A Months-Long Investigation Reveals Pornhub's Terrible Moderation Practices (vice.com) 233
samleecole shares a report: On May 1, 2016, in the middle of final exams, a young woman got a text message that would change her life forever. It included a screenshot of a pornographic video posted online, featuring her. Panicking, she quickly tried to justify what she had done. "They said it would only be in Australia," she told her friend, according to court documents. "I only did it for money." The video spread like wildfire. Jane Doe 11 -- one of 22 women who sued porn production company Girls Do Porn in 2016 for coercing them to have sex on video and lying to them about how the videos would be distributed -- learned from the student council president that "everyone was watching it in the library, so much so that the internet essentially crashed."
In October 2019, after Michael Pratt was charged with federal sex trafficking crimes, Pornhub removed Girls Do Porn's official Pornhub channel, as well as pages promoting Girls Do Porn as "top shelf" content and a reason to pay Pornhub a subscription fee. In January, after the ruling in the civil case found Girls Do Porn owed 22 women a total of $13 million, the official GirlsDoPorn.com site was taken offline. But even with the official site shut down and its owners in jail or on the run, the ruling has done little to stop the spread of the videos online. Pornhub claims that victims of nonconsensual porn -- as many of the Girls Do Porn videos are -- can easily request to remove videos from the site, and that those videos can be "fingerprinted." Broadly speaking, video fingerprinting is a method for software to identify, extract, and then summarize characteristic components or metadata of a video, allowing that video to be uniquely identified by its "fingerprint." According to Pornhub, this would automatically prevent future attempts to upload a video that was flagged.
But a Motherboard investigation found that this system can be easily and quickly circumvented with minor editing. Pornhub's current method for removing Girls Do Porn videos and other forms of non-consensual porn not only puts the onus of finding and flagging videos almost entirely on potentially-traumatized victims -- those victims can't even rely on the system to work.
In October 2019, after Michael Pratt was charged with federal sex trafficking crimes, Pornhub removed Girls Do Porn's official Pornhub channel, as well as pages promoting Girls Do Porn as "top shelf" content and a reason to pay Pornhub a subscription fee. In January, after the ruling in the civil case found Girls Do Porn owed 22 women a total of $13 million, the official GirlsDoPorn.com site was taken offline. But even with the official site shut down and its owners in jail or on the run, the ruling has done little to stop the spread of the videos online. Pornhub claims that victims of nonconsensual porn -- as many of the Girls Do Porn videos are -- can easily request to remove videos from the site, and that those videos can be "fingerprinted." Broadly speaking, video fingerprinting is a method for software to identify, extract, and then summarize characteristic components or metadata of a video, allowing that video to be uniquely identified by its "fingerprint." According to Pornhub, this would automatically prevent future attempts to upload a video that was flagged.
But a Motherboard investigation found that this system can be easily and quickly circumvented with minor editing. Pornhub's current method for removing Girls Do Porn videos and other forms of non-consensual porn not only puts the onus of finding and flagging videos almost entirely on potentially-traumatized victims -- those victims can't even rely on the system to work.
Girls who do porn (Score:3, Insightful)
...for money are porn stars, nothing can alter that.
As for removing them, they could ask Barbara Streisand for help.
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:5, Insightful)
If the multi-billion dollar movie industry can't get their videos removed from the internet, I highly doubt that a few random nobodies who made a single porno are going to be any more successful.
The sleazeballs that lied to these women certainly got what they deserved, but even if they were honest about the content only being distributed in Australia, the women should have realized it would have eventually found its way to the wider internet. Even a short perusal of one of the big porn sites would tell you that they contain massive amounts of content that was created long before digital distribution existed.
Hopefully these women will be able to put all of this behind them and realize that even though it was a shitty thing that happened to them, it doesn't need to or shouldn't define them. Anyone who's going to denigrate a person for doing something that everyone else on the planet does is the kind of asshole you probably shouldn't want to be around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This article seems to be playing long and loose with the definition of "non-consensual" sex.
