A petition is calling on Pornhub to prevent non-consensual videos being posted(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
A petition is calling on Pornhub to prevent non-consensual videos being posted
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/mar/09/pornhub-needs-to-change-or-shut-down
52 comments
This falls in the exact same vein as Google and Facebook and the inherent issues with Section 230: Platform immunity very directly enables and promotes illegal content, because platforms lack an incentive to moderate them effectively.
Article is from the UK perspective, but this is arguably, an easy example of where the United States could utilize the new SESTA-FOSTA and take down Pornhub, since Section 230's immunity no longer applies to sexual exploitation of children or sex trafficking. And multiple examples here are given of videos of underage persons without their consent.
In addition to this, the recent case against Girls Do Porn, PornHub has allegedly done an extremely inadequate job preventing reuploads of videos that constituted rape and abuse, and for which the creators are in jail.
Article is from the UK perspective, but this is arguably, an easy example of where the United States could utilize the new SESTA-FOSTA and take down Pornhub, since Section 230's immunity no longer applies to sexual exploitation of children or sex trafficking. And multiple examples here are given of videos of underage persons without their consent.
In addition to this, the recent case against Girls Do Porn, PornHub has allegedly done an extremely inadequate job preventing reuploads of videos that constituted rape and abuse, and for which the creators are in jail.
I am in no way defending PornHub, but how exactly should it be [self] moderated?
Can we use AI to detect underage and drunk people? PornHub already uses some computer vision technology to recognize kind of sex taking place and put time-codes on video. What are limitations of this technology? Can CV detect drunk person and not confuse facial expressions with an orgasm? We have seen epic failures of fully automated AI in our industry, like YouTube taking down videos with birds signing for DCMA copyright violations. Also, consent and legal age are defined very differently across the world and even within US. Which jurisdiction to refer to and why? Video can be legal for one web site visitor and illegal for another one at the same time. What to do in that case?
Can we have some kind of feedback form to report video as... what exactly? Private? Leaked? Amateur videos are very common. Independent models make a living from posting videos. Any feedback system will be abused by competing content providers, which are private persons mostly, not legal entities. So reporting party should take selfie for identification or what exactly?
What about all hard core BDSM content, when modeling non consensual sex is the very goal. Are we gonna ban BDSM? What about all fetishes, which may include underage sex fetish, rape play, etc. which when performed by adults is legal. Will computer vision recognize these exceptions? Will people do? Should we make people make final decisions? YouTube moderators deal with mental issues. Honestly, I have no idea what kind of terrible job should be moderating porn videos.
I understand that PornHub makes money, violates privacy and should be regulated, but without sane solution we'll just punish everyone without really solving the problem. New keywords will be coined to search for specific content, that's it. We already have lots of them, like MILF, ATM, DP. We'll get just DT for drunk teen, that's it. And when it'll get banned (for instance "rape" is a banned word on PornHub), another keyword will be coined.
Can we use AI to detect underage and drunk people? PornHub already uses some computer vision technology to recognize kind of sex taking place and put time-codes on video. What are limitations of this technology? Can CV detect drunk person and not confuse facial expressions with an orgasm? We have seen epic failures of fully automated AI in our industry, like YouTube taking down videos with birds signing for DCMA copyright violations. Also, consent and legal age are defined very differently across the world and even within US. Which jurisdiction to refer to and why? Video can be legal for one web site visitor and illegal for another one at the same time. What to do in that case?
Can we have some kind of feedback form to report video as... what exactly? Private? Leaked? Amateur videos are very common. Independent models make a living from posting videos. Any feedback system will be abused by competing content providers, which are private persons mostly, not legal entities. So reporting party should take selfie for identification or what exactly?
What about all hard core BDSM content, when modeling non consensual sex is the very goal. Are we gonna ban BDSM? What about all fetishes, which may include underage sex fetish, rape play, etc. which when performed by adults is legal. Will computer vision recognize these exceptions? Will people do? Should we make people make final decisions? YouTube moderators deal with mental issues. Honestly, I have no idea what kind of terrible job should be moderating porn videos.
I understand that PornHub makes money, violates privacy and should be regulated, but without sane solution we'll just punish everyone without really solving the problem. New keywords will be coined to search for specific content, that's it. We already have lots of them, like MILF, ATM, DP. We'll get just DT for drunk teen, that's it. And when it'll get banned (for instance "rape" is a banned word on PornHub), another keyword will be coined.
Why should AI be employed? Why is fully-automated superhuman scale something companies should be allowed to achieve?
