Federal Judge Says Visa Knowingly Facilitated Pornhub's Monetization of Child Porn (variety.com) 289
Variety reports:
In a setback for Visa in a case alleging the payment processor is liable for the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek, a federal judge ruled that it was reasonable to conclude that Visa knowingly facilitated the criminal activity.
On Friday, July 29, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California issued a decision in the Fleites v. MindGeek case, denying Visa's motion to dismiss the claim it violated California's Unfair Competition Law — which prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices — by processing payments for child porn....
In the ruling, Carney held that the plaintiff "adequately alleged" that Visa engaged in a criminal conspiracy with MindGeek to monetize child pornography. Specifically, he wrote, "Visa knew that MindGeek's websites were teeming with monetized child porn"; that there was a "criminal agreement to financially benefit from child porn that can be inferred from [Visa's] decision to continue to recognize MindGeek as a merchant despite allegedly knowing that MindGeek monetized a substantial amount of child porn"; and that "the court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn" by "knowingly provid[ing] the tool used to complete the crime."
"When MindGeek decides to monetize child porn, and Visa decides to continue to allow its payment network to be used for that goal despite knowledge of MindGeek's monetization of child porn, it is entirely foreseeable that victims of child porn like plaintiff will suffer the harms that plaintiff alleges," Carney wrote.
From the judge's ruling:
"At this early stage of the proceedings, before Plaintiff has had any discovery from which to derive Visa's state of mind, the Court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn from the very fact that Visa continued to provide MindGeek the means to do so and knew MindGeek was indeed doing so."
On Friday, July 29, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California issued a decision in the Fleites v. MindGeek case, denying Visa's motion to dismiss the claim it violated California's Unfair Competition Law — which prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices — by processing payments for child porn....
In the ruling, Carney held that the plaintiff "adequately alleged" that Visa engaged in a criminal conspiracy with MindGeek to monetize child pornography. Specifically, he wrote, "Visa knew that MindGeek's websites were teeming with monetized child porn"; that there was a "criminal agreement to financially benefit from child porn that can be inferred from [Visa's] decision to continue to recognize MindGeek as a merchant despite allegedly knowing that MindGeek monetized a substantial amount of child porn"; and that "the court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn" by "knowingly provid[ing] the tool used to complete the crime."
"When MindGeek decides to monetize child porn, and Visa decides to continue to allow its payment network to be used for that goal despite knowledge of MindGeek's monetization of child porn, it is entirely foreseeable that victims of child porn like plaintiff will suffer the harms that plaintiff alleges," Carney wrote.
From the judge's ruling:
"At this early stage of the proceedings, before Plaintiff has had any discovery from which to derive Visa's state of mind, the Court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn from the very fact that Visa continued to provide MindGeek the means to do so and knew MindGeek was indeed doing so."
What the credit card companies want (Score:4, Interesting)
is a legal register, maintained by others, presumably governments, listing all those entities it is to ban. Therefore never having to make any such calls itself.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, making it a legal requirement for them to maintain these lists in-house would be a very large hurdle to jump for anyone who wants to get into the payment processor business, which would be a great thing for the existing providers.
Re: Way too late for that. (Score:2)
People want small government. The price for small government is that individuals and companies have to pick up all of the responsibility.
Personally, I don't like small government. I think it needs to be whatever size is required to ensure individuals and corporations have the lowest burden possible for the greatest possible net freedom across to and from.
However, I don't get to make the rules, I only get to make snarkastic remarks about how society wants a tiny government to do everything a large, functiona
Re: (Score:3)
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." - variously attributed but true origin unknown (apparently shortly after WW2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is why you need the constraints of maximal, balanced freedom, if you go this route, with some means of enforcing that. Then the government cannot take away anything unless it increases freedom to do so.
If, however, you prefer a small government, corporations must carry out law enforcement. There's nobody else who can.
Re: (Score:3)
If, however, you prefer a small government, corporations must carry out law enforcement. There's nobody else who can.
And it should be pointed out, not for you but for the perspective impaired, that when this has been tried in the past it went very, very badly.
Re: (Score:2)
"If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself." - James Madison
You assume that somehow the latter part is easy to do, even for an objective as malleable and subjective as "freedom". Tha
Re: (Score:3)
The British government doesn't govern itself, although the HoL tries as hard as it is legally able to.
The courts are wholly independent, being neither elected (so can do what's right rather than what's popular) nor selected by government. Their power to conduct judicial reviews, however, makes them more powerful than the American courts.
The courts, then, lie outside of the government as an independent body.
The monarchy used to be helpful, as they're close to being independent observers and are minimally inf
Re: Way too late for that. (Score:2)
The highest power in the UK is the parliament, not the government. It is Parliament that is sovereign, not the government. And not the judiciary either. Parliament can set aside any judgement by the judiciary.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want a government big enough to give me everything I want. I just want one big enough to enforce the laws it already has, and big enough to give everyone equal access to justice.