I mean, doesn't that mean RAPE?
That doesn't appears to be what happened here, at least to the primary girl in the story. She got paid to have sex and have it video re
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:5, Interesting)
It's clear that Alice consented to have sex, but there were some conditions under which this was done. I'm not even sure if I'd want to go so far as to qualify the above as "rape" because that almost cheapens word, but I don't think anyone is going to argue Bob is innocent of all wrong-doing and plenty would still argue he should be punished for what he did.
The women were clearly lied to and obviously if this were a matter of distribution of some songs they had written the people who lied would be just as guilty and just as fucked legally because there are already laws that cover this sort of situation in a general sense. Should we treat this as special because sex was involved? Maybe, I mean after all we do have laws to protect some information (e.g. medical records) more than others. Will sites like Vice that wouldn't give two shits about this if it happened in some other context (e.g. illegal distribution of songs) write articles trying to play it off as a bigger deal than it should be? Yeah. Is reality a little bit more gray and nuanced than any of the simple arguments that get trotted out? Almost certainly.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting use of the "Alice and Bob" literary device [wikipedia.org].
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:5, Insightful)
This article seems to be playing long and loose with the definition of "non-consensual" sex.
I mean, doesn't that mean RAPE?
That doesn't appears to be what happened here, at least to the primary girl in the story. She got paid to have sex and have it video recorded.
They lied to her about distribution...but, I have to ask, was that verbal or was it in the contracts she signed?
If not in the contract, then really what leg does she have to stand on?
But while the folks doing the film and publish were indeed sleazy, we shouldn't conflate actual rape where sex is not consensual with agreeing to appears in a video having sex, and being lied to as to the distribution channels.
If anyone got paid, it was consensual.
The article mentions "non-consensual porn", "non-consensual content", "non-consensual videos" and never the word rape. That what happened entails non-consensual sex is your own inference and the rape accusations you argue against is a complete figment of your imagination,
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:5, Insightful)
This article seems to be playing long and loose with the definition of "non-consensual" sex.
I mean, doesn't that mean RAPE?
The article isn't claiming it was non-consensual sex. They are claiming it was non-consensual porn.
That doesn't appears to be what happened here, at least to the primary girl in the story. She got paid to have sex and have it video recorded.
They lied to her about distribution...but, I have to ask, was that verbal or was it in the contracts she signed?
If not in the contract, then really what leg does she have to stand on?
The women in this case have already won their lawsuit and criminal charges have been filed against the men that ran the scheme. Apparently, they had at least two legs to stand on.
But while the folks doing the film and publish were indeed sleazy, we shouldn't conflate actual rape where sex is not consensual with agreeing to appears in a video having sex, and being lied to as to the distribution channels.
If anyone got paid, it was consensual.
Again, nobody was accused of rape, charged with rape, put on trial for rape or convicted of rape. RTFA.
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:5, Informative)
Consent to sex can be voided under the law if that consent was provided under false pretenses. The result isn't necessarily rape, which is traditionally the criminal act of sexual intercourse under force or duress (traditional rape laws are somewhat narrow and gendered, and focused on the element of penetrative sex). However, un-consented sexual contact can give rise to a claim of sexual battery or sexual assault, which is more closely related to the concept of battery (offensive or harmful touching of the body). A common law-school example is someone consents to have sex because the other person promises they don't have an STD. However, in reality, they do have an STD - that scenario can result in sexual assault.
Some jurisdictions have modernized their criminal code to either expand the definition of rape, or include a definition of sexual battery that subsumes the concept of rape, or makes rape a specific version of sexual assault.
Re: (Score:3)
This article seems to be playing long and loose with the definition of "non-consensual" sex.
I mean, doesn't that mean RAPE?
That doesn't appears to be what happened here, at least to the primary girl in the story. She got paid to have sex and have it video recorded.
