Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Poem]

That would be extremely libellous and very, very illegal. I would contribute to his legal team for prosecution of such a horrific crime against him. I would bear witness to his character. I would want the perpetrator to face the full force of the law.

Also, I would thank you for not making any further part of this thread about him.

My bad - I didn't make my hypothetical clear. I'll clarify anon (and without any reference to anyone in particular).

 

[Poem]

Your condemnation of legally protected speech is staggering.

Are Pornhub reputable and law-abiding?

 

[Poem]

Your condemnation of legally protected speech is staggering.

You drunk the Kool-Aid.

 

[Poem]

I'll ask posters here (again) if they support Arthwollipot's view that Pornhub is reputable and law-abiding?

 

[acbytesla]

I'll ask posters here (again) if they support Arthwollipot's view that Pornhub is reputable and law-abiding?

I do. Because they are. Just because you don't like porm. That doesn't mean that porn producers are not law abiding.
If you think Pornuhub is breaking the law, why don't you tell us specifically tell us what laws they are breaking and provide proof that they are.

And FYI, BDSM is almost all entirely non-violent. It's consensual role playing.

 

[Lithrael]

I'll ask posters here (again) if they support Arthwollipot's view that Pornhub is reputable and law-abiding?

The entire point of that FTC complaint as far as I can tell is that there's no mechanism for victims of revenge porn to get compensation from pornhub for having hosted material with them in it without their permission. As I said when I replied before, I'd be fully in favor of giving the legal system more teeth so that companies are properly incentivised to spend more energy than they want to, to moderate content to meet legal requirements.

And a nitpick, they are talking about 100 porn sites all run by the same parent company; Pornhub is just one. For all I know Pornhub is doing a decent job while its parent company runs 99 filthy illegal unmoderated sites that need to be shut down.

When Pornhub said the hands-off approach to illegal porn was a pre-2020 problem the FTC said "other general allegations are ongoing and deliberately written in the present tense" but with no idea what 'general allegations' constitute, there's not much I can say to this.

All that said, the guy is citing section 5 of the FTC Act which is about unfair/uncompetetive buisness practices? So I guess the angle is that sites that use illegal content have an unfair business advantage?? This can't possibly be the mechanism for penalizing hosts when they serve illegal material? And further, he cites a Supreme Court decision that disallows people from suing the host for this. Which sounds like a Big Powerful Buisnesses Don't Want to Get Sued issue rather than a They Are Protecting Porn Too Much issue. (I assume the same ruling would stop Facebook from getting sued when your criminal ex posts revenge porn on there; same principle)

There's a discussion to be had over whether the broader idea that Hosts Basically Aren't That Responsible For Uploaded Content is worth it (for various kinds of 'it') but the entire landscape would indeed be different without that; for one thing there would be essentially no large content hosts as there's no economical way to proactively moderate all user generated content.

I will say that as long as hosting user generated content is a thing at all, banning dedicated porn sites WILL drive more porn onto mainstream sites.

 

[Poem]

The entire point of that FTC complaint as far as I can tell is that there's no mechanism for victims of revenge porn to get compensation from pornhub for having hosted material with them in it without their permission. As I said when I replied before, I'd be fully in favor of giving the legal system more teeth so that companies are properly incentivised to spend more energy than they want to, to moderate content to meet legal requirements.

It's NCM (Non consensual material or revenge porn) and CSAM (and it's tens of thousands of videos).

And a nitpick, they are talking about 100 porn sites all run by the same parent company; Pornhub is just one. For all I know Pornhub is doing a decent job while its parent company runs 99 filthy illegal unmoderated sites that need to be shut down.

From the report:
“Pornhub’s operators turned a blind eye to the proliferation of videos depicting the sexual abuse of children on its sites so it could profit off this exploitation,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Whether it was Pornhub per se or the other sites isn't really the point - they are all under the Aylo umbrella.

When Pornhub said the hands-off approach to illegal porn was a pre-2020 problem the FTC said "other general allegations are ongoing and deliberately written in the present tense" but with no idea what 'general allegations' constitute, there's not much I can say to this.

