|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/mikestabile/status/1429576136149790720?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 13:01
|
|
|
That's interesting, but the real barn-burner from that Twitter account is this: https://twitter.com/mikestabile/status/1429677180456370177?s=20 Here's a link to the blog entry where one of the women who had been part of the movement against PornHub (because they had hosted a video of her being assaulted) explains her experience with the anti-porn movement and how it turns out they lied to her and exploited her situation for their own ends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 13:29
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:That's interesting, but the real barn-burner from that Twitter account is this: Khorne fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Aug 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
Khorne posted:It's the best-moderated, largest platforms that actively cooperate with law enforcement that are continuously targeted by these campaigns. lol. the biggest enemy that the porn companies have uploads stuff to their platforms that could get her sued or put in jail, yet they are helpless to prevent it! that's some really great moderation and cooperation with law enforcement they're displaying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Klyith posted:lol. the biggest enemy that the porn companies have uploads stuff to their platforms that could get her sued or put in jail, yet they are helpless to prevent it! They could go do this on facebook, tumblr, instagram, tiktok, imgur, discord, pinterest, or any platform that accepts non-curated, user-generated content and get the same results. It's an unreasonable standard. It's even more skewed when these "enemies of porn" use tactics like uploading things that might be illegal in the UK or Australia but aren't illegal in the US to a US-based site and then lump this activity in with repulsive illegal poo poo. The attack on pornhub did this blatantly by using certain heavily curated keywords that exclusively feature 23-33 year old women and pretending it was illegal content due to how it was labeled & presented. If OF doesn't report illegal content & its subscribers it finds to law enforcement then that would be worth starting a campaign over. If OF doesn't react to reports of illegal content then that would be worth starting a campaign over. If PH ignores complaints and isn't in-line with the rest of the user generated content sites in non-porn spaces then that's certainly worth a campaign. If other industries solved this problem and of/porn refused to then I'd 100% be against these sites, but this is not the case at all. Khorne fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Aug 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
I found out about this through some twitter post joking that github was going to block 'git push' and that scenario outraged me far more than this for some reason despite not using either platform.LanceHunter posted:That's interesting, but the real barn-burner from that Twitter account is this: my theory is that a lot of the people at the top of antiporn/sex groups are the most degenerate of anyone and are just in it so they can view the stuff with a more legitimate sounding reason. Add to that a fringe christian worldview with associated repression and the fact that many of them may have experienced abuse themselves and it's a really hosed up mix. This is speculation just based on that twitter post and an article I came across a few years ago about abuses in the porn industry I had to stop reading because it sounded like it was written with one hand though. Khorne posted:they campaigned against the one site that does react to those things in a timeframe competitive with non-porn services. This choice was solely due to its mainstream popularity. imo if there's illegal stuff it should be dealt with by the police not advocacy groups complaining to mastercard but lets not pretend pornhub was a champion of ethics when it came to this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
How would a platform properly moderate this stuff? Even pornhub's great purge seems like it would be insufficient considering they verify the channel owners, but not the actors/actresses in each video afaik. Beyond just requiring documentation of consent and identity , you'd need to like verify every single video, likely with a manual process. Otherwise you'll just get people checking whatever box doesn't involve them having to verify poo poo, putting very lazily fake verification, verifying then posting unverified poo poo later, etc. It really does seem like you'd need very heavy active moderation. It's also worth noting the porn industry in general had big consent issues all over the place even outside of these platforms. I remember a few horror stories from porn actresses about showing up to shoots and basically being raped. Horrible things like showing up to shoots that were supposedly vanilla stuff, but then finding out it was violent degrading porn. Trying to back out of shoots, but being trapped because it's you alone and several men. Finding out the "shoot" you were booked for is just one on one with some guy who is clearly not even producing porn. It sure seems like something could do with some real regulation and enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
Mumpy Puffinz posted:I would hire a sex worker. That's generally how it works, yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
zhar posted:imo if there's illegal stuff it should be dealt with by the police not advocacy groups complaining to mastercard but lets not pretend pornhub was a champion of ethics when it came to this stuff. Porn tube sites have had big issues with revenge porn, too. These days it's much easier to get it removed because they've adopted a shoot first, don't even bother asking questions policy, but for a while it was really hard. Campaigns against that were great. Lobbying for actual laws that have reporting requirements for user-contributed content sites would be great. I'd love to support that cause. Khorne fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Aug 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:How would a platform properly moderate this stuff? Even pornhub's great purge seems like it would be insufficient considering they verify the channel owners, but not the actors/actresses in each video afaik. Beyond just requiring documentation of consent and identity , you'd need to like verify every single video, likely with a manual process. Otherwise you'll just get people checking whatever box doesn't involve them having to verify poo poo, putting very lazily fake verification, verifying then posting unverified poo poo later, etc. It really does seem like you'd need very heavy active moderation. There is definitely a lot more work that needs to be done to make sex work safer for sex workers. But the people we need to listen to for how to make that happen are the sex workers themselves. Lorelei Lee had a great essay from a few years back talking about a lot of these issues, and pretty much the number one takeaway was that people are always trying to speak on behalf of sex workers rather than listen to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Respect to outspoken sex workers that seems very difficult Idk how else to word this sentiment so hopefully that works