They lied to her about distribution...but, I have to ask, was that verbal or was it in the contracts she signed?
If not in the contract, then really what leg does she have to stand on?
But while the folks doing the film and publish were indeed sleazy, we shouldn't conflate actual rape where sex is not consensual with agreeing to appears in a video having sex, and being lied to as to the distribution channels.
If anyone got paid, it was consensual.
I agree with you and would add:
While GirlsDoPorn can say, promise, guarantee, swear, affirm , even by way of legal contract that "it's only for Australia," and if Girls Do Porn had a geofence, as well, nothing can stop the Gentle User from downloading a video and slipping it to Pornhub.
Also, as for fingerprinting, a slight edit would strip some of the granularity of the fingerprinting and bypass that method of automated detection.
People who participate in porn have been outed for years. Movie stars abound
Re: (Score:3)
was that verbal or was it in the contracts she signed
Doesn't matter. Verbal agreements are legal contracts (in Common Law). Maybe harder to prove in court, but they have the same standing.
Re: (Score:3)
Never had a girlfriend, huh?
Re: Girls who do porn (Score:2)
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, Andrea.
Good thing you posted AC 'cause that was really stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Consent in exchange for payment is still consent. That said, false pretenses is a legitimate foul call. It's not that the sex was non-consensual in the direct sense, it's that the false pretenses erase the notion of informed consent. This is where things seem to get fuzzy for some.
The women in question were assured of specific clauses. They agreed under those conditions. The conditions were not met. So, now, is it rape? For the act of intercourse itself with the male performer (legally that's what he is) th
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:4, Funny)
They want to have sex with men so that men will support them.
Oh please. Put your 1950's fantasy world away and wake up to the 21st century.
Women don't need men to support them. Today, women can get a real job and support themselves every bit as much as any man could. Women have ZERO need for men in today's world, other than to initially conceive a child.
"On a scale from zero to some, how many fucks do you give?â
ZERO.
Re: Girls who do porn (Score:2)
perhaps ask a few how that lonely independent lifestyle bouncing from fling to fling worked out for them before assuming they are happier than you.
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully these women will be able to put all of this behind them and realize that even though it was a shitty thing that happened to them, it doesn't need to or shouldn't define them. Anyone who's going to denigrate a person for doing something that everyone else on the planet does is the kind of asshole you probably shouldn't want to be around.
Seriously, this. People do many things for fun and/or pay and who are we to judge them, especially when it's something we do or would do or have done. It would also help if people would stop labeling women who have/enjoy/perform sex as "sluts" and other derogatory things, especially while giving the men a pass or pat on the back for doing the same thing.
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:5, Insightful)
If you eat meat, you cannot consider yourself morally superior to the butcher.
If you jerk off to porn, you cannot consider yourself morally superior to the actress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well the whore on the corner often has little choice in their partners, especially if there is a pimp involved whereas higher class prostitutes and porn stars can be choosy.
It's one thing having sex for money with someone you might have had sex with for free and another with someone who you just want to run away from.
It's one of the reasons that prostitution should be legal, so they can have more choice in clients.
Re: (Score:3)
Well the whore on the corner often has little choice in their partners, especially if there is a pimp involved whereas higher class prostitutes and porn stars can be choosy.
It's one thing having sex for money with someone you might have had sex with for free and another with someone who you just want to run away from.
It's one of the reasons that prostitution should be legal, so they can have more choice in clients.
I agree.
I went to Germany back when Moby Dick was a minnow (ca. 1965) where prostitution was legal.
It was tier pricing inversely proportional to age/looks.
I was hosted by a German family eager to practice their English and I asked if sex crimes were as big a problem as in the States.
They said, "No. Why would it be? Sex is affordable to anyone, and it's accepted. When we DO have abuse, it makes major headlines -- not by way of morality, but by way of insanity."
