Questions about Pornhub
The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof asks about Pornhub, a massive internet site whose parent company Mindgeek is headquartered in Montreal: “Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?”
Update: It doesn’t take long for a New York Times op-ed to get a response. Justin Trudeau says Canadian authorities are working on stamping out any exploitation of minors found on material circulated by PornHub.
Second update: PornHub defends itself, saying it makes a huge effort not to allow material showing sexual abuse of minors on its servers.
Chris 17:52 on 2020-12-04 Permalink
Says the NYT, cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Talk about exploitation and assault.
Kate 18:10 on 2020-12-04 Permalink
Chris, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
JaneyB 19:36 on 2020-12-04 Permalink
Kristof’s articles are always first-rate. This one was front-page of the NYT today. Good to know the government is on it.
dmdiem 11:12 on 2020-12-05 Permalink
“Prohibit downloads”. Ha! He might as well have said “I don’t know how to internet”.
The answer is the same as it ever was. Go after the people who hurt kids. Uploaded to pornhub? Good. You just confessed to a crime and provided evidence. Book ‘em.
I wonder what the real agenda is here. My skepticism radar goes off any time someone says, “why won’t someone think of the children!”
dhomas 12:32 on 2020-12-05 Permalink
Only verified users being able to upload is a good idea, though. That way, if you upload something questionable, you can be tracked and found. Right now, it seems you can upload quite anonymously.
And prohibiting downloads is not going to completely fix things, but it makes it harder for the casual user to download and re-upload. I believe the issue they have is that there is a “download this video” button on PH. You don’t have to jump through any hoops to get it. It’s way too easy.
I think Machine Learning and AI can help in this situation. Instead of “fingerprinting” a video, which can be easily bypassed by editing the video’s length or speed or aspect ratio (you see this on YouTube sometimes, to avoid being automatically flagged by copyright owners), use AI to automatically ban any videos that recognize a victim’s face. This is definitely within the realm of possibility for any company that is serious about helping victims of sexual abuse.
Chris 13:27 on 2020-12-05 Permalink
Kate, moral preening from the NYT strikes me as the teapot calling the kettle black. I confess I only read your summary and not the article though. Just tried now, but it’s paywalled. I assumed it’s one of those “pron is evil. wah. wah.” articles, but I can see as far as the title, which has the word “children” so maybe it’s more about minors? (At least 1200 children were killed in Iraq, thanks in part to the NYT manufacturing consent.)
Bill Binns 16:28 on 2020-12-05 Permalink
This idea that platform owners are responsible for everything their users post will be the end of the internet. Europe is a few steps further down that road and China shows us where the road will eventually lead. I don’t remember anyone ever suggesting that Bell Telephone should have been held responsible for criminals committing crimes with their network.
Kevin 20:38 on 2020-12-05 Permalink
Bill Binns
No, but phone companies are capable of telling the cops exactly who paid for a phone when authorities show up with a warrant.
If a website isn’t going to track its users, then it is responsible for what it hosts.
Ephraim 23:04 on 2020-12-05 Permalink
Doesn’t anyone get tired of the morality police going after every damn thing… Let them fucking wank to what they want, just put up a warning, a way to get it removed and be done with it.
JaneyB 12:14 on 2020-12-06 Permalink
@Ephraim – You need to read the article. It’s not about how the viewer experiences the content; it’s about coerced content being uploaded, particularly that of coerced children and the effect of that violation on their lives.
dhomas 12:34 on 2020-12-06 Permalink
I had the same reaction as Ephraim. Until I read the article. I thought it was going to be some US prudish article. But the complaints made are valid, if a little sensationalist (“Canada, how can you allow this?”). But something CAN be done. But a company won’t make that kind of investment unless they are forced to. People won’t boycott Pornhub because they won’t stop watching porn. So, it needs to be legislated, IMO. The technology exists to make it a reality (as I mentioned above).
Ephraim 11:20 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
@JaneyB – I understand that. That’s why there needs to be a complaint button and liability on the uploader, with a tracking system. If you don’t do something about it once you have been told of the abuse, and you don’t track the uploader, you have a liability.
In fact, tracking the uploader fully will likely have more of an effect than anything else. But the removal system needs to be robust. Do you know what it takes to get revenge porn removed? Upload a picture of yourself, fully nude. It’s stupid. Go after the uploader… for the most part, people are just wanking to the standard stuff.