>But in the eighth grade she developed a crush on a boy a year older, and he asked her to take a naked video of herself. She sent it to him, and this changed her life.
I mean that's sad and all, but there are food lines in Texas and all over the country, and the politicians are too inept or unwilling to do anything about it. Also, police seem to be able to murder people or at least have a reckless disregard for life, and the system doesn't prosecute them for it intentionally. There seems to be wide scale corruption on all levels of government and institutions, but nothing to see here. There's also a mass incarceration problem that exists to keep people in jobs and for profit prisons stock up. Oh and mass surveillance that was never resolved. If you get sick enough, you're go bankrupt and probably end up in essentially debtor's prison.
Ignore all the big problems, think of the children.
I dont disagree with you that there are many widespread, systemic problems that people are essentially turning their back on, but this is a pretty disgusting attitude. Exploitation is exploitation, and when it comes to minors, the sexual kind is almost certainly the most despicable; even more so when its allowed to happen regularly in the name of profit.
>Exploitation is exploitation, and when it comes to minors, the sexual kind is almost certainly the most despicable
Why is it disgusting? I said it was sad.
Innocent people are getting murdered by police with impunity. We have a larger prison population than China. I think that's a lot worse and affects a lot more people than when a kid takes a nude video and gets it posted on pornhub. I mean everyone knows not to take nude videos, we've known that for 15+ years now.
Can't you see this is a big distraction article to shift our concerns to other things?
My opinion: the "problems" you're describing are actually symptoms of the real problem.
My opinion: the real problem is moral corruption, and a lack of genuine leadership. Selfishness as a virtue? I dont think leadership and charisma translate well to the digital platform, I think leadership is an analog process, you've got to be able to read the room, but we dont get into the same rooms anymore, we discuss politics on facebook and twitter. Grandpa can't teach his grandchildren how to behave if the children only talk to Grandpa on Facetime. Our communities are missing the human connection - a necessary connection if we're going to cooperate to fix our society.
> I think leadership is an analog process, you've got to be able to read the room, but we dont get into the same rooms anymore, we discuss politics on facebook and twitter.
I agree our problems are moral corruption and the shamelessness of it now. I don't mean moral corruption in the sense of sex, I mean moral corruption in the sense of greed and money. I think our institutions have been corrupt for a lot longer than social media has been around.
Very serious "whataboitism" here. People can care about more than one thing. Different people in societies can care and want to work on different things.
I've called my representative on several issues. State, local and federal. Called the local news on school COVID coverup too. They actually went to the school to check it out. What do you do to actually try to solve things as a citizen? Snark?
I don't think many users are particularly interested in posts saying that the topic of the discussion thread is not worth discussing because there are so many other topics.
Maybe go find the threads where your comments are more on-topic.
Do you not recognize the moral panic / righteousness undertone of this article and what it's designed to do? I feel my comments are very much on topic. This is a modern "D&D might be Satanism" article.
I mean the NYT can publish stuff like this and still claim it's, "all the news that's fit to print." But I can disagree.
I certainly recognize your attempt to reframe your previous comments as actually addressing the content of the article, even though they were mostly "sure there's [this], but what about [not this]?".
Talking about an article's "undertone" and "what it's designed to do" as though those things are not completely subjective simply does not convince.
And thank you very much for the laugh you gave me when you compared D&D scaremongering to the literal exploitation of children.
Making porn illegal would not work. The issue is that these sites allow people to upload their own videos where they are not required to go through the verification process a normal porn production company would. The solution is to prohibit content from random users by putting very stringent requirements in place requiring age and constant verification like the mainstream producers.
It's very frustrating to see the all the money and effort that has been poured into preventing copyrighted content from being distributed, compared to the paucity of interest in preventing reuploads of a known rape video.
>Unlike YouTube, Pornhub allows these videos to be downloaded
My God, its full of stupid!
> but Mindgeek is a porn titan
No its not, its the second fiddle to WGCZ, with Amazon and Netflix trailing far behind in web video rankings. Not to mention Hammy Media, Multi Media LLC, IG Media, etc. Seems being a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes gives you leeway from researching stuff properly.
Is this poorly informed article a hit piece on Section 230?
>We’re already seeing that limiting Section 230 immunity leads to better self-policing.
yep
> If PayPal can suspend cooperation with Pornhub, so can American Express, Mastercard and Visa.
send in moral deplatforming police
>YouTube thrives without downloads.
umm, there is this program that recently got a lot of press over RIAA actions. I guess it wasnt sexy or clickbaity enough for nytimes or Pulitzer winners to cover.