Re: (Score:2)
If you eat meat, you cannot consider yourself morally superior to the butcher.
If you jerk off to porn, you cannot consider yourself morally superior to the actress.
True, but "I only did it for the money" is the worst possible PR in that situation.
It is like, "I only read it for the articles," when it isn't the one with good articles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully these women will be able to put all of this behind them and realize that even though it was a shitty thing that happened to them, it doesn't need to or shouldn't define them. Anyone who's going to denigrate a person for doing something that everyone else on the planet does is the kind of asshole you probably shouldn't want to be around.
One bit of advice I would give to women, since apparently she had no idea that taking off her clothes and fucking somebody for money, is that your best bet to not be in porn is to not take off your clothes and fuck someone, especially if they are videotaping it.
Panicking, she quickly tried to justify what she had done. "They said it would only be in Australia," she told her friend, according to court documents. "I only did it for money."
I don't mean to be harsh, but here in the hinterlands a woman tha
Re:Girls who do porn (Score:4, Funny)
I just want to know how I can get paid to do a "months-long investigation into PornHub". Nice work, if you can get it!
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to know how I can get paid to do a "months-long investigation into PornHub". Nice work, if you can get it!
I imagine it would get really old, really fast and you'd probably see things you'd wish you hadn't and could unsee.
Re: (Score:2)
The weird and disturbing stuff you have to go elsewhere.
Well, don't leave us hanging...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, a few minutes a day would be a solid work ethic for a typical "journalist", so I think you'd be fine.
Unpopular opionion of the day... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This falls in the category of someone makes a bad decision which is regretted later, someone else exploits that bad decision beyond all reason. Everyone is wrong, but we have to be careful here to overlook the original sin, lest we be accused of slut shaming, victim blaming, etc. But I won't, because I'm an asshole.
The guy should definitely be dealt with harshly there's no doubt. Bt the world is not short on people with get rich quick notions that come at the expense of others and they can't be removed quic
Re: (Score:3)
...don't trust pornographers to begin with. Seriously, not trolling here. Just don't trust shady people who will feel nothing at compromising your personhood, your future, your career, etc.
And are we surprised? Why would pornhub act with any more respect or decency than the people they rely upon for content?
Desperate people do desperate things. Desperate people are vulnerable.
Unethical people rip off the elderly. Blaming the victim is OK, if proportional.
The women were not deceptive sleaze buckets, right?
Months long investigation? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazingly appropriate username . . .
Re: (Score:2)
My years long investigation has uncovered no problems. I guess I'm not looking hard enough.
You need to go deeper.
Technology can't solve everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, it can't solve everything today.
I wonder what sort of "fingerprint" they use for the video. Lighting? Colored areas? Movement? A hash? What if you introduce a large amount of subtle noise into the L channel?
Google ALSO has this problem and I'm sure they're WAY better at this than Pornhub.
Pratt and his company should be forced to pay for these girls's therapy, including therapy to help them deal with the fall-out ongoing--you can learn to not be bothered by this, with a perspective shift, but it's going to take a lot of counseling unless you've already developed a huge pile of defense mechanisms in your life. PornHub should keep improving their software and keep up their due diligence, but obviously the technical problem is so difficult even Facebook and Google can't figure it out, and it won't suddenly make the girls un-famous as local porn actresses. Somebody owes a lot of compensation.
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to ask what tech, exactly, people think will filter out these videos from all the other videos of similar content on the platform? This is no different than the people asking Google to filter out whatever video content they don't like today. It seems easy to say that you can tell at a glance, but it's not that easy for a computer. It can determine that there are probably people, maybe even that it's porn, facial recognition might be able to pick out a single person, some of the time. But there a
Re: (Score:3)
It is possible. The technique is similar to what Shazam does with music. If you're willing to put enough processor time into it you can make a video (or audio) fingerprint that is robust enough to manipulation that the original video would have to be very seriously compromised to evade it. Like old-school watching locked porn channels on cable compromised.
