We don’t know enough about the Pornhub acquisition(every.to)
every.to
We don’t know enough about the Pornhub acquisition
https://every.to/napkin-math/we-don-t-know-enough-about-the-pornhub-sale
80 comments
This came about as a result of many years of profit from non-consensual intimate media and many lawsuits from victims.
Yes they seem to be doing everything above board now but victims and their allies have a right to voice their worries and hopefully have them assuaged.
Yes they seem to be doing everything above board now but victims and their allies have a right to voice their worries and hopefully have them assuaged.
> I am not sure why so many journalists always miss this fact when they claim it's a bit bed for human trafficking and child pornography
> Or am I missing something?
Seems you're missing that they used past tense in the article? specifically not present tense?
> Or am I missing something?
Seems you're missing that they used past tense in the article? specifically not present tense?
> But it matters when the asset you are buying is Pornhub because — as we’ve covered — its policies impact sex trafficking globally.
That is equating Pornhub with sex trafficking.
That is equating Pornhub with sex trafficking.
No, it says its policies affect sex trafficking. The recent move towards verifying consent has arguably helped combat sex trafficking for pornography. Their verification rules are the standard which sex traffickers must now try to work around.
Saying that it has a position of responsibility against trafficking is not saying it's equal to trafficking.
Saying that it has a position of responsibility against trafficking is not saying it's equal to trafficking.
> The recent move towards verifying consent has arguably helped combat sex trafficking for pornography.
This is not the sort of effect that the article is likely alluding.
This is not the sort of effect that the article is likely alluding.
What makes you say that?
Its called puritan pandering for clicks.
Being against exploitation is puritan?
The question is if the current website even had exploitation issues for anyone to complain about. As far as I can tell it's as ethical as it can get on the internet as PH is right now
Pornhub, a few years ago, wasn't this strict. It was a hotbed for revenge porn. Because it's now cleaned up, because it had to, doesn't mean companies like Visa and Mastercard have to come back and work with it.
That wasn't the point. Visa and master getting more and more irrelevant and porn Industrie being once again a driving factor in this process is a good thing.
The point was that there is no reason to blame the current PH for their ethical standards, or rather that I think we should appreciate good standards and make them an actual standard instead of playing the blame game
The point was that there is no reason to blame the current PH for their ethical standards, or rather that I think we should appreciate good standards and make them an actual standard instead of playing the blame game
> That wasn't the point.
What's the point then? It's not "puritan pandering".
They screwed up as a company, and other companies stopped working with them. Because they cleaned up their act doesn't mean those same companies are required to come back to the table otherwise it's puritan pandering. Because they now have "ethical standards" does not mean the context of how they ended up in this situation suddenly poofs.
What's the point then? It's not "puritan pandering".
They screwed up as a company, and other companies stopped working with them. Because they cleaned up their act doesn't mean those same companies are required to come back to the table otherwise it's puritan pandering. Because they now have "ethical standards" does not mean the context of how they ended up in this situation suddenly poofs.
> Because they cleaned up their act doesn't mean those same companies are required to come back to the table otherwise
on the other hand if there is no benefit to cleaning up ones act why ever do it?
on the other hand if there is no benefit to cleaning up ones act why ever do it?
"Exploitation" is a word that can be easily twisted to mean whatever you want it to mean. So, using these words in an emotional, irrational appeal may be puritan, but most of all it's intellectually dishonest and manipulative.
So, Puritan can't be twisted? Using isn't being emotional and irrational?
Indeed. The porn industry is quite serious about following the letter of the law, so it was strange that pornhub lost support from mastercard and visa when that NYT op ed came out.[1]
This antiporn movement is more about control and censorship than protecting children.
This antiporn movement is more about control and censorship than protecting children.
I'm pretty sure, it had something to do with Wirecard. They had been the payment processor from Pornhub. Just a the same time, when some parts of the old Wirecard got sold, Pornhub deleted a lot of stuff "because of the children".
Statistical evidence, please.
Do you have any statistical evidence that PornHub is being used for the crimes described above, despite the processes and procedures the parent comment outlines?