Not sure if it's a dig against section 230, or just the sex industry. The journalist of this op-ed was instrumental in creating the moral panic to push through the SESTA legislation a few years ago. This legislation turned out to do nothing for victims and only damaged the safety of sex workers.
Insisting there is some simple top-down solution is nothing but inflammatory. Once data is out there, people sharing it is inevitable. The way to stop there being a video of yourself is to never let one be made in the first place, especially by someone you can't trust. The only way out of that cold hard fact is a worldwide data control regime enforced on our personal computers, which we should all be against.
At least with Youtube's censorship push, there's an argument to be made that it's not so much about the hosting, but the recommendation system giving extra attention to misleading videos. This article doesn't even attempt to make that point, instead repeatedly deferring to innuendo that the mere act of hosting is itself bad. Whereas in reality that's simply intractable, and pretending it isn't will lead to nothing good (ie another "war on drugs").
Certainly there are things Pornhub could do to help, like making it easier for people to find and report videos of themselves, or working with reputation management firms. But feigning as if there's some magical solution that Pornhub can come up with to prevent every bad thing from happening ("solve the problem") is not a way to have a constructive conversation.
Also the article skips dwelling on how most of the harm is actually being caused - the bullying. Like when yet another kid shoots up a school, the actual dynamic is brushed away as "kids being kids" and somehow uncontrollable, despite school administrators have great visibility into students' activities and a wide range of sanctions. Meanwhile we're all told that we should give up our societal rights to fix the resulting mess.
I think we need to invest more in investigating the criminals making and uploading the content.
Millions and millions of child abuse material are reported to NCMEC but less than 2% are investigated. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...
Legalize consenting-adult-sex-work and remove the regulatory barriers that force these sites to use usurious, alternative payment processors.
If you must, tax these services to fund investigations and prosecution of abuse and trafficking. Note that the savings these services would enjoy from being able to use mainstream financial services would be so enormous that even with some kind of "sin tax" they'd still come out ahead.
(note, I generally don't approve of sin taxes, but since you asked, I think this is one option)
Pornhub should handle takedowns more efficiently, but getting rid of a download button on a website is pointless... at the end of the day, if it’s on your screen, it’s your data
I’m not sure what they can do pre upload. I think moderation is not really realistic or even possible in many cases
If you want a good (bad) laugh, search for mentions of "Libya" by this NY Times author (Nicholas Kristof). He wrote a series of articles promoting military intervention in Libya. And after the Obama-Hillary administration did, and Libya fell apart, and millions of refugees were created, he stopped mentioning Libya. Hasn't mentioned it in years.
>He had shared the videos with other boys, and someone posted them on Pornhub.
So why weren't they charged with distributing CP? This is what we should be focusing on, rather than, what, complaining that Pornhub doesn't have some sort of magical age-detecting AI?
> So why weren't they charged with distributing CP? This is what we should be focusing on, rather than, what, complaining that Pornhub doesn't have some sort of magical age-detecting AI?
This is the part I never understand about CP being shared among high school kids. Why are the schools and police not coming down on the high school kids sharing CP? Make it really simple, receive CP and don't report it, you will get punished. CP is no joke and letting people off who have received it and not reported it is not sending a proper message to these High School kids.
Because the existing legal regime around CP is completely draconian (strict liability for your computer getting pwnt!), nobody wants to ruin the lives of teenagers for looking at pics of their peers, and it would be political suicide to discuss the issue.
That's what I was implying would be desirable, but it's political suicide. Cue pic of creepy looking high school senior - "Senator Scumbag wants to go easy on sex offenders".
> But in the eighth grade she developed a crush on a boy a year older, and he asked her to take a naked video of herself. She sent it to him, and this changed her life.
Shouldn’t she also be charged with distributing CP?
It seems pornhub could make three easy changes to satisfy everyone (or at least some of this author’s pts):
1. Use a dumber search recommendation system that chooses from a list of “safe” searches. Mostly for PR.
2. When someone uploads a video, check if it’s similar to something that was taken down. This article implies they don’t do that — surely this would save pornhub a lot of hassle anyway.
3. Publish some metrics about how many videos were taken down/list some positive actions they’ve taken. Also obv for PR.
All you need to do is store a "permit" or "contract" ID which a government agency or law firm can verify.