From the report:
Aylo also failed to block individuals who uploaded CSAM despite promising to ban such users. Even when it began taking action against uploaders of CSAM in October 2022, it only prohibited the user from making a new account under the same username or email address but did not prevent them from creating a new account using an alternate email address and username.

That sounds current. As does the following (Statement of Commissioner Mark R. Meador (FTC)):
Despite anguished appeals by survivors, typically seeking to stop the company from profiting off the records of their abuse, Aylo largely ignored their pleas. It took a devastating New York Times exposé, and subsequent pressure from payment processors like Visa and Mastercard—a direct threat to Aylo’s business model—to finally force the company into action. Even if Aylo remains financially solvent today, the facts are now clear: it is morally bankrupt.
(My emphasis)

All that said, the guy is citing section 5 of the FTC Act which is about unfair/uncompetetive buisness practices? So I guess the angle is that sites that use illegal content have an unfair business advantage?? This can't possibly be the mechanism for penalizing hosts when they serve illegal material?

Statement of Commissioner Mark R. Meador (FTC):
The Commission undertakes this legal action against Aylo pursuant to the FTC Act. That Act, among other things, prohibits companies from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts and practices. It is self-evidently unfair to “feature” individuals in videos and images of child sexual abuse or sexual acts to which they do not consent. (If anything, the word “unfair” fails to do justice to the severity of this harm.) It is also deceptive to misrepresent one’s willingness to remove this illegal material, or to claim that one’s website is free of such content.
(My emphasis)

And further, he cites a Supreme Court decision that disallows people from suing the host for this. Which sounds like a Big Powerful Buisnesses Don't Want to Get Sued issue rather than a They Are Protecting Porn Too Much issue. (I assume the same ruling would stop Facebook from getting sued when your criminal ex posts revenge porn on there; same principle)

It still means Aylo are getting away with it.

There's a discussion to be had over whether the broader idea that Hosts Basically Aren't That Responsible For Uploaded Content is worth it (for various kinds of 'it')

What does 'it' refer to please?

but the entire landscape would indeed be different without that; for one thing there would be essentially no large content hosts as there's no economical way to proactively moderate all user generated content.

Ok.

I will say that as long as hosting user generated content is a thing at all, banning dedicated porn sites WILL drive more porn onto mainstream sites.

Not following you.

The question remains: are Pornhub (Aylo if you like) reputable and law-abiding?

 

[Poem]

You're describing a subset of porn, yes. But - and this is why education is so important - porn performers are paid actors. They're playing a role. You're not witnessing the degradation of real people, you're witnessing the degradation of characters in a movie. It's important to know this before being blindsided by it and thinking it is normal. You don't complain about the emotional violence in The Godfather, do you?

The exception to the above is amateur porn, but in this case (as long as you're finding it on a reputable and law-abiding site like PornHub or Reddit and aren't going to the illegal and malware-ridden dark web sites and this is also why education is so important) the participants have consented to the recording and distribution of the videos.

You are on your own.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

There's a discussion to be had over whether the broader idea that Hosts Basically Aren't That Responsible For Uploaded Content is worth it (for various kinds of 'it') but the entire landscape would indeed be different without that; for one thing there would be essentially no large content hosts as
there's no economical way to proactively moderate all user generated content.
...snip...

That's a lie they tell us. These companies make billions upon billions, Facebook alone in 2024 made $62.3 billion, they could afford to do such moderation, it may reduce their profits to just a billion or so but it would be entirely possible for them to have a very profitable business and proactively moderate.

 

[arthwollipot]

You are on your own.

No I'm not.

I do. Because they are.

 

[Poem]

No I'm not.

Just one then - and nothing from you that counters the FTC charge.

 

[Poem]

That's a lie they tell us. These companies make billions upon billions, Facebook alone in 2024 made $62.3 billion, they could afford to do such moderation, it may reduce their profits to just a billion or so but it would be entirely possible for them to have a very profitable business and proactively moderate.

Meta not FB alone.

 

[acbytesla]

What is it that poem thinks he has proved? Certainly not that poem has proved anything. That social media has had a history of not moderating content? To a certain degree, that is correct. But he has still miserably failed to demonstrate that viewing porn is damaging to the viewer.

 

[Lithrael]

That Act, among other things, prohibits companies from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts and practices.