If you’re only demanding “statistical evidence, please” from the people questioning if something is really happening contrary to policies and procedures, you’re asking the wrong people.
If you’re only demanding “statistical evidence, please” from the people questioning if something is really happening contrary to policies and procedures, you’re asking the wrong people.
"The porn industry is quite serious about following the letter of the law" and
"This antiporn movement is more about control and censorship than protecting children." are both claims that require evidence to be judged whether true or false.
https://help.pornhub.com/hc/en-us/articles/5357457259155-202...
PornHub has transparency reports tracking how many upload there are to the system, where they come from, how many uploads get removed, how the removals were detected (e.g. by your user report, detected by internal tools before anyone saw them, etc.) they also discuss and the automated systems and manual processes they use. It’s all rather sophisticated, including an AI train system that does age estimation to detect, previously unknown, CSAM material.
PornHub has transparency reports tracking how many upload there are to the system, where they come from, how many uploads get removed, how the removals were detected (e.g. by your user report, detected by internal tools before anyone saw them, etc.) they also discuss and the automated systems and manual processes they use. It’s all rather sophisticated, including an AI train system that does age estimation to detect, previously unknown, CSAM material.
We are not at the university and writing a thesis here.
It is freedom of speech and opinions are formed freely.
Not the exact issue you were commenting on, but it struck me as a little weird to have a [1] and no link or footnote that goes with it
I think this is the op ed being referenced https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...
I think this is the op ed being referenced https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...
yep, forgot to include the link
The claim that it's a bed for human trafficking and child pornography is the reason they now require user verification and consent forms.
At the time it was a valid criticism, now it weirdly feels like misdirection or disingenuous puff piece because the seedy underbelly of porn streaming and piracy has probably shifted elsewhere.
At the time it was a valid criticism, now it weirdly feels like misdirection or disingenuous puff piece because the seedy underbelly of porn streaming and piracy has probably shifted elsewhere.
I see that. But at this point in time PH as as ethical as it can get for porn creators and consumers. It's sad when we do not appreciate this fact and force others to follow but still blame it for the same old, now invalid, reasons
> But at this point in time PH as as ethical as it can get for porn creators and consumers.
I'm extremely sex work and porn positive, but the current status quo doesn't mean they're doing all they can. This is a bit of a distracting comment, because indeed, things are better than most expect, but could always be better.
I'm extremely sex work and porn positive, but the current status quo doesn't mean they're doing all they can. This is a bit of a distracting comment, because indeed, things are better than most expect, but could always be better.
But how? I spent more time thinking about these things than I would like to and having a passport copy for any individual publishing on their site and checking each video manually before putting it live is basically as good as it gets.
I am not trying to excuse PornHub. Like most I've seen myself that they didn't care a lot not to long ago. But we need to move forward, find better ways and make porn fun for anyone.
I am not trying to excuse PornHub. Like most I've seen myself that they didn't care a lot not to long ago. But we need to move forward, find better ways and make porn fun for anyone.
Yeah, from that mechanical review purview, yes—a lot is already happening. But I have friends in the industry (not in PH, but friends who went into OF), and there's more that can be done, particularly in the mental health, comment moderation, & community moderation/engagement department.
> But we need to move forward, find better ways and make porn fun for anyone.
+1,000!
> But we need to move forward, find better ways and make porn fun for anyone.
+1,000!
OF is particularly bad when we talk about mental health & moderation because most happens in enclosed spaces and your stalkers are also your customers. OF doesn't really seem to care either.
On PH most texting is public, comments usually have a positive attitude so I assume a lot of moderation is done. I don't think it compares well.
However i see we both share some important values :)
On PH most texting is public, comments usually have a positive attitude so I assume a lot of moderation is done. I don't think it compares well.
However i see we both share some important values :)
Is it possible on their scale to verify that the consents are really voluntary?
I am not sure which problem you are going for but if they have porn of a person that didn't consent they can just get it taken down. Pretty sure PH doesn't hold the rights to the videos. The right holder (creator, star, ..) can have their content removed anytime.
