle is.

In the meantime buy fairtrade and organic as much as you can afford, buy local, grow food, don't keep updating the furniture when it is grand as is, no one needs that many clothes, brands that enslave brown lives in one place and support BLM for the likes in another are hypocritical d1cks beneath contempt, and we should acknowledge the good in some credit card companies actions if they make even one faltering, belated and politically motivated stand against a company hosting real life rape videos.
Step by step. Battle by battle.

Exactly - of course other companies are bad. But this is a thread about pornhub. If you feel strongly about Nike etc go open another thread. One thing at a time.

Thats something I think people need to be mindful in general. Its very easy to get carried away in comparisons and pretty soon any serious points are lost in all sorts of false equivalence and stretched comparisons (not necessarily saying that here, not saying nike etc aren't (unts, but there is a time and a place for each battle).

Brian?

GreeBo wrote: »

Is it right that they can risk a business closing down?
Is it right that a basic service that is pretty much controlled by two companies in the world can be withdrawn from a legally operating entity?
Why haven't they find the same to every other company in the same position?
It's it right that they can play favourites?
Isn't it a coincidence that they both did it at the same time?

Yes.
Yes.
Don't know, but wait a few weeks.
Yes.
No.

Just saw this Thread - From seeing a post on page 1:

We're all "complicit" in everything. Sex, and getting paid for it should be legal. Drugs should also be legal. Should be no suggestion imo of people being complicit because of stupid laws, and people suffering on account of criminality due to stuff being illegal.

No hyperbole; but all the pearl clutchers as they're referred are more "complicit" ; if only due to their own ignorance when it comes to people's suffering.. Question - Do you wear clothes? Where are they made? How much are the labourers getting paid for their toil? Is getting the equivalent of $200.00, or less in a month illegal in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc....?

COMPLICIT - fk off with that bollóx

If I want to 'knock one out' I aint complicit in a muddafukkin thing.. Same goes if I want to imbibe of any psychotropics that can't be got with a prescription..

Just wearing the clothes I've on me now makes me worse than partaking in either of the two above...

TLdR stupid laws, and third world Countries deprivation and savagery is nowt to do with me, or anyone else, in mainly 'Western Countries' what aren't in the business of human trafficking, and lopping heads off :mad:

I prefer xnxx to pornhub myself :pac:

LeBash

Wibbs wrote: »

Something like 10% of all web traffic is related to porn. That's a lot of potential money to be made.

I'd say more like 50%. In the words of Perry Cox " if they took porn off the Internet there would only be 1 site left, www.bringbacktheporn.com

Youtube's model for moderation wasnt much better 6-8 years ago. Pornhub is cleaning up its act now which is a good thing but if every adult on video wants to upload something, thats their own business. If someone finds the morals of that wrong, they need only avoid the website.

cdeb

LeBash wrote: »

if every adult on video wants to upload something, thats their own business. If someone finds the morals of that wrong, they need only avoid the website.

Woah - that's completely missing what started all this off in the first place. Which is to say, people uploading videos of others who didn't want to be uploaded.

This is a crime, and something which needs action greater than just "Yerrah, if I don't see it, it's not happening"

Brian?

LeBash wrote: »

I'd say more like 50%. In the words of Perry Cox " if they took porn off the Internet there would only be 1 site left, www.bringbacktheporn.com

Youtube's model for moderation wasnt much better 6-8 years ago. Pornhub is cleaning up its act now which is a good thing but if every adult on video wants to upload something, thats their own business. If someone finds the morals of that wrong, they need only avoid the website.

Girls were filmed while being raped. The videos were uploaded to pornhub. The girls complained and nothing was done.

So no, it's not about ignoring a site.

LeBash

cdeb wrote: »

Woah - that's completely missing what started all this off in the first place. Which is to say, people uploading videos of others who didn't want to be uploaded.

This is a crime, and something which needs action greater than just "Yerrah, if I don't see it, it's not happening"

Read through some of the comments.

I agree, if someone is not involved doesn't consent, yes its a disgusting act but as they have taken down 70% of their content (someone said that here, im not sure), they are now actively trying to fix the issue.

Exploting labour to make Nikes is bad

Hosting and profiting from rape videos is a hell of a lot worse.

cdeb

LeBash wrote: »

Read through some of the comments.

Can you point out the ones you're thinking of rather than just a vague "Go read over a 15-page thread again"?

No-one to my recollection is asking that PornHub be taken down or that porn be banned as immoral.

LeBash wrote: »

I agree, if someone is not involved doesn't consent, yes its a disgusting act but as they have taken down 70% of their content (someone said that here, im not sure), they are now actively trying to fix the issue.

Are they though? The problem in the past was that deleted videos just got uploaded again. What will be different this time? The lack of sufficient moderators employed by the site and the poor reaction to complaints from abused people in the videos themselves has been flagged. Has anything changed in that regard?

GarIT

Polcel wrote: »

I would love to know (well no, I wouldn't) what search terms you people have been using to find all this rape and child abuse porn on Pornhub.

Hahaha

Apparently paedos use dates. So it's harder to find and just falls in amongst the videos that were uploaded using the video file name as the title.

Gruffalux

Polcel wrote: »

I would love to know (well no, I wouldn't) what search terms you people have been using to find all this rape and child abuse porn on Pornhub.

In some cases that I have read of it is the victim themselves who finds their rape online.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/6260312/woman-accuses-pornhub-profiting-rape-toddler-abuse-posted-site/

Polcel

Polcel wrote: »

I can also inform you that the alt right is celebrating this victory. They hate Pornhub and the porn industry in general because it's run by the REDACTED.

But I thought the alt right were just incels pulling themselves asunder in their mom's basement