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Khorne posted:Going through kyc and then posting illegal poo poo that's not in a content id database to 0 viewers and not reporting it is not the damning statement you're claiming it is. 5 of those platforms attempt to reject porn entirely by putting everything through recognition filters, and the other 2 will pretty much instantly take down anything that gets reported. Not sit around watching their business partner get convicted and become a fugitive, while still ignoring the victims and letting the videos stay up. And none of them charge money / take a cut of payments for a video. It's complete apples and oranges. Khorne posted:It'd be great if the campaign against them was for actual bad poo poo they've done like that & for there to be legal consequences for companies that do this. The exodus cry whackjobs are gonna campaign against porn no matter what, but abortion has religious whackjobs campaigning against it for decades too. When the anti-abortion guys put together a package of falsified info and edited footage and tries to get coverage, you know who doesn't get fooled by it? The NYT, WaPo, BBC, etc. They look at it and follow up and say "this is bullshit". If a user-content porn company wants to win against exodus cry they need to remove the easy ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
So the head of an org thats behind the anti-sex worker stuff decided to post CSAM (child sexual abuse material) that was taken down years ago as a good idea to make a point. https://twitter.com/christianashnc/status/1429043671685607431 https://twitter.com/christianashnc/status/1429067428156301315 https://twitter.com/shinylivcupcake/status/1429000271208779776 This is kinda just restating some of the stuff in prior posts for more clarity of what happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Not sit around watching their business partner get convicted and become a fugitive, while still ignoring the victims and letting the videos stay up. There were users who uploaded edited versions to bypass content id. The suit claims to have found it on the site and falsely claims they were deliberately protecting & monetizing it. They'll easily be able to prove they did not deliberately keep the reuploaded content up by citing a date reported, date action taken, etc, and comparing it to other reports on their site. Prior to 2019 the videos were the ip of the company that filmed them because they met all requirements for ownership. The actresses, now victims, featured in the videos had no more right to request takedowns than an actor in a tv show would. There was no way to know from the content of the videos that the people behind the company were ghouls. It was very vanilla "unknown/one-off model" casting couch stuff with some of the most popular content being solo stuff. If mindgeek & other distributors who began syndicating the affiliate's content after it became popular on its own had a solely professional relationship with the company, it's unlikely they knew of their criminal behavior. It's not exactly common to go around telling people "yeah we called her everyday for three months until she agreed" or "once she got there we told her we'd have the mob bury her in the desert if she didn't sign the contract" or "yeah we paid random women to pretend they worked for us and badger women into agreeing with lies like 'oh my dvd only went to south africa!'" or "we threatened to sue them after buying them a plane ticket before they even agreed to work for us". And then to repeat this behavior & worse against 30+ women over the better part of a decade. The people who ran that affiliate were loving psychos who 100% deserve jail time, massive fines, and whatever else comes to them. And that's not even getting into the fugitive's charges that include worse things unrelated to the above criminal enterprise. I don't get why this is all repeatedly misrepresented, either deliberately or through omission, including in the article linked. If this were a criminal suit it'd be dismissed as bullshit. There's no evidence evidence that the affiliate disclosed the nature of their criminal enterprise to mindgeek or that mindgeek deliberately avoided moderating reuploads of the content in a way that's inconsistent with how they handle other content designed to bypass content id. They were not "business partners" or intertwined anymore than the company was with other independent sites that syndicated the content in a similar way and provided ~1/3 of their views. Given it's a civil suit, they might lose anyway because the standard is the insane "should have known" instead of "did know". The public accusations started in 2016 and the conviction & ejection of content happened in 2019. There's no other industry where a number of people start throwing accusations like that around & you sit around twiddling your thumbs while waiting for the verdict before taking action. If they did know any of that stuff then I hope they lose and get fined more than the $40m the suit is asking for. The more I look into this the more I dislike everyone involved except the victims. Khorne fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Aug 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
Mumpy Puffinz posted:I would hire a sex worker. It is a real job Do you think they'd take a job "for the exposure"? asking for a friend
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:Do you think they'd take a job "for the exposure"? asking for a friend Unpaid interns is what brought down aatrek
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
quote:(CNN)OnlyFans said Wednesday that it will suspend its upcoming policy change to restrict sexually explicit material, citing "assurances" it received that would allow it to be "a home for all creators."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
whew, aaron carter's dick pics are safe
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
That's surprising, but good news. Now I guess we'll see what Exodus Cry's tries next...