In actual cases of exploitation the victim is not always the technical rights holder and there are many reports of people who inform Pornhub of being in a video they do not consent to and it not being taken down.
I would argue that Pornhub is trying though, whether it's their best effort I don't know.
I would argue that Pornhub is trying though, whether it's their best effort I don't know.
> Pornhub had over 2B visits last year and 100M+ daily active users
Is it just me or does that seem remarkably low? I wonder if "active users" only includes users with accounts. I'm sure plenty of people lurk such sites but never sign in.
> AI deepfakes and Generative AI means that anyone can create custom porn for themselves.
Admittedly, and somewhat embarrassingly, this is something I looked into with all the AI hubub going on this year.
While it's interesting what Stable Diffusion is capable of in terms of generating images of naked people, it's not that impressive what it comes to creating something that can actually compete with what humans can currently create. Every example of AI-generated pr0n I've seen looks erotically generic and uninteresting. On top of that, the AI seems to still not understand what a nipple or vagina is actually supposed to look like. It can't even do video yet outside of blurry "flipbooks" of multiple prompts in succession. Though I have no doubt that AI will eventually shake things up, we are a ways off from AI making human-made porn obsolete.
> To put the nail in the coffin, Netflix made a documentary about how Pornhub was the worst.
Well yeah, the problem with porn is it can't be (easily) used to push a narrative. Porn is hyper-reality. Porn doesn't pretend that people don't see race. Porn doesn't pretend that men and women aren't different, unless you're into that sort of thing. Porn isn't known for its intricate storytelling. Porn isn't pretentious. Porn doesn't pretend that penises are "gross." Porn doesn't pretend that human beings aren't animals that have irrational motivations. Porn is largely apolitical.
No wonder the mainstream wants it gone, despite being guilty of many of the same transgressions as sites like Pornhub. Nobody's gonna stop giving their money to Hollywood despite all the sexual abuse and child molestation.
Is it just me or does that seem remarkably low? I wonder if "active users" only includes users with accounts. I'm sure plenty of people lurk such sites but never sign in.
> AI deepfakes and Generative AI means that anyone can create custom porn for themselves.
Admittedly, and somewhat embarrassingly, this is something I looked into with all the AI hubub going on this year.
While it's interesting what Stable Diffusion is capable of in terms of generating images of naked people, it's not that impressive what it comes to creating something that can actually compete with what humans can currently create. Every example of AI-generated pr0n I've seen looks erotically generic and uninteresting. On top of that, the AI seems to still not understand what a nipple or vagina is actually supposed to look like. It can't even do video yet outside of blurry "flipbooks" of multiple prompts in succession. Though I have no doubt that AI will eventually shake things up, we are a ways off from AI making human-made porn obsolete.
> To put the nail in the coffin, Netflix made a documentary about how Pornhub was the worst.
Well yeah, the problem with porn is it can't be (easily) used to push a narrative. Porn is hyper-reality. Porn doesn't pretend that people don't see race. Porn doesn't pretend that men and women aren't different, unless you're into that sort of thing. Porn isn't known for its intricate storytelling. Porn isn't pretentious. Porn doesn't pretend that penises are "gross." Porn doesn't pretend that human beings aren't animals that have irrational motivations. Porn is largely apolitical.
No wonder the mainstream wants it gone, despite being guilty of many of the same transgressions as sites like Pornhub. Nobody's gonna stop giving their money to Hollywood despite all the sexual abuse and child molestation.
> Porn is largely apolitical
Porn is practically the frontier of social politics.
Porn is practically the frontier of social politics.
Care to elaborate? I'm curious what you mean by this.
If you mean by the fact that gay and genderqueer porn have become more accessible, I'm not sure that's pushing an ideology rather than responding to a market demand (and society changing by other means).
If you mean by the fact that gay and genderqueer porn have become more accessible, I'm not sure that's pushing an ideology rather than responding to a market demand (and society changing by other means).