I mean, let's be real: How many new pornographic video uploads per day does PornHub actually need to serve it's audience? And the vast majority of content on PornHub likely falls into two categories: Major brand videos, in which they can work directly with the legal entities responsible for them, and user uploads of primarily copyright-infringing content. The former can be streamlined by connecting directly with brands, making sure they have all their legal ducks in order and that all of their performers are properly employed. For the latter, a slower, non-automated approval process is probably perfectly fine. Individual/amateur users who want to publish their own content could enter into a business relationship with the site, to achieve a pipeline closer to the first group, establishing a channel/brand that identifies the performers in the video and verifies their consent.
Fetish/BDSM content is arguably pretty important to the platform (and sex positivity in general), but again, my guess is a large portion comes from established adult film brands. If PornHub works directly with the actual people filming the video, verifies performer age eligibility and consent, and then approves the videos, there is no problem with the content of the video shown itself.
Unchecked open upload of whatever content a user has on their computer has no real need to exist here. At the very least, every video should be associated with the performers present in the video, and upon the revocation of consent from that performer, all of the videos containing them could be removed and prevented from being added again. This not only prevents abuse of non-consensual performers, but ensures the revenue generated from a video actually makes it back to consenting performers, as piracy is no longer possible using the platform.
I mean, let's be real: How many new pornographic video uploads per day does PornHub actually need to serve it's audience? And the vast majority of content on PornHub likely falls into two categories: Major brand videos, in which they can work directly with the legal entities responsible for them, and user uploads of primarily copyright-infringing content. The former can be streamlined by connecting directly with brands, making sure they have all their legal ducks in order and that all of their performers are properly employed. For the latter, a slower, non-automated approval process is probably perfectly fine. Individual/amateur users who want to publish their own content could enter into a business relationship with the site, to achieve a pipeline closer to the first group, establishing a channel/brand that identifies the performers in the video and verifies their consent.
Fetish/BDSM content is arguably pretty important to the platform (and sex positivity in general), but again, my guess is a large portion comes from established adult film brands. If PornHub works directly with the actual people filming the video, verifies performer age eligibility and consent, and then approves the videos, there is no problem with the content of the video shown itself.
Unchecked open upload of whatever content a user has on their computer has no real need to exist here. At the very least, every video should be associated with the performers present in the video, and upon the revocation of consent from that performer, all of the videos containing them could be removed and prevented from being added again. This not only prevents abuse of non-consensual performers, but ensures the revenue generated from a video actually makes it back to consenting performers, as piracy is no longer possible using the platform.
>> How many new pornographic video uploads per day does PornHub actually need to serve it's audience?
As much as possible? It was 13 videos per minute in 2019. Each minute almost three hours of content are uploaded.
>> And the vast majority of content on PornHub likely falls into two categories: Major brand videos, in which they can work directly with the legal entities responsible for them
This assumption is very natural, but days of professional studios are gone. There are about 100 thousands amateur models registered on PornHub.
>> For the latter, a slower, non-automated approval process is probably perfectly fine.
Even if we'll estimate that just half of content is amateur, which is not so, PornHub would need at least 100 moderators working simultaneously at each moment of time to review every moment of all uploaded videos. I don't think anyone can view porn for 8 hours per day, so it's at least 4 shifts. Take into account vacations, and other things, that is easily 500-1000 of trained moderators who will know specific of genres, and will not punish fetish performers. And they'll need offices, computers, help of psychologists, security check because they can be source of major leak. I think we are talking about tens of millions dollars now.
>> my guess is a large portion comes from established adult film brands
There are big BDSM brands like Kink, but if you sum up minutes of content, it's mostly amateurs.
>> If PornHub works directly with the actual people filming the video, verifies performer age eligibility and consent, and then approves the videos, there is no problem with the content of the video shown itself.
So PornHub now has to perform full KYC, because US citizen would not know what Hungarian driver ID looks like. This is not a cheap service at all. And also PornHub now has verify that videos posted contain only verified identified models, which I have no idea how to perform. Also, now you enforce PornHub to keep a lot of Personally identifiable information about all performers which does not sound like a good idea in the first place.
>> Unchecked open upload of whatever content a user has on their computer has no real need to exist here. At the very least, every video should be associated with the performers present in the video, and upon the revocation of consent from that performer, all of the videos containing them could be removed and prevented from being added again.
You will just punish PornHub for being big, there is no way to enforce right to be forgotten across entire Internet.