Performer would need to enter an agreement with the distributor as authorized by a government agency or third party, an agreement number is issued to the distributor. The distributor need not even know the name of the performer if they are incorporated.
You effectively (1) blanket deny distributors agreements with underage persons (2) create a paper-trail which makes trafficking easier to prosecute (3) force takedown/prosecute distributors of pornography where they do not have a documented agreement with performers.
What about people that record themselves and upload to pornhub? They are not distributors, performers or members of the government... What should they do in your scheme?
"Performer" here simply means "person appearing in a publicly distributed pornographic video".
The individual in the film would have to be registered with the gov't and have an existing agreement between themselves and the distributor.
If performer fees are kept down to what it costs to e.g. obtain a drivers permit and possibly offset by distributors, it shouldn't negatively effect smaller players or non-commercial interests.
>The individual in the film would have to be registered with the gov't and have an existing agreement between themselves and the distributor.
I think you're underestimating how much of the internet is porn, and how much you're asking of the average content creator. Maybe you are from a country where porn is illegal? In America, the legal definition of porn is pretty much anything designed to cause sexual excitement. I could make a video of myself walking around in my high heels, and that would count as porn. Getting the government involved before I shared my sexy engineer legs to PornHub/YouTube/Telegram would kill that, and probably also kill the platforms that were made great by enabling that.
IANAL but laws exist in most of the world requiring that individuals in a pornographic video need to be above a certain age. My understanding is that, counter-intuitively, if all one has is the video to go by, the more ambiguous matter is not whether the video is pornographic, but whether the individuals in the video are legally of age. At the very least, that is the framing of this article.
Perhaps I'm naive in thinking so, but I don't imagine "entering an agreement" with a distributor to share your content need be more complicated than an OAUTH flow to a gov't website and checking a box.
I do get that this can be abused by gov'ts and big tech to force individuals to identify themselves before using major platforms but I have two thoughts on that:
1) You can have a safe-harbor clause, similar to DMCA, where websites that host user content need not register as distributors of pornography if they have a take-down method whereby reported pornographic can be removed. Of course, the DMCA Safe-Harbor clause has its own problems and we'd need need to learn from our mistakes there
2) From a more fundamental perspective and perhaps veering off-topic, reliance on huge centralised platforms of the ilk of FB/Twitter/etc.. will always result in chilling effects and abuses of power. Until that problem is solved, distributors will make their gains at the cost of users.
EDIT: Thinking about this some more, obscenity laws have been used for ages to oppress minorities and suppress speech through selective enforcement. The only way something like this would work is through a very narrow definition of pornography, I suppose.
Abuse of individuals is far from evident in most cases, particularly from a given video, so naturally individuals would fall through even the widest definitions of obscenity. Only a very narrow definition would make sense here, assuring that speech is not unnecessarily stifled while a narrow category of blatant abuses are disallowed.
All this to say, this isn't indeed cut-and-dried, and I regret any comment I've made to make it seem like it is.
I think with such system in place soon every content creator would be required to have OAUTH flow to gov't website before publishing anything. It would help with so many things. Like copyright or fake news.
... ultimately also critiques of policies an the government.
After that system is in place its abuses can be endless.
I'm usually cautious about slippery slope arguments and tend to trust ultimate effectiveness of the democratic oversight of the government, but this slope looks very steep to me and very slippery.
It never occurred to me how logical it would be to require adult performers, even amateurs, to verify themselves to the platform before allowing their videos to be shown online.
Sure, it increases the moderation burden on the site, but that seems like a worthwhile cost. In general online content platforms like have been given way too much slack in shoveling responsibility and manual labor onto other parties.
>It never occurred to me how logical it would be to require adult performers, even amateurs, to verify themselves to the platform before allowing their videos to be shown online.
Let's make a database of everyone's penis and mailing address. What could go wrong?
Porn producers in the United States are already required to maintain a registry of their performers so that it can be verified that none of them are under 18. I'm not sure why you are reacting to a solution that is in some sense already implemented with such cynical sarcasm, especially when the alternate is "let this tech company continue to profit from sex crimes"
It is time for sex bots. Developing sex bots could be the first meaningful step towards tackling the horrors of sexual abuse, trafficking and child victimization.