Re: Way too late for that. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody wants small government. They all claim to, but always prove otherwise based on how they vote. What a lot want is a large government that leaves them alone, but oppresses those they don't like. You can infer which party that is, they tend to be sore losers.
Re: (Score:3)
It's better phrasing than my post, but I concur absolutely.
The independence of the judiciary, IMHO, is compromised by having the same people select it as select the government, except for SCOTUS, which the government selects. In short, it's not independent.
Maybe a professional body should select, with an impeachment system, the way it is done in the UK. Not a perfect model, but one that has been instrumental in keeping the government in the UK lawful(ish).
Re: (Score:2)
Banks and payment companies are self-interested to investigate if customers are capable to pay back the loans or debt from credit cards / mortgage etc. Sometimes if the income of a customer is too shady or risky, companies may not want to borrow money to him or her because he or she may got imprisoned before the loan is cleared. Originally, that's it. Banks and credit card companies are uninterested in auditing saving accounts or debit-type electronic payment accounts creation, as they don't create financi
This is pretty stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
Now I don't particularly like visa, but I like the trend (and American passtime) to sue everyone and everything for whatever random reason down to your own stupidity ("hot coffee") even less.
Here, in particular, we see that financial processors get sued for their clients' doings, as if they were complicit. They're service companies, they provide services. Demanding they also make doubleplusextragood proof positive sure that their clients are not in any way possible ever liable for anything bad, like here,
Re: (Score:3)
This flies in the face of conspiracy law.
A criminal conspiracy requires a "meeting of the minds" rather than some "guilt by association", the judge is purposefully twisting the legal claims to reach his desired result.
Re: (Score:2)
A criminal conspiracy requires a "meeting of the minds"
it's more complicated than that [ucdavis.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
This flies in the face of conspiracy law.
A criminal conspiracy requires a "meeting of the minds" rather than some "guilt by association", the judge is purposefully twisting the legal claims to reach his desired result.
So what's in it for the judge to influence the case?
Re:This is pretty stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Now I don't particularly like visa, but I like the trend (and American passtime) to sue everyone and everything for whatever random reason down to your own stupidity ("hot coffee") even less.
Just as an FYI, the hot coffee incident was not a frivolous lawsuit. The lady got 3rd degree burns and required skin grafts because the coffee was served at about 180–190 F. Unlike the commonly held belief, she was a passenger, and the vehicle was parked. She also didn't sue off the bat, she just wanted McDonalds to cover the costs of her medical bills and the loss of income but McDonalds low-balled her and she was forced to levy a lawsuit at them.
McDonalds also had documents indicating there were several other incidents but it wasn't frequent enough to have them change their requirements. The franchise requirement to keep the coffee held at 180-190 F at serving was changed after McDonalds lost the lawsuit.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:This is pretty stupid (Score:5, Informative)
> whatever random reason down to your own stupidity ("hot coffee")
If that is a reference to the famous McDonald's Hot Coffee Case [wikipedia.org] you are completely ignorant of the facts: [caoc.org]
* Liebeck's case was far from an isolated event. McDonald's had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.
* Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald's never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial.
* When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial; McDonald's refused both.
* The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries (McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20 percent at fault), reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced by 20 percent to $160,000. The jury's punitive damages award made headlines -- upset by McDonald's unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days' worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain, about $1.35 million per day.
* McDonald's admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
* McDonald's admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's then-required temperature -- McDonald's operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
* McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.
Emphasis added.
Re: (Score:2)
down to your own stupidity ("hot coffee") even less.
You should read the details of that case. McDonalds deserved everything they got on that one. (It was one of the major items we dug into detail during a business ethics course I took). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:This is pretty stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
That's still the good old "employer calling" you like so much and I think more than a little underhanded. The only thing I think VISA ought to have had do about it is "contact the authorities" and tell the victims to do the same.
Because law enforcement is law enforcement's job, not random companies'. Because the latter leads to myriad unfortunate implications.
Not even "investigate on their own". Because again investigating crime is law enforcement's job. Make sure you don't delete anything you think might be relevant and wait for the subpoena, then cough it all up post haste. That ought to be the extent of their involvement.
Anything else is vigilantism. Popular, but strictly speaking not germane.
The point explicitly was not about child pornography. And yet here you are, harping on how child pornography is bad and how that justifies everything done about it regardless of form or content or motivation. Wilfully ignoring the collateral damage that is also very real and very noticeable. Well, I don't agree with that. At all. Battling wrongs doesn't justify any and all collateral damage.
Re: (Score:2)
The agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting computer crime have very high thresholds to even start an investigation. I'm not sure what the threshold is now, but decades ago it was about $30,000. I don't imagine it's gotten lower, and I can vouch that crimes I've helped discover and report for less than $10,000 in the last five years have had no active investigation whatsoever.