As much as possible? It was 13 videos per minute in 2019. Each minute almost three hours of content are uploaded.
>> And the vast majority of content on PornHub likely falls into two categories: Major brand videos, in which they can work directly with the legal entities responsible for them
This assumption is very natural, but days of professional studios are gone. There are about 100 thousands amateur models registered on PornHub.
>> For the latter, a slower, non-automated approval process is probably perfectly fine.
Even if we'll estimate that just half of content is amateur, which is not so, PornHub would need at least 100 moderators working simultaneously at each moment of time to review every moment of all uploaded videos. I don't think anyone can view porn for 8 hours per day, so it's at least 4 shifts. Take into account vacations, and other things, that is easily 500-1000 of trained moderators who will know specific of genres, and will not punish fetish performers. And they'll need offices, computers, help of psychologists, security check because they can be source of major leak. I think we are talking about tens of millions dollars now.
>> my guess is a large portion comes from established adult film brands
There are big BDSM brands like Kink, but if you sum up minutes of content, it's mostly amateurs.
>> If PornHub works directly with the actual people filming the video, verifies performer age eligibility and consent, and then approves the videos, there is no problem with the content of the video shown itself.
So PornHub now has to perform full KYC, because US citizen would not know what Hungarian driver ID looks like. This is not a cheap service at all. And also PornHub now has verify that videos posted contain only verified identified models, which I have no idea how to perform. Also, now you enforce PornHub to keep a lot of Personally identifiable information about all performers which does not sound like a good idea in the first place.
>> Unchecked open upload of whatever content a user has on their computer has no real need to exist here. At the very least, every video should be associated with the performers present in the video, and upon the revocation of consent from that performer, all of the videos containing them could be removed and prevented from being added again.
You will just punish PornHub for being big, there is no way to enforce right to be forgotten across entire Internet.
> As much as possible?
Why? A given viewer is going to watch how many minutes of content a day? Even accepting for a wide spectrum of preferences, there's no reason PornHub needs three hours of new content a minute. Nobody's "already watched everything on PornHub", have they? If they can't manage it ethically, they shouldn't be allowed to.
> I think we are talking about tens of millions dollars now.
Good thing PornHub's reported 2015 revenue was nearly half a billion. They can afford to operate ethically.
> So PornHub now has to perform full KYC
Not really know-your-customer. In this case it's know-your-content-provider. I certainly don't suggest every viewer of porn needs to register. But every publisher of it, including amateur channels, should.
> This is not a cheap service at all.
Again, this company operates on a half billion dollar a year scale. They can afford to hire someone who can verify what a Hungarian driver's license looks like. They aren't poor.
Why? A given viewer is going to watch how many minutes of content a day? Even accepting for a wide spectrum of preferences, there's no reason PornHub needs three hours of new content a minute. Nobody's "already watched everything on PornHub", have they? If they can't manage it ethically, they shouldn't be allowed to.
> I think we are talking about tens of millions dollars now.
Good thing PornHub's reported 2015 revenue was nearly half a billion. They can afford to operate ethically.
> So PornHub now has to perform full KYC
Not really know-your-customer. In this case it's know-your-content-provider. I certainly don't suggest every viewer of porn needs to register. But every publisher of it, including amateur channels, should.
> This is not a cheap service at all.
Again, this company operates on a half billion dollar a year scale. They can afford to hire someone who can verify what a Hungarian driver's license looks like. They aren't poor.
>> As much as possible?
>Why?
Because PornHub is a platform. Why not limit uploading videos on YouTube, just because they can't moderate them all?
> Good thing PornHub's reported 2015 revenue was nearly half a billion. They can afford to operate ethically. > They can afford to hire someone who can verify what a Hungarian driver's license looks like. They aren't poor.
First, define ethically in a worldwide accepted way.
Second, you are asking a business to take a loss just because you want them to. I don't think "ethically" is a strict legal term.
I believe there should be an unambiguous law taking into account interests of all parties. People get killed by cars, but cars are legal. We can't punish drivers only. And we can't punish content providers only.
> In this case it's know-your-content-provider.
I have posted on anonymity here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22529650 It's simply dangerous.
Because PornHub is a platform. Why not limit uploading videos on YouTube, just because they can't moderate them all?
> Good thing PornHub's reported 2015 revenue was nearly half a billion. They can afford to operate ethically. > They can afford to hire someone who can verify what a Hungarian driver's license looks like. They aren't poor.
First, define ethically in a worldwide accepted way.
Second, you are asking a business to take a loss just because you want them to. I don't think "ethically" is a strict legal term.