Should PornHub have to invest those resources? Should Google? There's a balance that needs to be struck. I expect Motherboard is in favour of porn being s
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I'm willing to believe it's possible, I've not read everything on the topic. I've just seen a LOT of bad results from such systems over the years. I have to wonder about the scale though. Any idea on the requirements for, say, 1 minute of 4K video? Or even 1080p. Then we need to figure out how that scales over the amount uploaded to each platform. A quick search has an article from 2017 claiming 300 hours of video per minute being uploaded to youtube. This https://www.tubefilter.com/201... [tubefilter.com] clai
Re:Technology can't solve everything (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a reasonably detailed FAQ from a commercially available system: https://www.visioforge.com/vid... [visioforge.com]
They say about 300 ms per second of video, which sounds reasonable. If you want more robustness you'd need more time though, or less for a more cursory check. It looked like they also have a free trial if you want to play around with it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What about pursuing the people uploading this stuff? A few might be innocently doing it but many are just trying to hurt these poor women even more by perpetuating the sexual assault they suffered.
The criminal trial is on-going but if the producers of these videos are found guilty then the uploaders will be accessories to that crime. No different than knowingly upload child pornography.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably gets a lot worse before it gets better. A decent guess imo is that the combination of facial recognition + social media + ransomware is brewing in the background as the next negative trend. Similar to the "I saw you jacking off in your webcam" spams, but more sophisticated.
It's a lot of work but the pieces of the puzzle are there given the low costs of bandwidth and storage space, and the effort would serve as a testbed. Scrape pics from social media like Clearview does, then use established alg
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks, now I have something more dystopian than a mass coronavirus pandemic to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, it can't solve everything today.
I wonder what sort of "fingerprint" they use for the video. Lighting? Colored areas? Movement? A hash? What if you introduce a large amount of subtle noise into the L channel?
Google ALSO has this problem and I'm sure they're WAY better at this than Pornhub.
Pratt and his company should be forced to pay for these girls's therapy, including therapy to help them deal with the fall-out ongoing--you can learn to not be bothered by this, with a perspective shift, but it's going to take a lot of counseling unless you've already developed a huge pile of defense mechanisms in your life. PornHub should keep improving their software and keep up their due diligence, but obviously the technical problem is so difficult even Facebook and Google can't figure it out, and it won't suddenly make the girls un-famous as local porn actresses. Somebody owes a lot of compensation.
Since the internet has been around for decades now, I have a better idea. How about we let ignorant people learn the hard way about "limited distribution" on the internet, because it's obvious that technology can't fix stupid.
And let's stop assuming that anyone who does porn is a fragile little flower in need of a lifetime of therapy. Local or worldwide porn star, you're still a porn star.
Re: (Score:2)
yet another reason to call it the 'money shot'
Can't fix stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't fix stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's harsh to say non technical teenage girls would really understand how a video could spread outside a private for-pay site... but you are right that any video online potentially is going to be spread everywhere.
It seems like a better solution might have been to turn over all online profits and copyright ownership to the women involved, and let them make copyright claims on anything posted (as well as then being in control of shutting things down if they chose). There is probably a lot more power in hosting a high quality original they would derive income from, than in trying to shot down every edited copy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the pornographers themselves really did only post / host the video in Australia, what's to stop someone else from posting it everywhere on other sites? The Golden Rule of the Internet is that ANYTHING posted or sent -- email, social media, naughty vids -- can and likely will be shared publicly, with everyone, forever. There are no take-backs. Someone that says they truly believed their naughty vids would only ever be shown in Australia is depressingly ignorant or lying.
Exactly, which is why any claim by the original publisher that it would only be available in X location is essentially fraudulent, no matter how they try to limit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you can fix this kind of stupid with a bit of education.
There, fixed it for you.