Re: This is pretty stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be reasonable if we had functional law enforcement and a large, functional, government.
America has an undersized, underfunded, Federal government and a law enforcement system straight out of a Hollywood western. Largely by design.
State rights make a strong central government impossible. Voters then deliberately seeking a dysfunctional Fed make dysfunctions part of the design.
Voters seeking a retributive, violent, law enforcement system have also achieved their goal. Law enforcement won't protect
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no.
You need higher taxes, and much higher taxes for the rich.
There is pork spending, more by Republicans as shown by them increasing deficits and Democrats reducing them. However, you need a national health service and a national public education service, neither of which is cheap.
It would result in lower out of pocket expenses, though, as the tax needed to pay for these would be far less than the private costs needed to fund what currently exists.
Re: (Score:2)
No thank you.
I need the bare minimum federal intrusion into my life....there is plenty already.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard Somalia has pretty weak federal government so you don't need to worry about that there
Re: This is pretty stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact of the matter is, that law enforcement is overwhelmed already, because the regulations made by legislators, and the resulting burden on the government to actually enforce them, requires an ever growing administrative class. The only way to feasibly accomplish this, from the point of view of the authoritarians, is to deputize companies into the bureacracy apparatus, through the features of vicarious liability and "industry self regulation"
Re: This is pretty stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't have law enforcement enforce laws unless law enforcement is (a) unelected (otherwise glory comes first), (b) mandated to protect and serve (the courts rule the police have no responsibility to do either), and (c) trained to act responsibly rather than retributively (sadly, they have developed a wild west syndrome).
You also need to weaken State Rights, as policing will have to be cross-border in a connected world.
I don't think Americans would tolerate any of the changes needed. They'd prefer the st
Re: (Score:2)
You also need to weaken State Rights ... I don't think Americans would tolerate any of the changes needed.
They'd prefer the status quo, even if it means companies have to do things they're not equipt to.
It's not that I don't want the status quo to continue, because as we've seen so many times in the past, that's not working. However, there's a reason why our Founding Fathers intended to have the states have more power than the federal government is because they saw how having a powerful central government running amok could do horrible things. After all, they ran from it in England when they came to form the United States. And not only that but what may be good for South Dakota may not work at all for say.
Re: (Score:2)
Banks do get sued for knowingly enabling criminal behavior https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
It's pretty easy to argue that a child porn company is a an "illegal organization" and if VISA knowingly continued doing business with them, they can get fucked.
Re:This is pretty stupid (Score:4, Informative)
I have read about what you call "other forms of involuntary pornography" on Pornhub, I think GirlsDoPorn was the entity mentioned.
What I had absolutely not heard was that Pornhub was carrying child pornography, with the border between "child" and "adult" being the 18th birthday. This is illegal, and if Pornhub knowingly carries such material (and I believe they are obliged to check) then those responsible are looking at criminal proceedings. Youtube, Faecebook and a bunch of others carry all kinds of videos, their focus is more on checking for copyright violations - we hear more about malicious DRM takedowns there than about porn. Pornhub's concentration on porn means that they *have* to check their models.
Going to the site I see:
Rather amusing, although I don't see what else they can do. Then you go to the main page and I found a Tab at the top marked TRUST & SAFETY. Quoting a couple of sections from there:
Re: (Score:3)
It was in December 2020 that Pornhub was cut off from payment processors, removed the majority of its videos, and instituted is verification program, in response to a NY Times investigative report.
Pornhub removes a majority of its videos after investigation reveals child abuse [cnn.com]
The changes took the number of videos on the website from 13.5 million videos down to a little under 3 million. Going forward, content creators must become verified using Pornhub's process that involves uploading a picture of themselves with their username... Pornhub was the target of a New York Times report earlier this month that led to large credit card companies to block customers from using their credit cards to make purchases on the website. Mastercard, Visa and Discover all terminated their cards from being used on it.
The entire "Trust & Safety" web page appears to be new as of this year (first archived by Wayback Machine on April 22, 2022):
Wayback Machine [archive.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. You're making out as if most of Pornhub's content was a breach, that was far from the truth. They have always had policies against child porn as well as involuntary porn. Heck they booted GirlsDoPorn off their platform well before any of this shit started.
What they did in 2020 was require recertification of all uploads and content. ALL! Young, old, professional, amateurs, and yes content from people who have long ago forgot they had uploaded anything, or content from people unreachable and 100% of anony
Re:This is pretty stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Why onlyVisa?
What about the ISP? Why isn't the power company responsible too? And the landlord where the servers reside?
How wide can you cast the net? Is every supplier doing business with them not just as guilty. Why not go after Microsoft for licensing them copies of Excel, and go after staples and the window cleaners too.