I believe there should be an unambiguous law taking into account interests of all parties. People get killed by cars, but cars are legal. We can't punish drivers only. And we can't punish content providers only.
> In this case it's know-your-content-provider.
I have posted on anonymity here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22529650 It's simply dangerous.
> Because PornHub is a platform. Why not limit uploading videos on YouTube
Platforms aren't an inherent good. I absolutely think YouTube should be held accountable for it's behavior and the way it radicalizes people by recommending increasingly extreme videos. YouTube is a platform that is out of control, and another example of why unchecked immunity for platforms is a dystopian nightmare.
> define ethically in a worldwide accepted way
Not profiting from the distribution of child pornography. I think that's pretty universally understood to be required of ethical business. "Ethical" isn't a strict legal term, "distribution of child porn" is though.
Platforms aren't an inherent good. I absolutely think YouTube should be held accountable for it's behavior and the way it radicalizes people by recommending increasingly extreme videos. YouTube is a platform that is out of control, and another example of why unchecked immunity for platforms is a dystopian nightmare.
> define ethically in a worldwide accepted way
Not profiting from the distribution of child pornography. I think that's pretty universally understood to be required of ethical business. "Ethical" isn't a strict legal term, "distribution of child porn" is though.
>Why? A given viewer is going to watch how many minutes of content a day? Even accepting for a wide spectrum of preferences, there's no reason PornHub needs three hours of new content a minute.
I assume because not all pornographic content is equal and that much of it never gets seen or opened for a few seconds only to be abandoned.
I assume because not all pornographic content is equal and that much of it never gets seen or opened for a few seconds only to be abandoned.
With an adequate moderation strategy and proper vetting of channels, most low value content is going to evaporate. I'm not sure why a site getting two hours of new unwatched low quality video a minute is a selling point to anyone. It's probably not even that great of a business model.
This is mere conjecture but, wouldn't you spend more time on PornHub if there was so much crap to browse through to find the perfect video to get off to, as opposed to finding it right away and then leaving the website as soon as you finish?
True, though that's a very perverse incentive, as you're suggesting PornHub's best bet is to waste as much of their users' time as possible in getting to the right video, without frustrating them enough that they leave the site and go elsewhere. I suppose they'd get more search-page-result ad displays in, but arguably it makes them a worse porn site. The fact that they're the by-far most popular suggests that they don't provide a worse experience than other sites.
(I know PornHub releases a lot of statistics annually, I am sure average time for a user to... achieve their goal on the site for the day... is a figure they have released before.)
(I know PornHub releases a lot of statistics annually, I am sure average time for a user to... achieve their goal on the site for the day... is a figure they have released before.)
> I am in no way defending PornHub, but how exactly should it be [self] moderated?
Bad question. Moderation isn't a solution. It's in direct conflict with its bottom line.
As with anything that has serious consequences it should be regulated so that ethical considerations are followed. Porn produced should have a trail of paperwork tracking and identifying the production to individuals. Failure to have proper paperwork results people (content creator and/or distributors) being fined and going to jail. It's completely possible to produce amateur, fantasy, BSDM, MILF looking material with consenting individuals.
The problem is that sexual videos can be distributed easily and without regard (often without knowledge) of the people involved such that the work is spread long before the affected individuals can know what has been done to them. Simply put, unregulated material should be considered illegal.
Bad question. Moderation isn't a solution. It's in direct conflict with its bottom line.
As with anything that has serious consequences it should be regulated so that ethical considerations are followed. Porn produced should have a trail of paperwork tracking and identifying the production to individuals. Failure to have proper paperwork results people (content creator and/or distributors) being fined and going to jail. It's completely possible to produce amateur, fantasy, BSDM, MILF looking material with consenting individuals.
The problem is that sexual videos can be distributed easily and without regard (often without knowledge) of the people involved such that the work is spread long before the affected individuals can know what has been done to them. Simply put, unregulated material should be considered illegal.
Paperwork is not a solution at all. Porn performers must have right for anonymity because it's not safe to be porn actress/actor.
Old U.S. story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorelei_Lee_(actress)
Citing concerns of personal safety, Lee requested to testify under her stage name; the prosecution objected, arguing that allowing her to do so "gives some air of legitimacy to the porn star" (which Lee later called "incredibly insulting") and that "she shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else in this case".[35] The case was ultimately dismissed on July 16, 2010,[36] before Lee was scheduled to testify.
