Could you expand on what is low about this/why it was flagged? Was the original study from France also low?
They also call "Teens" category child porn, racial categories racist and allege illegal sex practices. Not sure how deep you want to dive into the shades of bullshit. Its a smear piece, the study as well as the article. I am hard pressed finding anything that could function as a reasonable base for discussion. And given the amount of nonsense i am not optimistic that this would be time well spend.
They look at verbal, physical and sexual abuse, which are the three typres of abuse recognised in French law. Should they do this differently? If you don't mind me saying so, this argument feels tautological. You're not telling me why it's an issue, simply that they do it.
> titles (which are close to randomly generated to make identifying the scenes difficult for pirates)
Do you have a source for this? I've seen a lot of porn in my time and the title almost invariably matched the content.
> They also call "Teens" category child porn
Which page to they do this on? I can't find it.
> racial categories racist
They give examples of the titles which they class as racist, including:
* War Porn: Russian Solder have No Mercy For Ukrainian Girl
* Russian Soldiers Rape Ukranian Bi-atch
* 21 Year Old Refugee Fuck Hotel Owner For Asylum
* Palestinian teen gets fucked by Israeli guy
If that last video is not produced with a racial element in mind then why is it titled that way? Is that the randomer generator?
> allege illegal sex practices
What is the issue with making such allegations? If someone believes that illegal sexual violence is taking place then I would only ever encourage them to speak up about it.
Not on these sites today my pirate friend. Pick any of the channels of commercial sites and look for actual titles. You will find short excerpts from the full videos for sale on the sites with no ability to cross reference the two. Thats working as intended. You wont ever find the actual title of a clip on a free site. They are all placeholders.
>* Russian Soldiers Rape Ukranian Bi-atch
There is simply no way that you will find any video containing the word "rape". Those got purged a long time ago. Like most other terms mentioning violence.
>If that last video is not produced with a racial element in mind then why is it titled that way? Is that the randomer generator?
The nationalities are exactly that, nationalities. Turns out people from India like to watch porn with Indian people. I even heard rumors that some people even find people attractive who look different then the ones they grew up with. Kinky stuff, i know.
>What is the issue with making such allegations? If someone believes that illegal sexual violence is taking place then I would only ever encourage them to speak up about it.
>> They also call "Teens" category child porn
>Which page to they do this on? I can't find it.
page 20 >(« teen », la catégorie pédopornographique étant une des plus populaires),
If you think you are able to find actual illegal stuff (let alone a child porn category) on any of these sites, go call the police now and file a report. All of these sites now have production studios for every clip on file, which means people who will go to jail over this. Including the site operators if they actually supplied people with a childporn category.
The fact that you arent should say everything about the credibility of the report. This is by all means an important topic, too important in fact to base any discussion on this utter nonsense.
The rest of the report could be spot on and you still couldnt do anything with it given these ludicrous and false claims.
edit: Didnt realize you switched back from racist to racial. Cheap shot.
It had 30,000 views on PornHub when it was removed in 2019. We can discuss the fact that policies have changed, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the methodologies were "bullshit" based on them looking at the videos that were online at the time they conducted their research.
> The nationalities are exactly that, nationalities.
This ignores the widely understood power dynamics between nations especially those nations that are in such serious conflicts as the ones mentioned. Honestly your response here feels like I'm talking to the Men in Black and you want me to just wipe my understanding of the real world.
> (« teen », la catégorie pédopornographique étant une des plus populaires
I took this to mean that the subcategories where the actors pretended to be under 18 were the most popular.
> If you think you are able to find actual illegal stuff
Where did illegal come from here? The law isn't my moral barometer and I didn't bring it up. The fact that these depictions are so popular and normalised is already notable enough for me to want to discuss it with my peers. I don't know if it needs to be banned and I'm not suggesting that any of what is up there is currently illegal, but I believe that this study shows us some very real truths about ourselves and our consumption.
But if that's where you want to go, I would note that this is a report coming from a French governmental department. It is my understanding laws in France mean that actresses cannot consent to be harmed in the way that is common is the videos they studies, and would be illegal to produce within that jurisdiction.
Where I grew up, in the UK, even simulated depictions of underage sex acts are illegal, so much of the teen category would have been a no go there as well.
The laws will of course vary from country to country, but again that's not why I shared this article.
Silly me took the clearly defined term literal.
>Honestly your response here feels like I'm talking to the Men in Black and you want me to just wipe my understanding of the real world.
Claiming racial categories to be racist is nonsense. You quoting long since removed videos with bad sounding placeholder titles doesnt show that.
>Where did illegal come from here?
From the report, its what we are discussing here.
>when it was removed in 2019.
I am glad we that we could come to an agreement that the study is referencing something that doesnt exist anymore. Might explain why the article is flagged.
I really hope you can see how ludicrous it is to make these kind of claims. There are some serious concerns with the structure of the porn industry and exploitation of sex workers, especially with the videos produced for freesites, derailing with these hyperboles is extremely counterproductive. Without credibility there is no basis for communication. There is no room for overstating for effect.
edit: Even if you could take the report serious (no), arguing with the state of pre 2019 and presenting it as current is disingenuous and shows a clear lack of credibility.
Could we speak without this kind of rhetoric? My command of French is not perfect and I'm telling you my understanding and asking you questions politely. If I misunderstand something then I apologise but you can point it out without being rude.
Having looked at it further I can see that they indeed meant that there was a great deal of underage content available on these sites at the time.
> Claiming racial categories to be racist is nonsense.
The racist element is in the use of race to depict power dynamics in a violent way.
> I am glad we that we could come to an agreement that the study is referencing something that doesnt exist anymore. Might explain why the article is flagged.
It doesn't explain it to me. We often discuss articles from the past on here. I still find it worthy of discussion that this was the case very recently, and I would also note that the move to remove this content only came as the result of legal pressures against the distributors.
> I really hope you can see how ludicrous it is to make these kind of claims.
Are you saying that what the study claims was not true at the time of their research?
Good point. Its just really bad to present slander as scientific or journalistic. Even for a pre purge state of pornhub, the claim that there was a child porn category is just really really wrong.
But that post was quite helpful, i think we got the point responsible for the different perspectives.
>We often discuss articles from the past on here.
The article, as well as the study dont present it as a picture of the past but one of the present state. The guardian article is from yesterday and the study had been going on for 18 months. Presenting stuff they found from 2019, with quite questionable methodology at that, as current breaches journalistic, scientific and ethical standards.
>Are you saying that what the study claims was not true at the time of their research?
Unfortunately the study itself doesnt seem to have a date, but from the article, yes absolutely.
edit: URL of the PDF of the report contains the same date as the guardian article.