They were all 'profiting' from this, and you claim it was 'well known and widlely publicised' so why aren't they all liable for not investigating and uh... im not even sure what you think they should have done exactly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the argument used is that some victims had reported this to VISA, and it's probable they had not reported this to those other entities.
However, I'll agree that Visa's responsibility should be forwarding to law enforcement and letting law enforcement make the determination and then acting consistent with law enforcement findings on the matter. If Visa did take it upon themselves to independently investigate and as a result believed the claims to be true and neglected to act, that would be a justific
Re: (Score:2)
Why onlyVisa?
What about the ISP? Why isn't the power company responsible too? And the landlord where the servers reside?
How wide can you cast the net? Is every supplier doing business with them not just as guilty. Why not go after Microsoft for licensing them copies of Excel, and go after staples and the window cleaners too.
They were all 'profiting' from this, and you claim it was 'well known and widlely publicised' so why aren't they all liable for not investigating and uh... im not even sure what you think they should have done exactly.
I know reading is difficult but it's laid out in the fucking story.
"Visa knew that MindGeek's websites were teeming with monetized child porn"; that there was a "criminal agreement to financially benefit from child porn that can be inferred from [Visa's] decision to continue to recognize MindGeek as a merchant despite allegedly knowing that MindGeek monetized a substantial amount of child porn"
Chilling effect (Score:2)
Tell you what's gonna happen: EMV will not make the same mistake twice, and will start refusing processing payments to everybody whose business isn't as squeaky clean as a Ritz bidet.
I'm willing to bet a lot of perfectly innocuous businesses will soon be unable to accept payments, and won't have any alternative sources of payment to turn to, since EMV is a monopoly.
This is one use case where cryptocurrency could have saved us from the evil clutches of Visa / Mastercard / Amex. Alas, it's dodgy as fuck, and
Re: Chilling effect (Score:3)
That's like saying the judge did the same (Score:4, Insightful)
by not prosecuring a child molester he didn't know about.
Because Visa very likely had no effin' clue what Pornhub did or didn't do. Because they have no reason to. They are handling money. Nothing else. You want to prosecute banks for storing money from drug trades? Or how about prosecuting Smith&Wesson for making guns used in a murder?
Re: That's like saying the judge did the same (Score:2, Insightful)
If a weapons maker advocates for weaker background checks or actively encourages paranoia, then they're facilitating and should indeed be prosecuted for facilitating.
At least, until a strong, stable, rational federal government exists and law enforcement officials are selected by merit rather than elected by voters on the strength of personal wealth, personal glory and violent retribution.
Since the majority want a small, powerless, irresponsible government, all law enforcement must be by corporations if it'
Re:That's like saying the judge did the same (Score:5, Insightful)
It is indeed exceptionally unlikely VISA in any meaningful way knew they were involved in something like this. If they had, they would have acted immediately, because they must and they know it. Now, that said, VISA doubtlessly gets a ton of messages every day claiming whatever evil thing the sender imagines is going on at VISA, at companies using VISA and in the same Universe VISA is in. They will basically ignore all of them because there is no way to separate the ton of lies from the possible few genuine complaints. The way to do this is always the same: Make a complaint to the police. The police will verify this and then _they_ will pass it onwards. This also comes with the apparently little known fact that making a false complaint to the police typically is a crime...
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the victims had their lawyers write to Visa. Ignore lawyer's letters at your peril.
Can you imagine if this was actually a defence? Oh sorry, we are too large to read all the mail we get, so can't be held liable for ignoring any of it. What, do you expect us to spend time googling this lawyer to make sure they are real? Come on, that's going straight in the recycling.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR: Everyone wants someone to blame and face the music for a tragedy, but often the most (and only) viable targets are scapegoats.
Re: (Score:2)
eliminated the ability to download free content,
How in the world is that relevant to the point he is defending about?
Anyway, with an investigation, the victim is credible. However, it should be law enforcement making that determination and providing guidance to Visa.
So I would be onboard with prosecuting Visa if they had received reports of the illegal activity and failed to relay such reports to authorities or honor law enforcement requests to discontinue service to the company. Alternatively, I'd be onboard if Visa had conducted an investigation and fr
I do not believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
The complaint is apparently that porn starring an 13 year old was seen millions of times on youporn. Now, unless that 13 year old looks at least to be around 18 in that video, there is basically no way for this to happen. The very first people seeing this should have reported it and that should have lead to removal. Now, I am _not_ going to search for this material, but something is way off here. That VISA now gets accused points to some entirely different agenda.
Believe it (Score:2)
Here's the details. https://www.thestar.com/politi... [thestar.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The consumers of the content aren't generally going out of their way to police what they see unless it's impossible not to notice.
I'd also imagine they think the title is lying, like titles of these almost always lie. Because *surely* no one would be stupid enough to post on a website *they* would visit an actual illegal video and label as such, so *obviously* it's just a 'young-looking' model and they are trying to click-bait by lying about it as being illegal.