In a puritanical society, vice by nature is a counter-cultural act. Especially when in one of the most hegemonic societies on earth consider sex to be the greatest taboo. This counter-culture creates a culture of pushing boundaries and exploring the unsaid in polite society.
In many cases, like how one would expose a more emotional an vulnerable verison of themselves via kink and sex. The lack of inhibitions may lead one to exposing their social and political values as well. Whether it is egalitarian equality (e.g. a lack and blending of social roles regardless of social or political identity); or an enforced heirarchy (i.e. that denegrate and or subjugate certain social and political identities).
Most porn does sits somewhere far more moderate, in-line with social values in mainstream society; monogamous and conventional man-on-woman sex where the man is a strong actor while the woman is a to be obtained and ogled.. But just because it's "morderate" does not mean it does not have a political perspective and message. Just like how many major Hollywood movies perpetuate mainstream American values by portraying them uncritically (e.g. "police and military are necessary if flawed institutions", "the highest virtue to be an individual fighting against a world that is against you", and "wealth and prestige are good and valuable things to have, up until you become an asshole."). Typical pornography uncritically accepts and portrays mainstream values and perpetuates them; especially since it is in an uninhibited.
Not to say that mainstream values are necessarily bad or need to be critically attacked or subverted in any and all media (including pornography); but merely an explanation of how porn is a social and political frontier.
In many cases, like how one would expose a more emotional an vulnerable verison of themselves via kink and sex. The lack of inhibitions may lead one to exposing their social and political values as well. Whether it is egalitarian equality (e.g. a lack and blending of social roles regardless of social or political identity); or an enforced heirarchy (i.e. that denegrate and or subjugate certain social and political identities).
Most porn does sits somewhere far more moderate, in-line with social values in mainstream society; monogamous and conventional man-on-woman sex where the man is a strong actor while the woman is a to be obtained and ogled.. But just because it's "morderate" does not mean it does not have a political perspective and message. Just like how many major Hollywood movies perpetuate mainstream American values by portraying them uncritically (e.g. "police and military are necessary if flawed institutions", "the highest virtue to be an individual fighting against a world that is against you", and "wealth and prestige are good and valuable things to have, up until you become an asshole."). Typical pornography uncritically accepts and portrays mainstream values and perpetuates them; especially since it is in an uninhibited.
Not to say that mainstream values are necessarily bad or need to be critically attacked or subverted in any and all media (including pornography); but merely an explanation of how porn is a social and political frontier.
There's still the question of the objectification of women.
As for visits, you have to consider demographic splits. 50% of people are female who's viewing is going to be relatively minuscule, another x% are too young to be interested, another y% are going to be too old to be regularly interested, and so on. You get a surprisingly small slice of society. And now factor in the fact that there are about 8 zillion other sites. There's also the issue that when any country decides to ban porn, Pornhub almost always going to be target #1. For instance it's banned in India and China, so you're losing potentially billions of people from stuff like that.
> people are female who's viewing is going to be relatively minuscule
Why do you assume that?
Why do you assume that?
> Is it just me or does that seem remarkably low?
It seems high, after the fallout from the NYT piece. Last I had read, unverified (e.g. pirated) content was all removed, leaving mostly studios and community power users. Like YT, piracy is the reason it flourished. Most immediately flocked to rival streaming sites that as of yet have not received the same level of scrutiny.
It seems high, after the fallout from the NYT piece. Last I had read, unverified (e.g. pirated) content was all removed, leaving mostly studios and community power users. Like YT, piracy is the reason it flourished. Most immediately flocked to rival streaming sites that as of yet have not received the same level of scrutiny.
They lost literally billions of impressions by removing the non-consensual stuff?
You're saying "e.g. pirated" but let's be real it's "e.g. Amateur porn where the women didn't know she'd be filmed/shared, upskirt videos, revenge porn, sleeping assault videos etc"
You're saying "e.g. pirated" but let's be real it's "e.g. Amateur porn where the women didn't know she'd be filmed/shared, upskirt videos, revenge porn, sleeping assault videos etc"
No, I mean pirated content made by professional studios. That is far and away the largest driver of traffic and it's not even close. Check the trending videos for other large streaming sites e.g. spankbang that still host pirated content. Much of what falls into the amateur banner is just small-studio content, which has also been pirated.