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
I bet some bean counter ran in and said that they'd loose 90% of their income if they banned porn so they reversed it. I really doubt it was about the outcry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Maybe the whole thing was just to grab headlines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
Fantastic Foreskin posted:Maybe the whole thing was just to grab headlines. Just as they’re heading into going public abso-loving-lutely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
"Wait, you all WANTED the porn? poo poo, poo poo, sorry, we're putting it back, we're putting it back" Onlyfans going through all the stages of grief and gradually coming to accept that they created a porn platform
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
StarkRavingMad posted:"Wait, you all WANTED the porn? poo poo, poo poo, sorry, we're putting it back, we're putting it back" More likely that they managed to get out ahead of the BBC hitpiece on them, and because they are a legitimately more decent and creator-friendly company than past Exodus Cry targets like PornHub, you had a lot more people willing to step up to defend them. So instead of headlines full of accusations about the horrible things they host (in vanishingly rare instances that happen on almost every social media platform), you got headlines like this: https://twitter.com/mikestabile/status/1430267182869483521?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
The porn proles have spoken
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
quote:3.7 Integrity of Brand and Network love that essentially all card transactions in the western world are only permitted subject to the whimsy of two american corporations 'brand integrity' teams, they blocked wikileaks donations likely due to political pressure (and got sued in iceland for it), I wonder how many smaller enterprises they've been pressured to change or shut down that had less clout. guess in this instance they decided it would be more risk to the brand to continue to block onlyfans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
I think bitcoin is both an incredible waste of resources and so unfriendly that it's not plausible for normal users. Still, the control that Visa, Mastercard, and arguably PayPal have over what gets to earn money on the Internet is probably the best single argument for cryptocurrrency payments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Or some kind of public postal banking sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
isnt paypal still just a chain link infront of visa and mastercard?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
Depends on what side you're on, I guess - if you use it to receive money, there is always the risk that PayPal will just declare you suspect and keep everything. (It has admittedly been a while since I last heard about that happening, but that may equally well be because people now prefer other collection platforms.) If you use it as a payment processor I don't know - but you're probably right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
Roumba posted:Or some kind of public postal banking sort of thing. I just want Vipps and BankAxept everywhere. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
public banking helps in a different way, like it kills the whole payday loans and cash for checks industry, having a legit bank debit card means they dont need to do the obtuse reloading process with reloadable debite cards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:public banking helps in a different way, like it kills the whole payday loans and cash for checks industry, having a legit bank debit card means they dont need to do the obtuse reloading process with reloadable debite cards. Check-cashing and prepaid debit card fees I can see it eliminating. I don't know how it would have any effect on payday loans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
i have looked at men's bottoms online before
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
crispix posted:i have looked at men's bottoms online before I dont doubt it!!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:More likely that they managed to get out ahead of the BBC hitpiece on them, and because they are a legitimately more decent and creator-friendly company than past Exodus Cry targets like PornHub, you had a lot more people willing to step up to defend them. So instead of headlines full of accusations about the horrible things they host (in vanishingly rare instances that happen on almost every social media platform), you got headlines like this: It might not have been credit card processors, but rather simply banks freezing them out: https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca0480b quote:Stokely said the change came in response to an increased level of obstacles from banks, which would “cite reputational risk and refuse our business”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Khorne posted:When the conviction happened they cut all ties, removed the content before any takedown request, and even plugged it in their content id system. The content was gone from pornhub almost a month before the site of the offending company stopped selling the content & went down. Other tube sites that sold it did not take it down sooner either. I don't get where you wanted to go with this. You start out saying pornhub acted appropriately but then you make the totally valid point they could have done something at the accusations stage. I'd also like to defend the 'should have known' test. It's too easy to be willfully ignorant of criminal activity. Businesses like this need to be proactive. Anyway, if this does end up going through I say we start a collection to fund a legal team to get Kirk J's pictures hosted. There's nothing inherently sexual about a giant butthole and I'm sure he could use the money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:More likely that they managed to get out ahead of the BBC hitpiece on them, and because they are a legitimately more decent and creator-friendly company than past Exodus Cry targets like PornHub, you had a lot more people willing to step up to defend them. So instead of headlines full of accusations about the horrible things they host (in vanishingly rare instances that happen on almost every social media platform), you got headlines like this: This. It was a really really good way to control the media image. I don't entirely buy that they planned it from step one, but if they did then it was just standard "get a disbarraging story out before the competitor to control the media's image of the story" I think what's more likely is they did it so that when the article came out, they could say they no longer host content like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
Fantastic Foreskin posted:Maybe the whole thing was just to grab headlines. Let's go with Hanlon's Razor on this. These people aren't clever, they're greedy but they're not too stupid to realize they had a bad idea. See: New Coke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 22:04
|
|