I think also the allegation is that while the
Re: (Score:3)
I have not seen, and don't plan to look for the video in question, but was it obvious the actor was underage?
I do understand people not reporting it. Anyone who has seen it may have a cache of the video on their computer. Reporting it would be admitting to possession of child porn. Someone would have to be crazy to take th
Re: (Score:2)
The finance industry is highly controlled and audited. Not even swiss banks managed to hide they were paying bribes. No, there is something else at work here. Somebody like VISA would not knowingly touch illegal pornography of any kind with a ten-foot pole. Pornhub, while pretty large, is peanuts for VISA.
Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be spot on, though my understanding is incomplete.
A scenario that might have led up to a ruling in favor of Visa in this case:
-The plaintiff says that Visa should just be on the hook regardless, without making any claim that Visa actually had reason to know anything at the time (no reports, no investigation, perhaps alleging that some 'common sense' could be used to know an internet porn site would have illegal content)
In such a case, the plaintiff alleged something that isn't illegal. It's un
Which law?! (Score:2)
California's Unfair Competition Law — which prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices — by processing payments for child porn
So child pornography is unfair competition. Nothing else? I guess they wouldn't want silly little things like human rights & safety get in the way of business. It's interesting to see where their priorities & values lie.
Honestly, (Score:2)
I do not think it should be the responsibility of the Visa to address such issues. We pay a bajillion in taxes, tons of it on law enforcement. It is the responsibility of those government agencies to address criminal activities.
Perhaps we should end the war on drugs so that law enforcement can focus on far more important areas such as child trafficking.
Now do Facebook, Instagram and TikTok (Score:2)
Shut them all down. Jail the C-level officers
Judge orders trial, news assumes guilty verdict. (Score:2)
A rep for MindGeek provided this statement: âoeAt this point in the case, the court has not yet ruled on the veracity of the allegations, and is required to assume all of the plaintiffâ(TM)s allegations are true and accurate. When the court can actually consider the facts, we are confident the plaintiffâ(TM)s claims will be dismissed for lack of merit.
In other words, the Judge said if all that BS you're shoveling is true, then you would have a case, so we will have trial to find out just how full of it you are.
So they first have to prove Pornhub was facilitating child porn, and then that VISA knew that Pornhub was facilitating child porn, and then, there is a case.
Good luck with that, let me know how it goes for you.
has pornhub/mindgeek been convicted? (Score:3)
I would argue that VISA has no role in the activities of businesses that have all the appropriate financials in order ie bank accounts, d&b numbers, etc, and that until there has been a conviction they should without any opinion. If pornhub/mindgeek actually were found to be monetizing child pornography then Visa should stop. In other words, I think it's completely inappropriate to expect Visa to be the detectives, cops, judge, jury, and executioner and that they should leave this entirely to actual law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And how do you define content neutral?
The term seems self explanatory. It means you don't make decisions about what is banned or permitted on the platform based on the content, so long as the content is legal.
Seems like the only way to do so is to not moderate content at all
Moderation should be focused on empowering users to decide for themselves what they do and don't wish to consume. It's easier than ever to put this control into the hands of users, we can really go so much further than the banned word li
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, forcing private entities to not have the freedom to make their own choices on content on their platform is, frankly, governmental authoritarianism. This is not a valid model from my perspective as a supporter of democracy, private property rights, and freedom of expression.
Re:Section 230 needs reform (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, forcing private entities to not have the freedom to make their own choices on content on their platform is, frankly, governmental authoritarianism
Yeah I agree, we shouldn't force anyone to be a content-neutral platform. But we should only offer the privilege of immunity from liability to those who CHOOSE to be content-neutral platforms.
Re: Section 230 needs reform (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Section 230 needs reform (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny you bring up newspapers, they are actually one of the main reasons I think Section 230 needs reform!
No newspaper has Section 230 protection. They're liable for every single word they print. So how is it fair to them that now they must compete for media eye and ear time with companies that can exercise just as much editorial control over their platform as any newspaper, but they're completely not liable for what's published?
Re: Section 230 needs reform (Score:5, Informative)
It's funny you bring up newspapers, they are actually one of the main reasons I think Section 230 needs reform!
What's funny is that you think people will fall for this trolling bullshit forever.
No newspaper has Section 230 protection. They're liable for every single word they print. So how is it fair to them that now they must compete for media eye and ear time with companies that can exercise just as much editorial control over their platform as any newspaper, but they're completely not liable for what's published?
The clear and obvious difference is that with the newspaper, they are literally publishing everything in the paper. Paper is not the web. You know this. Therefore your argument is disingenuous. Further, newspaper publishers receive exactly the same Section 230 protections as anyone else for their websites. Your assertion that newspapers are being singled out for special treatment is a bald-faced lie.
Re: (Score:2)
newspapers are expected to follow very narrow guidelines for what is news and what is not.