Users did not complain about the slow-to-react takedown requests at PH, but as was made clear this was an inadequate means to deal with non-consensual content, when videos can be reposted. Short of a more intelligent scanning system, the only way to do so was to nuke it all, which they did. And if they did happen to have a more robust automatic detection for that sort of thing, porn producers would certainly expect that it would be used for their content as well, which makes it completely redundant in the end.
If you don't want a wackamole game with non-consensual content, you can't allow piracy - this is what they realized.
Users did not complain about the slow-to-react takedown requests at PH, but as was made clear this was an inadequate means to deal with non-consensual content, when videos can be reposted. Short of a more intelligent scanning system, the only way to do so was to nuke it all, which they did. And if they did happen to have a more robust automatic detection for that sort of thing, porn producers would certainly expect that it would be used for their content as well, which makes it completely redundant in the end.
If you don't want a wackamole game with non-consensual content, you can't allow piracy - this is what they realized.
I assume there's little reason to visit that site after they removed 90% of their content
You mean the non-consensual stuff is what made it worth visiting?
I've seen a tonne of comments on reddit complaining that they took "the good stuff" away.
I've seen a tonne of comments on reddit complaining that they took "the good stuff" away.
There were millions of hours of unverified footage, I assume that was the main reason the site became so big. You cant just remove all of it and expect to stay the leader, especially with the competition in this space
By proxy, in part. But my understanding is that they took away anything that was unverified, meaning a lot of amateur or reuploaded stuff probably disappeared, not necessarily just what was exploitative.
> This sort of thing happens all the time in private transactions. But it has never happened in a case with one of the most important websites in the world! We should know more!
Based on what? You're not going to if a private company doesn't want you to and is structured correctly.
> The only reason to act against such strong incentives is if you have something to hide.
Yes, like the natural persons involved, because that's the default state of private companies structured correctly. Just like they said in the interview quoted.
> The victims harmed by Pornhub deserve assurances that the current owners will be better than the past abusers.
lol. punt your thinly veiled voyeurism to a third party. that's... rich.
Based on what? You're not going to if a private company doesn't want you to and is structured correctly.
> The only reason to act against such strong incentives is if you have something to hide.
Yes, like the natural persons involved, because that's the default state of private companies structured correctly. Just like they said in the interview quoted.
> The victims harmed by Pornhub deserve assurances that the current owners will be better than the past abusers.
lol. punt your thinly veiled voyeurism to a third party. that's... rich.
> "Yes, like the natural persons involved, because that's the default state of private companies structured correctly."
Arguably it shouldn't be the default state, or even possible.
Arguably it shouldn't be the default state, or even possible.
> Arguably
And what is that argument? Why are they not afforded privacy that you are afforded? Or does your argument apply to you too, in which case I'm even more interested in seeing this anti privacy argument.
And what is that argument? Why are they not afforded privacy that you are afforded? Or does your argument apply to you too, in which case I'm even more interested in seeing this anti privacy argument.
It applies to me too. I have absolutely no problem with public records that show if I have substantial ownership or a board seat in a private corporation. In fact my home country Finland has such a public company registry.
Philosophically: The more impact you have on society, the less privacy you deserve. You're free to disagree with this, but not to claim it's an invalid view simply because it does not align with current law.
Impact they have on society is based on completely voluntary interactions by millions of users. Some choose to upload videos, some choose to watch them, and all of them are completely okay with Pornhub being private.
You suggest that an unrelated third party (government) comes into these interactions, invents a "society", which isn't really a subject but an abstract category, insists that it acts on behalf of it, and unlike all previous actors, wants to force submission not with voluntary transactions, but with the use of force.
I can't see how a reasonable human being would possibly advocate for something so amoral.
You suggest that an unrelated third party (government) comes into these interactions, invents a "society", which isn't really a subject but an abstract category, insists that it acts on behalf of it, and unlike all previous actors, wants to force submission not with voluntary transactions, but with the use of force.