How were they coerced? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what you get... (Score:2, Insightful)
When you consent to doing things like this on camera. Never let yourself be recorded doing things you can't show you parents and you'll be alright.
Re: (Score:2)
There are blackmail videos on Pornhub.
We need a due dilligence law for web sites with user created content. It should force web sites to pick one of the following options:
1) Promise that they are not hosting illegal content (99% of web sites do not accept user created content, this option is for them)
2) Have a team that proactively searches for and removes illegal content (Only large websites like Google can afford that, and Google has publicly stated that they will not pick this option.)
3) Contribute a per
I'm sorry, but what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: I'm sorry, but what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm sorry, but what? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's an old joke about Winston Churchill where he asks a woman at a party if she would have sex with him for a million pounds sterling, and she laughs and says "of course". He then asks her if she would for 1 pound, and she says, Mr. Churchill what do you think I am? He replies that we've determined what you are, now we're just bargaining on price.
I'm torn about feeling genuinely sorry for these women as they were almost certainly lied to in order to get them to participate in a porn film.
Yet at the same time, these are women who agreed to be in a porn film. At what point do you reach the idea where you're OK with having sex with a stranger on film just as long as nobody you know finds out about it? And how naive do you have to be to get to the point where you actually trust the people are being honest *or* that somehow overseas porn on the internet won't leak into the US?
I'd like to not "judge" these women, but I kind of feel like they're being portrayed as revenge porn victims by an intimate partner using footage never intended to be widely available. When in fact they were willing participants in a sex-for-money exchange. At some point I think to myself is the real issue here is that they've been exposed for what they actually are, someone willing to trade sex for money. I've got no problem with that, but it is what it is, and people will think differently about you if they find out, and keeping it secret forever ain't easy.
How would any of this be different if they instead decided to commit an act of prostitution, got arrested and got their face put on a billboard, in the paper or wound up on the news because their client was high profile? It seems like the same net outcome -- everyone finds out they're willing to have sex for money. Whose fault is it in that situation?
Are there that many women out there who are so transactional about their sexuality that their principal concern is getting discovered?
Re: (Score:2)
zing!
some pretty sharp questions.... probably gonna piss off a snowflake or two
please, proceed
Re: (Score:2)
I know there are people who are going to think that the people who paid them and lied about the terms of distribution are the only ones who bear any blame and that otherwise these women are blameless. I'll admit that part of me believes this, but part of me just doesn't get it because of how weird the decision making process was that got them there to begin with.
Have sex with whoever you want under whatever circumstances you want, but geeze, there are consequences. Pregnancy. Disease. Damage to your rep
Re: (Score:2)
"They said it would only be in Australia"???
I'm genuinely trying to understand what kind of thought process would have to occur for *THAT* to be a justification?
A private buy on the other side of the world getting your "art" means it's unlikely to end up locally available to your grandma. The thought process is quite sound when met with a written contract. A certain amount of trust is involved in everything you do in life, you typically don't enter written contracts with the expectation that the other party fraudulently intends not to uphold their side of the agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, guys. (Score:2)
It couldn't be that expensive to hire human moderators to review your content.
Re: Come on, guys. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So there's more pornstars than people watching it?
Come on, you (Score:2)
It couldn't be that expensive to hire human moderators to review your content.
And do what?
Are humans supposed to remember every single porn video that is on a block list?
What are you proposing that humans would DO exactly that could not be done better my computers, in terms of moderation?
We can all pitch in to solve this (Score:2)
doxing (Score:2)
Unpleasant situation, but once the video is out there, it is likely to stay out there.
Not non-consensual (Score:5, Informative)
In explaining her justification for doing it, she admitted that she agreed to do it for money. That's not non-consensual.
Perhaps the producers violated the distribution agreements, and they should be held accountable for that, but let's not misrepresent what this is; it's a contract dispute, not rape.