So what? They can publish opinions or paid content if they want to, as long as they label it as such. That is therefore wholly irrelevant handwaving.
But the very existence of section 230 is a reason to subvert that.
What? That's dumb. It might present an opportunity but it doesn't create a reason. Come back to reality. We have cookies. For now.
I give fox news as an example who used section 230 to defend the fact that they are something less of a news outlet by demanding that they should be held less responsible, as a news source, for their content as much of it comes from web published sources. Like a "reverse proxy", their words.
Fox isn't required to present news without embellishment. That's a failing, but it isn't directly related to Section 230. A disingenuous argument [mediamatters.org] is disingenuous.
The idea that we should get rid of Section 230 because Fox News makes b
Re: (Score:2)
And did they not have to be classified as a entertainment outlet eventually when when all the reasoning was all over?
That's not even wrong, that's just not how anything works. Regardless, a quick google would have told you the story — Fox specifically argued that Tucker Carlson is known to be full of shit [thedispatch.com]. On that basis, Fox's request to dismiss the case brought by Karen McDougal was granted [justia.com]. The truth is that Fox News is not required to be factual, only to not be malicious. And you have to prove that, and they clearly have functioning lawyers. It is however literally true that Fox News argued in court that nobody s
Re: (Score:3)
Further, newspaper publishers receive exactly the same Section 230 protections as anyone else for their websites.
Sure, but it's their business model itself that's invalidated by modern interpretations of 230.
That is as nonsensical as everything else you have said on this subject. The business model of the newspaper has been under additional threat since the invention of the internet, period. The same is true of television, broadcast radio, and basically everything else not already carried by the internet. That is not Section 230's fault. Newspaper subscriptions were in decline before the internet. People were shifting towards getting news from television. Suggesting that the internet destroyed newspapers is jus
Re: (Score:3)
If you'd stop saying things which are provably false in order to support your point, it wouldn't be nonsensical bullshit.
But then, you don't actually have a point. All you have is a bunch of attempts to justify curtailing free speech on the internet, in the name of free speech on the internet. You can't support illogic with logic. And so far, you have not done so.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that requiring Section 230 liability immunity recipient platforms to be neutral towards legal content is an attempt "to justify curtailing free speech on the internet"?
Yes, plainly right on its face. You want to require the people who own and run the platforms (and who themselves have free speech rights) to carry content whether they want to or not. You want to be the decider of what content is on a website, not the people who own it. You want to force people to provide other people with a soapbox. That is appropriation of others' property for your own purposes — which include curtailing the free speech rights of anyone who owns or operates a platform.
If you want to
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't proposed any such requirement, only offering a voluntary choice - in exchange for liability protection, be content neutral.
Yeah, you said that before, and it was a lie last time you said it too.
It's a lie because Section 230 gives them liability protection right now without having to "be content neutral", which is just code for "permit trolls and other shitbags to make the site unusable". The choice you would force on sites is between being unusable because you won't permit moderation, and not permitting comments because they would otherwise be liable for their content. This is literally the whole reason Section 230 exists
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you said that before, and it was a lie last time you said it too.
It's not a lie, you're just trying to reframe it as taking away something, and therefor force. Well, we are going to take away something, but we're not going to force anyone to adopt what we replace it with, so no, it's not force, it's not a requirement, and your whole argument is bullshit.
There was NO CP on Pornhub (Score:5, Insightful)
But I'll go ahead and say it. There was no CP there! There was a little on xvideos of this Mexican guy raping some kidnapped girls, but again, it was wiped as soon as it was reported. If you want CP, you are best off finding an onion site.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Section 230 needs reform (Score:5, Insightful)
Section 230 allows for moderation. No attempt to moderate content changes anything about section 230 protection.
This case isn't about section 230 at all because Visa isn't an information service provider, they are a payment processor.
I am not a lawyer and, more importantly, I'm not a lawyer licensed to practice in California. But the courts have been over this so many times that you shouldn't need a law degree to understand the current situation.
The courts have held repeatedly that providers of general-purposes tools/services that get misused for other than intended purposes are not liable for such malfeasance. However, providers of tools/services who *encourage* their products to be used for illegal purposes do have liability.
Similarly companies are not usually responsible for the behavior of their customers. A fishing-supply store is not generally responsible if a customer uses a knife purchased there to slash their neighbor. However, if a customer walks into the store and declares their intent to slash their neighbor and asks for a recommendation on what kind of filet knife works best on screaming humans, the store will have liability.
This entire case is going to focus on intent. Was Pornhub a victim where their platform was used to distribute illegal content or was Pornhub a willing participant. Was Visa providing services to a customer who they believed was actually legally and a victim themselves, or was Visa aware of what was going on and happy to profit.
These things will be determined by a trial court in finding of fact. That's what trial courts do. But it has nothing to do with section 230. And it certainly has nothing to do with the incorrect reading of section 230 that is bandied about here.