New Russian story https://www.reddit.com/r/Lindemann/comments/f8ao8w/more_on_t... Families and friends recieve threats, members of the public get dragged in: After identifying the girls, families and friends of the girls also began to recieve threats. Home addresses of the girls were also posted online. Also, girls which had simply had selfies taken with Till Lindemann while he was travelling through the city of St Petersburg at the time of the shooting (but who had not featured in Till The End nor Platz Eins) began to recieve hate mail and threats online after being identified through their selfie photos with him on Instagram.
Porn actresses are often deanonymized and threatened death and you offer paperwork.
Old U.S. story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorelei_Lee_(actress)
Citing concerns of personal safety, Lee requested to testify under her stage name; the prosecution objected, arguing that allowing her to do so "gives some air of legitimacy to the porn star" (which Lee later called "incredibly insulting") and that "she shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else in this case".[35] The case was ultimately dismissed on July 16, 2010,[36] before Lee was scheduled to testify.
New Russian story https://www.reddit.com/r/Lindemann/comments/f8ao8w/more_on_t... Families and friends recieve threats, members of the public get dragged in: After identifying the girls, families and friends of the girls also began to recieve threats. Home addresses of the girls were also posted online. Also, girls which had simply had selfies taken with Till Lindemann while he was travelling through the city of St Petersburg at the time of the shooting (but who had not featured in Till The End nor Platz Eins) began to recieve hate mail and threats online after being identified through their selfie photos with him on Instagram.
Porn actresses are often deanonymized and threatened death and you offer paperwork.
If they're collecting money, be it W-2 or 1099, they have to disclose their real name and social security number as it is to whoever is paying them, for tax purposes. Generally to the studio hiring them, but if they publish directly to a monetized platform, they'd have to provide the same to the website as part of collecting their share of ad revenue. So there's really no excuse for PornHub not to either directly verify performers or verify that publishers have all of the performers credentials in order.
Beyond that, of course, it's important for adult actors to be able to be represented publicly solely by their stage name. PornHub knowing both actually adds an additional protective layer, as PornHub could filter/block appearances of their legal name.
I definitely agree the court system should uphold pseudonyms and anonymity when revealing their legal name in public records and hearings has the potential for significant harm, but that's a very different issue than the record-keeping that adult film producers are already required to do.
Beyond that, of course, it's important for adult actors to be able to be represented publicly solely by their stage name. PornHub knowing both actually adds an additional protective layer, as PornHub could filter/block appearances of their legal name.
I definitely agree the court system should uphold pseudonyms and anonymity when revealing their legal name in public records and hearings has the potential for significant harm, but that's a very different issue than the record-keeping that adult film producers are already required to do.
I think/hope that properly implemented platform will not/should not keep real names. That's for payment provider which is hopefully PCI DSS compliant, not for a random porn site. Idea of porn sites keeping real model identities terrifies me.
I am not sure you can legally pay someone a taxable amount of money in the United States[1] without knowing their real name. Porn sites like PornHub probably don't have the real life info for performers who are employed by an adult film studio, but in those cases, the adult film studios definitely have that info. For anyone who publishes their own content directly to PornHub and monetizes it, it's likely PornHub has to have their real information.
[1] Similarly true many other places, though MindGeek's Wikipedia page suggests they maintain offices in a large number of island countries for tax evasion purposes.
[1] Similarly true many other places, though MindGeek's Wikipedia page suggests they maintain offices in a large number of island countries for tax evasion purposes.
This seems like a very good example of how poor enforcement is. Child porn is very, very illegal, and gets "regular people" throw in prison for the rest of their lives just for having downloaded it and having it on their machines. Yet a big site like this can have it posted, and reposted, over and over, and that's perfectly OK.
Why is there no federal prosecution of not only the site for abetting, but also tracking down these ex-bfs or whoever it is uploading the videos? Usually, producing and knowingly distributing CP results in a very, very long prison sentence in the US.
Why is there no federal prosecution of not only the site for abetting, but also tracking down these ex-bfs or whoever it is uploading the videos? Usually, producing and knowingly distributing CP results in a very, very long prison sentence in the US.
One of the largest issues is jurisdictional issues. These internet sites are global, but most law enforcement have fairly restrained jurisdictions. A victim may go to their local police, but the local police then have to interact with agencies potentially all over the globe to actually build a case, make an arrest, etc. Which isn't to say they don't try, but it can be very difficult and take a very long time.
