The Children of Pornhub
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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?
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?
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.
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...
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 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)
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?
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.
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.