Re: (Score:2)
I highly suspect this will come of nothing. Pornhub has always banned child porn. They have always moderated and taken down such content. They had always worked with police on the matter. The fact that some slips through is irrelevant to the point of intent.
The ridiculous thing is by attacking Pornhub they are driving the practice underground rather than providing a nice and willing to cooperate honey pot for police.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Section 230 needs reform (Score:3)
That isn't equivalent to common carrier, though. Common carrier IS genuinely neutral and requires the operator look at NOTHING.
Common Carrier is fine for ISPs, indeed it should be mandatory.
Making it work for platforms is trickier, as USENET discovered. Still, it is possible, but you CANNOT look at whether content is legal if you do this. This might work for storage providers, like cloud vendors.
"Content Neutral" is usually a shrill cry by the extremists who knowingly violated TOS agreements and want no con
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. Pornhub is clearly the responsible party and payment systems should be common carrier.
Re:Section 230 needs reform (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretend I'm running a forum for model train enthusiasts.
You add a post of complete bs about how you think the election was stolen.
I delete it as off-topic. Did I violate your 'content neutral' guideline?
To try and get around that, you post of photo of a model train. On the side of the train is a url, linking to a site of lies about the election being stolen.
I delete it. Did I violate your 'content neutral' guideline?
After that, you post a normal photo of a model train, but your userid has my phone number in an attempt to dox me.
I delete it. Did I violate your 'content neutral' guideline?
Overnight, you add a couple of hundred posts, drowning out other conversations.
I delete them. Did I violate your 'content neutral' guideline?
Then I add a filter, so a given user can only post three times a day. The filter is now making decisions about what is permitted on the site. Does that violate your 'content neutral' guideline?
Re: (Score:2)
You guys have been away from traditional forums for too long.
In a traditional forum, there is usually an off-topic board for off-topic stuff to be redirected there. Moderators don't need to remove posts just because they are off-topic.
One can also create a spam board for spammers. Then add a auto-removal for spam posts after certain days if nobody appeal. (Viral links can be deleted immediately without violating "content neutral" guideline as they are harmful to other users' computers.)
There are also
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure does - they can slap a user comments section under some of their content - and hide behind 230 while you post salacious, defamatory, criminal content. They have no responsibility to deal with it. They should not be allowed to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Section 230 needs reform (Score:4, Informative)
The only reason the train forum doesn't get butt loads of spam and off-topic crap is because they are allowed to delete it. Moderation is required for a forum to succeed, no matter what. Without it, people will make bots to find and shit up every forum on the Internet relentlessly. Just look at the garbage on unmoderated forums today. No person in their right mind would want to visit the cesspool that is 4chan. If you want unmoderated crap, go there; it already exists. The rest of us will stick to moderated forums, thank you very much. You're welcome to stay away if it offends you so much. (I'll also note that /. Is just barely moderated enough for me to occasionally come here and throw out a comment or two. Over time, the discourse has gotten progressively worse, and I'm increasingly less likely to visit the comments, mostly due to the garbage levels currently present. Other, more well moderated forums like those at arstechnica are much more likely to get my views, due to the higher level of discourse and greater willingness to moderate the crap off the site.)
Re: (Score:3)
This is pure FUD. This simply does not happen in practice. Even this site, you get a swastika to scroll past of whatever once every few articles.
This made me giggle.
This simply does not happen in practice
Then you admit that it does happen one sentence later.
Even this site, you get a swastika to scroll past of whatever once every few articles.
Re: (Score:3)
It means you don't make decisions about what is banned or permitted on the platform based on the content, so long as the content is legal.
So you want a platform for spam then?
Re: Section 230 needs reform (Score:2)
No, no, it isn't. Platforms are entitled to enforce their TOS agreements. Calling it unnecessary because you got modded down means you don't believe you need to keep your word.
It's not censoring to block those who don't keep to their agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 doesn't protect platforms that know they are hosting illegal material and ignore it. Especially if they monetize it.
It hinges on the knowing part. PornHub was told repeatedly about the problem, often by the victims who were begging them to remove that material.
To be clear it's not about editing or selecting content by algorithm or anything like that. None of that removes S230 protection. It's the fact that they were told that they were participants in child abuse and did very little about it for
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It hinges on the knowing part. PornHub was told repeatedly about the problem, often by the victims who were begging them to remove that material.
And that's part of the problem. PornHub can't reasonably be expected to verify that information, they aren't an investigative body. We have a whole mechanism for this - it's called law. If something is out there and it's illegal, you contact the authorities, the authorities contact the host, the host takes it down. Everyone's in their lane, that way.
It's the fact t
Re: (Score:3)
That was basically PornHub's attitude. If someone uploads underage revenge porn of you, send some naked selfies to the Copyright Office to establish your claim on your body, and then submit a DMCA take-down and/or sue them directly.