Even if you can track down someone's ex-boyfriend (likely to be more local) and charge them, once the video is out on the Internet, random people all over the globe can continue to share and distribute it. And large scale video platforms have little desire to put meaningful controls on uploading videos as it would negatively impact their ad revenue. Furthermore, these platforms can claim that they didn't upload it, a user did, so they shouldn't be held responsible.
Even if you can track down someone's ex-boyfriend (likely to be more local) and charge them, once the video is out on the Internet, random people all over the globe can continue to share and distribute it. And large scale video platforms have little desire to put meaningful controls on uploading videos as it would negatively impact their ad revenue. Furthermore, these platforms can claim that they didn't upload it, a user did, so they shouldn't be held responsible.
I don't think this applies here; from the story, it sounds like both Pornhub and the victims are in the US, and Pornhub is bound by US law on these matters (which is decidedly unfriendly to CP).
>Furthermore, these platforms can claim that they didn't upload it, a user did, so they shouldn't be held responsible.
Not true. They're required to take down stuff when notified it's illegal, and CP is very illegal. So taking 2 weeks to remove something this blatantly illegal sure looks a lot like criminal negligence.
For comparison, how does YouTube handle this kind of thing? I'm pretty sure CP videos would never stay on YT for more than a day at the very most. And Pornhub can't claim to not have the generous resources Google has; Pornhub is a gigantic website.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see some zealous federal prosecutor nail them for this stuff, especially with a GOP presidential administration.
>Furthermore, these platforms can claim that they didn't upload it, a user did, so they shouldn't be held responsible.
Not true. They're required to take down stuff when notified it's illegal, and CP is very illegal. So taking 2 weeks to remove something this blatantly illegal sure looks a lot like criminal negligence.
For comparison, how does YouTube handle this kind of thing? I'm pretty sure CP videos would never stay on YT for more than a day at the very most. And Pornhub can't claim to not have the generous resources Google has; Pornhub is a gigantic website.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see some zealous federal prosecutor nail them for this stuff, especially with a GOP presidential administration.
The article states that Pornhub did comply and take down the videos. Like most companies, they also reported these cases to the FBI or other appropriate agencies.
What, exactly, do you want them to do?
What, exactly, do you want them to do?
> we told the company that she was underage, that she didn’t consent to being on their website and still it took several weeks to remove it
Maybe remove the video when it's reported to be child porn, and not "several weeks" later.
Maybe remove the video when it's reported to be child porn, and not "several weeks" later.
And what happens if someone falsely reports a legal video as CP?
Then appeal it. Child porn is definitely the realm where the correct answer is to shoot first, and ask later. The "damage done" by incorrectly taking down a single adult film video is not significant. The damage done by keeping a child porn video up, available to millions of users for several weeks, is immeasurable, especially to the victim.
And I am sure in those several weeks from the article, PornHub was not actually conducting an in-depth investigation on whether or not the video was, in fact, child porn.
And I am sure in those several weeks from the article, PornHub was not actually conducting an in-depth investigation on whether or not the video was, in fact, child porn.
It wouldn’t strike me as entirely unreasonable to require distributors to keep records in the same way producers do. Alternatively, know-your-customer style identity verification for uploaders would work.
Sure, that would preclude some of the amateur porn and likely reduce the scale of pornography online.
As it is now, people are harmed by not only being raped, but again when video of it appears online. Pornhub should face consequences at about the same scale of “pain” when they fail to adequately vet an upload.
That way, the harm created by their business is internalized. And if it turns out the business is unsustainable under those terms, than maybe it was never meant to be.
I’m pretty sure that’s where the law will be trending over the medium-term future, and it’s the industry’s own fault of not even caring enough to react to complaints within reasonable amounts of time.
Sure, that would preclude some of the amateur porn and likely reduce the scale of pornography online.
As it is now, people are harmed by not only being raped, but again when video of it appears online. Pornhub should face consequences at about the same scale of “pain” when they fail to adequately vet an upload.
That way, the harm created by their business is internalized. And if it turns out the business is unsustainable under those terms, than maybe it was never meant to be.
I’m pretty sure that’s where the law will be trending over the medium-term future, and it’s the industry’s own fault of not even caring enough to react to complaints within reasonable amounts of time.
Pornhub should be required to prevent illegal content (specifically in this case child porn) from being hosted on the site at all. They should be held responsible for content they make available.
Presumably this would require human intervention to greenlight the video once all the necessary verification has been sought.
All platforms should be held to this standard frankly. I don't understand how we've gotten to the point where it is acceptable for anything less.
Presumably this would require human intervention to greenlight the video once all the necessary verification has been sought.