55 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadI mean that's sad and all, but there are food lines in Texas and all over the country, and the politicians are too inept or unwilling to do anything about it. Also, police seem to be able to murder people or at least have a reckless disregard for life, and the system doesn't prosecute them for it intentionally. There seems to be wide scale corruption on all levels of government and institutions, but nothing to see here. There's also a mass incarceration problem that exists to keep people in jobs and for profit prisons stock up. Oh and mass surveillance that was never resolved. If you get sick enough, you're go bankrupt and probably end up in essentially debtor's prison.
Ignore all the big problems, think of the children.
Why is it disgusting? I said it was sad.
Innocent people are getting murdered by police with impunity. We have a larger prison population than China. I think that's a lot worse and affects a lot more people than when a kid takes a nude video and gets it posted on pornhub. I mean everyone knows not to take nude videos, we've known that for 15+ years now.
Can't you see this is a big distraction article to shift our concerns to other things?
Think of the children.
My opinion: the real problem is moral corruption, and a lack of genuine leadership. Selfishness as a virtue? I dont think leadership and charisma translate well to the digital platform, I think leadership is an analog process, you've got to be able to read the room, but we dont get into the same rooms anymore, we discuss politics on facebook and twitter. Grandpa can't teach his grandchildren how to behave if the children only talk to Grandpa on Facetime. Our communities are missing the human connection - a necessary connection if we're going to cooperate to fix our society.
I agree our problems are moral corruption and the shamelessness of it now. I don't mean moral corruption in the sense of sex, I mean moral corruption in the sense of greed and money. I think our institutions have been corrupt for a lot longer than social media has been around.
That's probably right. Well then... on the bright side the bar is set pretty low!
Reading articles and posting scolding messages doesn't really accomplish anything. It just makes us feel like we did.
I don't think many users are particularly interested in posts saying that the topic of the discussion thread is not worth discussing because there are so many other topics.
Maybe go find the threads where your comments are more on-topic.
I mean the NYT can publish stuff like this and still claim it's, "all the news that's fit to print." But I can disagree.
Talking about an article's "undertone" and "what it's designed to do" as though those things are not completely subjective simply does not convince.
And thank you very much for the laugh you gave me when you compared D&D scaremongering to the literal exploitation of children.
What is the point of showing me the replies to a comment you have decided I'm not allowed to read?
My God, its full of stupid!
> but Mindgeek is a porn titan
No its not, its the second fiddle to WGCZ, with Amazon and Netflix trailing far behind in web video rankings. Not to mention Hammy Media, Multi Media LLC, IG Media, etc. Seems being a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes gives you leeway from researching stuff properly.
Is this poorly informed article a hit piece on Section 230?
>We’re already seeing that limiting Section 230 immunity leads to better self-policing.
yep
> If PayPal can suspend cooperation with Pornhub, so can American Express, Mastercard and Visa.
send in moral deplatforming police
>YouTube thrives without downloads.
umm, there is this program that recently got a lot of press over RIAA actions. I guess it wasnt sexy or clickbaity enough for nytimes or Pulitzer winners to cover.
He also sources and mentions a petition from an evangelical group trying to shut down the sex industry. https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-exodus-cry-the-shady-ev...
At least with Youtube's censorship push, there's an argument to be made that it's not so much about the hosting, but the recommendation system giving extra attention to misleading videos. This article doesn't even attempt to make that point, instead repeatedly deferring to innuendo that the mere act of hosting is itself bad. Whereas in reality that's simply intractable, and pretending it isn't will lead to nothing good (ie another "war on drugs").
Certainly there are things Pornhub could do to help, like making it easier for people to find and report videos of themselves, or working with reputation management firms. But feigning as if there's some magical solution that Pornhub can come up with to prevent every bad thing from happening ("solve the problem") is not a way to have a constructive conversation.
Also the article skips dwelling on how most of the harm is actually being caused - the bullying. Like when yet another kid shoots up a school, the actual dynamic is brushed away as "kids being kids" and somehow uncontrollable, despite school administrators have great visibility into students' activities and a wide range of sanctions. Meanwhile we're all told that we should give up our societal rights to fix the resulting mess.
Agreed, but in this specific case it would be the child, herself, that made and distributed the original content. How would these cases be handled?
If you must, tax these services to fund investigations and prosecution of abuse and trafficking. Note that the savings these services would enjoy from being able to use mainstream financial services would be so enormous that even with some kind of "sin tax" they'd still come out ahead.