Free life advice: If you don't want people to know you filmed porn, then don't film porn.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Not non-consensual (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you always try to prove your point by misrepresenting the opposing argument? I never said it wasn't a crime, and your comparison is different enough not to be applicable regardless.
What you describe is a horrendous practice, I agree; is it rape? No. Is it assault? Maybe, and that should go both ways ( "She told me she was taking birth control..." ).
Re: (Score:2)
As far as my example: Rape? Depends on jurisdiction; some would be "yes", but many would be "no". Sexual assault? Where it isn't considered Rape, it's highly likely to be treated as sexual assault; interestingly, a brief search seemed to indicate the U.S. is undecided, as su
Re: (Score:2)
Implied personal attacks aside, you presumed a lot of my position from an otherwise innocuous statement.
Found the triggered snowflake.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you consider coercing to only mean physical assault, you are right, that would be extremely rare. But if coercing includes deceiving, then it's not all that rare.
I was in the situation once of a girl trying to get me to have sex, until her best friend warned me that she was trying to get pregnant. Not only that, but after her friend brought it up in front of us, she admitted that she wanted me to get her pregnant, and told me that I
Re:Not non-consensual (Score:5, Insightful)
Your example involves violation of bodily integrity. It is, by definition, assault.
The example in the story is violation of a contract. It *is* also non-consensual sex, assuming that the consent to sex was given conditional on the contract.
The problem is, "non-consensual sex" has been successfully equated in society's consciousness with forcible physical sexual assault.
Re: (Score:2)
Your example involves violation of bodily integrity. It is, by definition, assault.
Yes.
The example in the story is violation of a contract. It *is* also non-consensual sex, assuming that the consent to sex was given conditional on the contract.
Agreed.
The problem is, "non-consensual sex" has been successfully equated in society's consciousness with forcible physical sexual assault.
"Problem", hmm? So long as we're talking about it being a matter of degree, rather than whether it's on the same spectrum, I'm on the same page. I probably should have added some caveats to my previous example (stealthing, found out after the fact, no STIs or pregnancy, but "everyone knows she took it raw"), although I probably still would have deserved to be modded troll...
if you dont want to be see in a porn video (Score:2)
It's an education issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds Reasonable By Pornhub (Score:2)
Was she fresh off the bus from a farm in Kansas? (Score:2)
Unless she had an iron-clad contract, negotiated by an attorney, how could she believe that they weren't going to take that video and do whatever they wanted with it to make as much profit from it as they possibly could?
While I feel sorry for her for making such a poor choice, she's an adult, made an adult decision (regardless of it being an extremely poor
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently she did have such a contract. Good enough that it being violated got her about half a million dollars in civil court and federal prison for the guy who broke it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think some of the problem is just a kind of delusional thinking by these women.
I'm just guessing here, but these are young and attractive women who have been engaging in socially if not financially transactional sexual activities. They're accustomed to preferential treatment based on their appearance and likely as an outcome of their sexual engagement.
This probably leads to a false sense of confidence in outcomes -- nothing bad happened before when they had sex with a rich guy or a popular guy to gain so
An Excellent Opportunity (Score:3)
LOL (Score:2)
Wait, we're suggesting that guys who shoot and distribute porn *might be something less than perfectly honest and forthright*?
Jesus. Next you're going to tell me that water is wet or some other unpossible thing.
Look, I have sympathy for people whose stuff was shot by voyeurs or some upskirt crap - that's criminal, clearly a crime.
But I'm sorry, if someone says "Hey baby, we're going to have you going at it with these 6 guys, but trust me, we're only going to use this video for (X)" how the fuck gullible ar
Love the excuses (Score:2)
"only did it for the money", we weren't expecting otherwise.
"thought it would only be in australia", because somehow that's any better?
Somewhere along the line, these women should have realized something that my mother's been saying all my life: these women should be overjoyed that they weren't murdered when they were alone in a closed room with large strange men far from home. The fact that they made it home alive is already lucky. The fact that they walked away with cash money is an absolute miracle.