All platforms should be held to this standard frankly. I don't understand how we've gotten to the point where it is acceptable for anything less.
Should Hacker News be responsible for stopping you and everyone else from posting possibly illegal material?
The same law that protects HN protects PornHub.
The same law that protects HN protects PornHub.
HN has competent moderators that do a reasonable job removing illegal or harmful content. (Hi dang <3)
Section 230 protects bad actors, not good ones. Platforms that invoke Section 230 as a defensive measure are generally either refusing to moderate, or entrusting moderation entirely to algorithms, claiming they're "too big" to moderate their content.
Section 230 protects bad actors, not good ones. Platforms that invoke Section 230 as a defensive measure are generally either refusing to moderate, or entrusting moderation entirely to algorithms, claiming they're "too big" to moderate their content.
> Section 230 protects bad actors, not good ones
Section 230 is why you can comment here without dang having to approve every comment you make first. It's why Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and HN can exist. It protects all actors.
Section 230 is why you can comment here without dang having to approve every comment you make first. It's why Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and HN can exist. It protects all actors.
This is completely untrue. Legal cases already have the concept of intent and liability. Section 230 provides blanket immunity for abuses that would otherwise be clearly defined as criminally negligent or willful behavior.
For example, without Section 230, one could define dang removing a harmful post shortly after it was flagged (usually within hours, I imagine) as best effort for a two-man moderation team, and find that PornHub, one of the most valuable web properties in the world with a significant amount of manpower, taking several weeks to take down a child porn video criminally negligent, and holding the company responsible. (Arguably, SESTA-FOSTA already enables the latter, as Section 230 no longer applies to sexual exploitation of children.)
For example, without Section 230, one could define dang removing a harmful post shortly after it was flagged (usually within hours, I imagine) as best effort for a two-man moderation team, and find that PornHub, one of the most valuable web properties in the world with a significant amount of manpower, taking several weeks to take down a child porn video criminally negligent, and holding the company responsible. (Arguably, SESTA-FOSTA already enables the latter, as Section 230 no longer applies to sexual exploitation of children.)
Why not? Make them all responsible for curating the content they provide. Yes, that sounds fine.
Maybe I'm naive to the law you mention. What law applies here that protects HN and Pornhub?
Maybe I'm naive to the law you mention. What law applies here that protects HN and Pornhub?
> Why not? Make them all responsible for curating the content they provide. Yes, that sounds fine.
If that were the case, you'd have to wait for a moderator to approve this post. This site probably just wouldn't exist, because it would be far too hard for the moderators to do that.
> Maybe I'm naive to the law you mention. What law applies here that protects HN and Pornhub?
DMCA Safe Harbor and Section 230.
If that were the case, you'd have to wait for a moderator to approve this post. This site probably just wouldn't exist, because it would be far too hard for the moderators to do that.
> Maybe I'm naive to the law you mention. What law applies here that protects HN and Pornhub?
DMCA Safe Harbor and Section 230.
Thank you. I'm in the UK, I'll have to find out if we have similar rules here but broadly speaking my initial reaction is that this legislation is a bad thing and platforms should all be considered publishers and required to moderate the content they make available.
In the UK you guys have very interesting laws around this stuff. Your "tabloid culture" as it is exists primarily because of the protections your publishers get, but at the same time, people in the UK have much greater recourse against such things if they choose to invoke it.
Classic example, in the UK you can have bad feedback about you removed from eBay because your laws about libel and slander are so favorable to the target of those attacks, to the point where even truthful information may not be allowed.
Classic example, in the UK you can have bad feedback about you removed from eBay because your laws about libel and slander are so favorable to the target of those attacks, to the point where even truthful information may not be allowed.
In most of the world people have no problem with holding the site responsible for hosting images of child sexual abuse, even if those images were posted by users.
And in most of the world, criticizing a leader may have criminal offenses associated.
There's a reason the US is unique and that most of these companies are founded there.
There's a reason the US is unique and that most of these companies are founded there.
> There's a reason the US is unique and that most of these companies are founded there.
The fact that businesses tend to be founded in the country with the least regulation and protection for consumers and public interest is probably not something we should really be proud of. It's kinda the worst part of unchecked capitalism.
Arizona proudly bragged about being the least hindrance to self-driving car testing in their state. Which is why businesses moved their self-driving operations there, an honor they can brag about. And now they also get the dubious honor of being the first to have a resident murdered by a corporation's self-driving car program.