I can't see how a reasonable human being would possibly advocate for something so amoral.
> Impact they have on society is based on completely voluntary interactions by millions of users. S
So what does that change? They either have big impact or they don't.
> I can't see how a reasonable human being would possibly advocate for something so amoral.
Maybe you should look at some parliamentary discussions from the countries that already legislate for business transparency in these cases and see why they came to the positions they came to?
So what does that change? They either have big impact or they don't.
> I can't see how a reasonable human being would possibly advocate for something so amoral.
Maybe you should look at some parliamentary discussions from the countries that already legislate for business transparency in these cases and see why they came to the positions they came to?
> So what does that change? They either have big impact or they don't.
Society isn't a subject. It shouldn't be treated like such, and no arbitrary organisation should assume the role of it's representative.
Society isn't a subject. It shouldn't be treated like such, and no arbitrary organisation should assume the role of it's representative.
Where did the role of representative come into it? It's more a question of them being accountable for their responsibility, even if (especially if?) that responsibility is bestowed unto them by the public/the market.
You don't become responsible for something just because you have influence for it. You can only assume responsibility voluntarily by entering a relationship with somebody, a concrete subject, which society isn't.
I disagree completely but I can understand there are cultural differences place to place in terms of individual responsibility within the collective.
There is no collective until a person chooses to become a part of one.
> The victims harmed by Pornhub deserve assurances that the current owners will be better than the past abusers.
Why is that not a reasonable position?
Pornhub moved to it's current position of requiring verification etc after years of allowing non-consensual intimate media to thrive on its platform and only after multiple legal cases brought against them by victims.
Of course a change in ownership raises questions about the future for victims and for their allies.
For a site that's still dubious of Microsoft after their business dealings 30 years ago it's amazing to see so many people jump to "it's their private business, not for us to speculate on" just because the company in question is a porno provider.
Why is that not a reasonable position?
Pornhub moved to it's current position of requiring verification etc after years of allowing non-consensual intimate media to thrive on its platform and only after multiple legal cases brought against them by victims.
Of course a change in ownership raises questions about the future for victims and for their allies.
For a site that's still dubious of Microsoft after their business dealings 30 years ago it's amazing to see so many people jump to "it's their private business, not for us to speculate on" just because the company in question is a porno provider.
> it's amazing to see so many people jump to "it's their private business, not for us to speculate on" just because the company in question is a porno provider.
Can you elaborate on this criticism?
Its a private business, not for us to speculate on just because the company in question is a private business. Where did you get that its just because its a porno provider? Did you misword your own argument or are you incapable of seeing that you're the only one making an exception? There are words for this kind of projection, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Can you elaborate on this criticism?
Its a private business, not for us to speculate on just because the company in question is a private business. Where did you get that its just because its a porno provider? Did you misword your own argument or are you incapable of seeing that you're the only one making an exception? There are words for this kind of projection, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
> Its a private business, not for us to speculate on just because the company in question is a private business
We literally speculate on this kind of thing daily on HN but I only see this defense of the company when it pertains to Pornhub.
I can look up some other threads about acquisitions, like Libery Media buying Formula 1, and we can quantify how many of these comments are present in those threads. Or one of the many acquisitions Google have made that have been discussed here ad nauseum.
I've seen this kind of legalistic defense of pornography on HN every time it comes up on discussion. Worries about AI replacing developers are given time and nuanced discussion but any concern about women being abused with deep fakes are dismissed on these kind of technical terms. It's not surprising as the demographic of HN has a pretty big overlap with porn users (male, single, chronically online, etc.) so the people here are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the porn industry while the people who suffer are almost entirely unrepresented.
No one's saying it explicitly today and I am indeed drawing conclusions based on my experience but that's a normal human thing to do.
We literally speculate on this kind of thing daily on HN but I only see this defense of the company when it pertains to Pornhub.
I can look up some other threads about acquisitions, like Libery Media buying Formula 1, and we can quantify how many of these comments are present in those threads. Or one of the many acquisitions Google have made that have been discussed here ad nauseum.