(note, I generally don't approve of sin taxes, but since you asked, I think this is one option)
I don't think Kristof's solution is necessarily the best one, but you sound like you don't take the problem seriously at all.
No, but sex education is great at preventing rape and child abuse. For the rest there is the report button...and the police.
I’m not sure what they can do pre upload. I think moderation is not really realistic or even possible in many cases
So why weren't they charged with distributing CP? This is what we should be focusing on, rather than, what, complaining that Pornhub doesn't have some sort of magical age-detecting AI?
This is the part I never understand about CP being shared among high school kids. Why are the schools and police not coming down on the high school kids sharing CP? Make it really simple, receive CP and don't report it, you will get punished. CP is no joke and letting people off who have received it and not reported it is not sending a proper message to these High School kids.
Shouldn’t she also be charged with distributing CP?
Someone can spend years in prison for possession of one of these videos but the people who run a distribution company for them are free.
1. Use a dumber search recommendation system that chooses from a list of “safe” searches. Mostly for PR.
2. When someone uploads a video, check if it’s similar to something that was taken down. This article implies they don’t do that — surely this would save pornhub a lot of hassle anyway.
3. Publish some metrics about how many videos were taken down/list some positive actions they’ve taken. Also obv for PR.
In fact, it should be gov't mandated regulation on the industry.
Performer would need to enter an agreement with the distributor as authorized by a government agency or third party, an agreement number is issued to the distributor. The distributor need not even know the name of the performer if they are incorporated.
You effectively (1) blanket deny distributors agreements with underage persons (2) create a paper-trail which makes trafficking easier to prosecute (3) force takedown/prosecute distributors of pornography where they do not have a documented agreement with performers.
The individual in the film would have to be registered with the gov't and have an existing agreement between themselves and the distributor.
If performer fees are kept down to what it costs to e.g. obtain a drivers permit and possibly offset by distributors, it shouldn't negatively effect smaller players or non-commercial interests.
I think you're underestimating how much of the internet is porn, and how much you're asking of the average content creator. Maybe you are from a country where porn is illegal? In America, the legal definition of porn is pretty much anything designed to cause sexual excitement. I could make a video of myself walking around in my high heels, and that would count as porn. Getting the government involved before I shared my sexy engineer legs to PornHub/YouTube/Telegram would kill that, and probably also kill the platforms that were made great by enabling that.
IANAL but laws exist in most of the world requiring that individuals in a pornographic video need to be above a certain age. My understanding is that, counter-intuitively, if all one has is the video to go by, the more ambiguous matter is not whether the video is pornographic, but whether the individuals in the video are legally of age. At the very least, that is the framing of this article.
Perhaps I'm naive in thinking so, but I don't imagine "entering an agreement" with a distributor to share your content need be more complicated than an OAUTH flow to a gov't website and checking a box.
I do get that this can be abused by gov'ts and big tech to force individuals to identify themselves before using major platforms but I have two thoughts on that:
1) You can have a safe-harbor clause, similar to DMCA, where websites that host user content need not register as distributors of pornography if they have a take-down method whereby reported pornographic can be removed. Of course, the DMCA Safe-Harbor clause has its own problems and we'd need need to learn from our mistakes there
2) From a more fundamental perspective and perhaps veering off-topic, reliance on huge centralised platforms of the ilk of FB/Twitter/etc.. will always result in chilling effects and abuses of power. Until that problem is solved, distributors will make their gains at the cost of users.
EDIT: Thinking about this some more, obscenity laws have been used for ages to oppress minorities and suppress speech through selective enforcement. The only way something like this would work is through a very narrow definition of pornography, I suppose.
Abuse of individuals is far from evident in most cases, particularly from a given video, so naturally individuals would fall through even the widest definitions of obscenity. Only a very narrow definition would make sense here, assuring that speech is not unnecessarily stifled while a narrow category of blatant abuses are disallowed.
All this to say, this isn't indeed cut-and-dried, and I regret any comment I've made to make it seem like it is.
... ultimately also critiques of policies an the government.
After that system is in place its abuses can be endless.
I'm usually cautious about slippery slope arguments and tend to trust ultimate effectiveness of the democratic oversight of the government, but this slope looks very steep to me and very slippery.
Sure, it increases the moderation burden on the site, but that seems like a worthwhile cost. In general online content platforms like have been given way too much slack in shoveling responsibility and manual labor onto other parties.
Let's make a database of everyone's penis and mailing address. What could go wrong?