Don
Re: (Score:2)
You have an awfully pessimistic definition of "lucky".
Can PornHub profit off Mike Pence's sex tape? (Score:2)
I dread the future when revenge porn can be convincingly made with DeepFakes...Mi
An important topic we should address (Score:2)
Another important topic that ought to be here is why is there heat on this young lady in the first place? Why doesn't she just own it and say,"Yeah, I did porn. It's a naked body and maybe you should grow up about it?"
People having sex is natural... why is it that in a society which allows media about heads exploding, gunshots, and all kinds of vicious, violent, sadistic acts to be shown onscreen that naked bodies doing something (even if acted out) pleasurable is so taboo?
I sincerely think there's a bigger
Re: (Score:2)
Re: An important topic we should address (Score:3)
It's a naked body and maybe you should grow up about it?
A very common and normal Grown Up response to a naked body is sexual arousal and quite often a desire to engage in sexual contact with it. It is only people who are too young, or too old, who tend to view such things in a nonsexual light.
This just in: (Score:2)
Pornographers are untrustworthy. In other news, water is wet and fire is hot.
easy solution (Score:2)
Don't do porn videos for money. Once you're on video on the internet, it's out there, there's no take backs.
Fingerprinting is clown shoes (Score:2)
Fingerprinting is clown shoes.
What they need is AI to identify the videos.
Really? (Score:2)
"They said it would only be in Australia,"
And you were stupid enough to believe that?
I'm not agreeing with that they did in any way, shape, or form, but c'mon. You have to be pretty damn stupid to hear that and go "Okay, sure, in that case I'll make a porn flick."
Re: (Score:2)
Non-consensual strongly implies sexual engagement against one's will--rape, in other words.
Non-consensual pornography implies more filming someone engaged in a sex act without their knowledge and distributing it. She agreed to the sex act, just not that it would be filmed or how/where it would be distributed.
I feel sorry for these girls, but there is certainly a measure of naivete. The internet is global, and once something is put out in one country (even if not on the internet) it is going to end up spreading around the world. There's no way, even if it had only been distributed on DVD in Aus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are the consent forms null and void because the terms were broken? This is a legal question that needs to be answered. Non-consensual strongly implies sexual engagement against one's will--rape, in other words. But I can get behind that. If you alter the understood terms of my consent, then yeah in retrospect I can legitimately feel you have committed rape. Yep. Now, does the law support it?
I'd like to see the the law that says that you can sign a legally binding contract consenting to sex and enforce it, I simply don't think it exists (unless we're talking about some really backwards third world country).
This means that consent doesn't depend on the contract (but that doesn't mean it can't be used to support the existence of consent).
So your question is from a situation that doesn't exist (imho ianal).
Re: Non-consensual signed consent form? (Score:5, Funny)
You can't get unpregnant. .
My wife is going to be very unhappy to hear that when she delivers in 2 weeks. She was really ready for the pregnancy to be over.
The "it will be copied anyway" argument is dumb!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Who in their right gosh darn mind doesn't think that's going to be uploaded to the internet, and/or copied across the internet? I'm sorry, but are these girls complete morons? Once a digital file is created, it will be uploaded to the Intarwebs. Once it's on the Intarwebs, it will never go away and will spread everywhere around the world.
This is really dumb argument. Of course people file share and pirate, but it takes knowledge, experience, and skill to view something illegally. The girls do porn guy was profiting form a breach of contract and PornHub, by far, the most mainstream porn site network in the world, is profiting from it as well.
First of all, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a college girl to consider she is being lied to by a business and then say it's her fault, she should have known better. How smart were you whe
Re: (Score:2)
Your post presents a false dichotomy. That's not to completely dismiss your conclusion that censorship is undersirable, but to assert that there are only two options—a complete freeflow of information or fascism—seems like a pretty weak argument to me.