I've seen this kind of legalistic defense of pornography on HN every time it comes up on discussion. Worries about AI replacing developers are given time and nuanced discussion but any concern about women being abused with deep fakes are dismissed on these kind of technical terms. It's not surprising as the demographic of HN has a pretty big overlap with porn users (male, single, chronically online, etc.) so the people here are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the porn industry while the people who suffer are almost entirely unrepresented.
No one's saying it explicitly today and I am indeed drawing conclusions based on my experience but that's a normal human thing to do.
> No one's saying it explicitly today and I am indeed drawing conclusions based on my experience but that's a normal human thing to do.
……
this is a disingenuous way of engaging
you’re trying to shortcut a conversation based on what you think will happen, hasnt happened, and instead makes like looks like you’re doing a a combination of a strawman argument and gaslighting.
you’re not able to treat me as an individual but part of an amorphous hackernews audience, yet think you’re exempt. how do you think your ridiculous form of argument is perceived aside from “classic HN”
I do not speculate on who the owners of a private company are and I don’t advocate for that. typically for marketing reasons they blast their public facing team and investors all over crunchbase for vanity.
as the article states, it is common for non-consumer facing investment firms and holding companies to have no information available to the public.
……
this is a disingenuous way of engaging
you’re trying to shortcut a conversation based on what you think will happen, hasnt happened, and instead makes like looks like you’re doing a a combination of a strawman argument and gaslighting.
you’re not able to treat me as an individual but part of an amorphous hackernews audience, yet think you’re exempt. how do you think your ridiculous form of argument is perceived aside from “classic HN”
I do not speculate on who the owners of a private company are and I don’t advocate for that. typically for marketing reasons they blast their public facing team and investors all over crunchbase for vanity.
as the article states, it is common for non-consumer facing investment firms and holding companies to have no information available to the public.
I'm sorry but I'm not willing to engage further if you take this tone with me. I've tried to make my position clear as well as my basis for it. There's no need to use the heavy language against me that you are.
I was open to you offering a counterpoint to this perception that you’re unilaterally broadcasting to everyone, not just me.
But you can skip that part how about this:
I do not speculate on who the owners of a private company are and I don’t advocate for that. typically for marketing reasons they blast their public facing team and investors all over crunchbase for vanity.
as the article states, it is common for non-consumer facing investment firms and holding companies to have no information available to the public.
But you can skip that part how about this:
I do not speculate on who the owners of a private company are and I don’t advocate for that. typically for marketing reasons they blast their public facing team and investors all over crunchbase for vanity.
as the article states, it is common for non-consumer facing investment firms and holding companies to have no information available to the public.
"I had one source who insisted that the capital came from Hong Kong but when I asked for more details he mostly insulted me for not being able to figure it out myself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. "
China can cross-identify Pornhub "customers" against other state owned tech asset's datasets (e.g. tictoc) ... valuable leverage against identified individuals?
China can cross-identify Pornhub "customers" against other state owned tech asset's datasets (e.g. tictoc) ... valuable leverage against identified individuals?
[deleted]
diabolique_2(3)
[deleted]
This “industry“ is and for the most part always has been a front for organized crime.
https://probablycancelledpod.libsyn.com/the-porno-mafia-mono...
https://probablycancelledpod.libsyn.com/the-porno-mafia-mono...
BenGPT summery: "Hyper rich individuals and/or foreign investment funds buy reasonably profitable 'sin' business and do so by forming a special purpose vehicle just for this transaction which hides their identity. Said owners elect not to register the business as an investment fund, which author notes is optional in Canada anyway. Occom's razor conclusion would be they do all of this because they don't want to be identified."
Ethical discussions about the operation of a pornographic website aside, I'm not clear what the issue or surprise here is?
Ethical discussions about the operation of a pornographic website aside, I'm not clear what the issue or surprise here is?
I am not sure why so many journalists always miss this fact when they claim it's a bed for human trafficking and child pornography
Or am I missing something?