This isn't about criminal law though, it's civil law. The victims are suing not on the basis that PornHub broke criminal law, but on the basis that they provided evidence like photographs of themselves and ID showing age, but PornHub wasn't interested and continued to stream vide
Re: (Score:2)
The victims are suing not on the basis that PornHub broke criminal law, but on the basis that they provided evidence like photographs of themselves and ID showing age, but PornHub wasn't interested and continued to stream videos that were abusing them.
Yeah, because that isn't actually proof of anything. You want PornHub to, what, compare ID pictures to porn videos and judge who they think looks like who? You don't see any problem with that? That sounds reasonable?
Incidentally, afaik (obviously as a distant
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that does sound reasonable. Pornhub actually had a system for vetting the age of people appearing in videos at the time, for performers in their OnlyFans knock-off and PornHub Originals.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that does sound reasonable.
OK, well, we're going to have to disagree, there. There's absolutely no practical way to do that, you don't know of one and neither do I.
Pornhub actually had a system for vetting the age of people appearing in videos at the time, for performers in their OnlyFans knock-off
So in other words, they could verify the ages of creators they had a business relationship with. Yeah, that's completely different than being able to verify the identity of people in user uploaded videos on
Re: Section 230 needs reform (Score:2)
Well, yes, they can. They provide a service on the basis that they can and therefore they can be held to their word.
To me, this is the essence behind all such contracts. You agree to something, you're liable for not keeping to that.
Re: (Score:2)
PornHub can't reasonably be expected to verify that information
They still have to make some effort. 230(e)(1)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute
As a platform, you cannot just turn a blind eye.
they aren't an investigative body
Yes. Please open a bar and try that argument on why you didn't ID anyone coming into your bar.
We have a whole mechanism for this - it's called law. If something is out there and it's illegal, you contact the authorities, the authorities contact the host, the host takes it down. Everyone's in their lane, that way.
I'm going to go out a limb and say that you don't understand law. Yes, you can still contact the authorities. However, providers cannot use as a defense of "well I was waiting till it hit the "illegal" phase of things" as a rational defense in court. That's not even remotely logical. I mean, apply that to something el
Re:Section 230 needs reform (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is one that any pawn shop or online sales site faces, and one faced by Youtube and Ebay everyday. Are they responsible for any possible illegal content? And how cautious must they be to avoid responsibility for illegal content that gets past their filters, if they have filters?
There was an infamous case of this roughly 30 years ago, for a porn site called "Amateur Action".
https://www.spectacle.org/795/... [spectacle.org]
They were convicted despite the material being ruled illegal in their home state. The abuse of the legal system by the postal inspector was astonishing. Reasonable diligence is not enough to protect a business from liability or criminal prosecution by a motivated regulator.
Re: (Score:2)
Niche/hobbyist websites will cease to exist. Actually even slashdot won't exist without section 230. Can you imagine slashdot without moderation? We'd be filled spam and idiots posting crap. And no, user moderation won't be allowed since only certain people are eligible to be modders. Assuming slashdot style moderation was allowed (which it won't be, because it makes no sense and can be hacked using bots), there is still no way 99% of hobbyist websites can exist.
A world without section 230 (Score:2)
Want to see a world without section 230? When some angry folks split from reddit some years ago they formed voat.co as a censorship free alternative. You see they were angry about /r/creepshots being removed after a middle school substitute teacher posted upskirt photos. Well anyhow the site is long gone because they had a bit of a problem finding advertisers. Enjoy!
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
Re:Section 230 needs reform (Score:5, Informative)
Section 230 fails to protect content-neutral platforms
Section 230 makes no duty for a platform to be neutral. This is literally something that I guess needs to be blasted on repeat for everyone. Platforms DO NOT NEED TO BE NEUTRAL, section 230 does not require a platform to be neutral. Section 230 protects a platforms ability to remove content as long as it meets.
Nowhere in that does it require any position of "neutral". This whole idea that section 230 requires a platform to neutral is some made up shit that a bunch of banned butt hurt shitposters have created because their feelings got hurt when some platform told them to go fuck off.
Section 230 to give liability immunity to content neutral platforms
No we do not because there will literally be NOBODY that universally agrees on the definition of neutral. It's a stupid idea that people think there needs to be some neutral BS and then at the same time say, "well you need to pull from many sources to get a better overall picture". Neutral DOES NOT EXIST, full stop. Stop trying to legislate Pi to a value that does not exist [wikipedia.org] and other stupid ideas that do not exist in reality.
and to remove liability immunity from platforms that refuse to be content neutral
And that's the actual reason you hear a particular party scream about this. They don't want to create "neutral" platforms, they just want to shutdown platforms they feel ARE NOT "NEUTRAL". So you tell me. Do you want politicians defining neutral? Do you seriously want the government to tell you what is and is not neutral? Because you are out of your goddamn mind if you think they would not abuse the literal fuck out of that power.