From the article, Pornhub only had 118 incidences of child porn over the last 3 years whereas Facebook had 84 million incidents of child porn during the same time. So it sounds like Pornhub is taking child porn seriously, and Facebook isn't.
* ETA: Facebook is an industry leader on CSAM scanning, and has developed both its own algorithms and media databases. So your comment that "Facebook isn't taking the issue seriously" seems like exactly the wrong diagnosis. Facebook's high numbers are a consequence of putting serious effort into this area. (Whether scanning of private messages is actually effective in stopping distribution of the content, that's something I'm more skeptical of.)
Those were external checks, no self-report. So the real question is whether those checks were insufficient and just found the tip of the mountain, or whether pornhub was acutually doing serious checks for this stuff and doing quite well in that.
In later case it also opens the question on whether the reports were really childporn, or just some disputable case which be acceptable in some country or time, and problematic in other countries or times. Or whether they just missed them. Or whether there is some darker reason behind them.
I think it's very likely that pornhub really had a system to prevent the nasty stuff, after all they are were big and old and not stupid enough to ignore those easy targets that would kill them fast. Their fast reaction this time shows that they are very focused on surviving.
These were incidents counted by a third party, not self-reported
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canada-internet-chil... There's a useful little graph in the article that shows how the Canadian Centre for Child Protection ranked various sites.
The article mentions it was not Pornhub doing the checking.
Pornhub also required you to have an account to report content if I'm not mistaken.
anecdotal indeed.
I lived in South East Asia for a while and the cell phone footage of sexual interactions between middle school students is what I reported. These are girls wearing middle school uniforms embroidered with the school's name on the shirt [1] which indicates that the woman is under 18.
Nobody would bother to replicate the uniform for 2 minutes of shaky cell phone footage. It was underage material. Plain and simple.
[1] - https://favpng.com/png_view/t-shirt-t-shirt-school-uniforms-...
My own ex-girlfriend's photographs were uploaded to XHamster by her ex-boyfriend along with a copy of her passport. She's 17 in the images. Took us over a year to get them taken down.
Indeed your mention of the uniform, along with it being shaky cell phone imagery, would cause me to moderate such an upload if it was brought to my attention - I would stop it from public availability and notify the uploader that they could respond with proof of age and rights if they'd like to prove the claim wrong. (99% of the time that does not happen)
Sadly, I can't say that you are 100% right on the uniform thing - especially in certain places, copying such uniforms or acquiring exact copies and using such for videos is kind of common.
Fake-revenge porn is actually a thing, and has been for a long time. There are some slick web sites out there that try to make it look like it's 'stolen / hidden video' of girls next door - but it's actually now budget / average girls selling vids cheap and it's packaged in a way to make it seem real.
With that being said, there are also some 'parasite sites' that take imagery of people out of context and use it for sexualized viewing without the person's consent - and I abhor that.
There are also people who do revenge porn, and blackmail porn I would say it's likely even more prevalent. That kind of thing really ticks me off too.
I don't know a lot about xhams, but I'm pretty sure they play with different jurisdictions and rules that pornhub and some others - so I'm not going to comment on the way they do things.
I will mention that I do get quite a few 'takedown requests' from cam models, so many do not understand how affiliate promos work, partner promotion agreements, APIs and such.. sometimes they also push dmca complaints to google and others in an attempt to rush a pic removal... I have also seen some people working with these models who get 'creative' in their removal requests, putting in emails to me (and likely to our hosting companies, google, etc) - that "not only are these pics not authorized for use, but they we're under 17 when they were made" -
As to where I am sure this works to speed up the deletion process for some, it's a shitty thing to do for many reasons - but it is done a fair amount. With so many of these fake take down notices, it's not easy for a moderating team to sort out what is legit and what is not.
It's obvious to me that sometimes this is done by a new boyfriend / husband who is trying to remove past history of their lover's porn work.
It also clogs up our system of support emails. So there is much more to these issues than most people who would file a legit request would know.
It's not always easy to determine these things.
It wasn't the police they were reported to it was the site admins of XHamster.
>Over the last three years, Facebook self-reported 84 million instances of child sexual abuse material. During that same period, the independent, third-party Internet Watch Foundation reported 118 incidents on Pornhub.
Organizations like the IWF rely on reports, whether self-reported or not. Most people report CSAM on the website they're visiting instead of going to a third party (at least I do unless nothing is being done about it). Therefore it's not a surprise that the IWF only reported 118 incidents on Pornhub. It would be interesting to know how many instances Pornhub self-reported during the same time period since a high number is actually a good thing. I'd imagine that a sizeable chunk of the Facebook reports were quickly taken down due to being recognized by CSAM detection algorithms.
I don’t think so.
I’m not an expert on PH, but from what I understand from other sources they have a mix of public content, open-to-all-paid-customers content, and private content that is available only to subscribers to particular channels.
I don’t know if they have any content owner (well, submitter, given the level of piracy) controls on who can see content at the specific user level (whether by restricting allowed subscriptions to channels with an owner-approval process or by having content restricted by something other than subscription status.)