The fact that businesses tend to be founded in the country with the least regulation and protection for consumers and public interest is probably not something we should really be proud of. It's kinda the worst part of unchecked capitalism.
Arizona proudly bragged about being the least hindrance to self-driving car testing in their state. Which is why businesses moved their self-driving operations there, an honor they can brag about. And now they also get the dubious honor of being the first to have a resident murdered by a corporation's self-driving car program.
How are they supposed to prevent these videos from being posted? The ones doing the posting are anonymous users, not port hub. Any site that has user submitted content faces this issue. It is generally in feasible for them to manually review every submission so they are dependent on other users reporting the violations.
On the other hand, they should be very responsive when content is reported and at least block it until they can do some review. Waiting for an extended period of time is unacceptable.
On the other hand, they should be very responsive when content is reported and at least block it until they can do some review. Waiting for an extended period of time is unacceptable.
> It is generally [infeasible] for them to manually review every submission so they are dependent on other users reporting the violations.
It may be economically infeasible for them to moderate, but economics is not a "get out of ethics free" card. IMHO, we've gotten too comfortable with tech companies passing the buck on negative externalities that they create or profit from.
We wouldn't accept a "can't do it, not economically feasible" answer from an industrial chemicals company that's been asked to stop polluting a river, and I don't see why PornHub should be any different.
It may be economically infeasible for them to moderate, but economics is not a "get out of ethics free" card. IMHO, we've gotten too comfortable with tech companies passing the buck on negative externalities that they create or profit from.
We wouldn't accept a "can't do it, not economically feasible" answer from an industrial chemicals company that's been asked to stop polluting a river, and I don't see why PornHub should be any different.
If it's infeasible for the business to operate ethically, the business shouldn't operate.
But the resolution isn't impossible, especially for a company of MindGeek's scale: Remove anonymous uploads entirely. Require channels establish their and their performers legal identity (which for monetization, many have to do anyways), and require metadata on all performers in any video (presumably allowing them to publicly display as anonymous or with a stage name as adequate), and verify the consent of those performers to be posted on that channel.
But the resolution isn't impossible, especially for a company of MindGeek's scale: Remove anonymous uploads entirely. Require channels establish their and their performers legal identity (which for monetization, many have to do anyways), and require metadata on all performers in any video (presumably allowing them to publicly display as anonymous or with a stage name as adequate), and verify the consent of those performers to be posted on that channel.
So let's change the law and force them to moderate the content before it's published. They'll have to slow the rate of new content being made available until their moderators can keep up.
Once they've removed a video they could add a hash of it to filters, making the reupload a bit harder.
DMCA safe harbor. The same law that protects this very website, and others like it.
User content is a double edged sword. You want to allow the free exchange of ideas, but you also want to protect victims.
It's a fine line to walk.
That being said, PornHub could probably do more to police themselves, at the very least auto removing content that lists the names of people who have asked them to take content down.
User content is a double edged sword. You want to allow the free exchange of ideas, but you also want to protect victims.
It's a fine line to walk.
That being said, PornHub could probably do more to police themselves, at the very least auto removing content that lists the names of people who have asked them to take content down.
Is it actually a criminal offense in the US to distribute “rape porn” or “revenge porn”? I seem to remember it’s only a civil matter.
That makes all the difference here, because Section 230 is specifically limited to have no impact on federal criminal law.
That would also explain why child pornography is extremely rare on these sites.
That makes all the difference here, because Section 230 is specifically limited to have no impact on federal criminal law.
That would also explain why child pornography is extremely rare on these sites.
In legal terms, unauthorised revenge-porn is one thing, underage porn is quite another - that’s sexual exploitation of minors, not a civil case.
For a site which built its business on piracy this is no surprise!
[deleted]
I'm a 35y old guy and I was never anti-porn, I was always pro-porn. However, few weeks ago I read an article on BBC (it was posted on HN I think) about a 14y old girl being gang raped, rapists pardoned and the rape video uploaded to Pornhub. Pornhub refused to remove the video at first, they later did when the girl wrote a letter pretending to be a lawyer.
Imagine having to go through all that and still be mentally strong enough to deal with your peers mocking you and millions of strangers masturbating to the torture you went through. Imagine being the parent. Reading that article changed how I view porn. It also changed my life in a way. God knows how many videos that end up on Pornhub (and the likes) are rape or pedophilia and we don't even know it. I haven't browsed since and probably won't watch porn ever again.
These corporations need to be held responsible. If we can do it in retail and tech, then so can we regular porn industry a bit.