Yes, I did read that, and I'm still thrown. Do they describe it as 'unfair business practices' if a businessman murders a competitor? I mean it's unfair, sure!! But I would expect the charge to be breaking the law against murder rather than breaking the law against unfair business practices. Sure it's only incredulity but I find it hard to understand that failing to take down CSAM etc is punished under 'unfair business practices.'

The question remains: are Pornhub (Aylo if you like) reputable and law-abiding?

It's a rare company that follows regulations out of the goodness of its heart (companies don't have those). If they're not complying then the laws need to be more aggressively enforced. I'm 100% on board with that.

I want them to HAVE TO be law abiding to be allowed to operate.

(...) it may reduce their profits to just a billion or so but it would be entirely possible for them to have a very profitable business and proactively moderate.

True, I guess I meant in the 'company line' sense (this will ruin us!! while clutching piles of money). Still far more 'no! our money!' than 'we are too addicted to porn to want to do anything about this.'

But honestly either way the problem is how deferential everybody has got towards businesses. (Oh my GOD!! MORE regulations?!?!! Do you HATE when honest hard working companies MAKE MONEY?!?! Are you COMMIES?!?! while sliding lawmakers lobbying money, etc.)

 

[arthwollipot]

What is it that poem thinks he has proved? Certainly not that poem has proved anything. That social media has had a history of not moderating content? To a certain degree, that is correct. But he has still miserably failed to demonstrate that viewing porn is damaging to the viewer.

Let alone that viewing completely legal porn is damaging to the adult viewer.

 

[acbytesla]

Let alone that viewing completely legal porn is damaging to the adult viewer.

From my perspective, people/poem have been brought up that sex is bad. And that porn not only depicts people having sex, it normalizes it. This is antithetical to the Abrahamic religions. So it must be stopped. Porn, like science is a threat to religion's power over humanity. And we can't have that.

 

[arthwollipot]

From my perspective, people/poem have been brought up that sex is bad. And that porn not only depicts people having sex, it normalizes it. This is antithetical to the Abrahamic religions. So it must be stopped. Porn, like science is a threat to religion's power over humanity. And we can't have that.

It's certainly an ideologically moralistic argument, but I'm not going to speculate on Poem's religious views as it would serve no purpose. Also, not all of Christianity is anti-sex. They just want to restrict it to being between a married husband and wife, at worst only for the purposes of procreation. As long as the person you are having sex with is your spouse, most Christians are all for it.

Poem's argument takes the most boring form - find the worst and pretend that it is representative of the whole. Like saying that the Branch Davidians were harming people so all of Christianity should be banned. You can find mountains of evidence for the harm caused by that particular sect, but none of it is evidence that Christianity as a whole harms people. It's a false generalisation based on cherry picking the worst examples.

 

[acbytesla]

It's certainly an ideologically moralistic argument, but I'm not going to speculate on Poem's religious views as it would serve no purpose. Also, not all of Christianity is anti-sex. They just want to restrict it to being between a married husband and wife, at worst only for the purposes of procreation. As long as the person you are having sex with is your spouse, most Christians are all for it.

Poem's argument takes the most boring form - find the worst and pretend that it is representative of the whole. Like saying that the Branch Davidians were harming people so all of Christianity should be banned. You can find mountains of evidence for the harm caused by that particular sect, but none of it is evidence that Christianity as a whole harms people. It's a false generalisation based on cherry picking the worst examples.

The Christian church taught for most of 2000 years that sex was for procreation. Not for pleasure Has this moderated over the centuries? Absolutely. Whether Poem or anyone belongs to one of the Abrahamic religions, it doesn't diminish the socialization effects that the religion has had on attitudes towards sex.

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh, absolutely. But you also have to look at the church's stated attitude towards sex, and the behaviour of certain prominent members of it. They preach, but they do not practice.

 

[Poem]

Poem's argument takes the most boring form - find the worst and pretend that it is representative of the whole. Like saying that the Branch Davidians were harming people so all of Christianity should be banned. You can find mountains of evidence for the harm caused by that particular sect, but none of it is evidence that Christianity as a whole harms people. It's a false generalisation based on cherry picking the worst examples.

You have said as much before and I addressed it. Pornhub is just about the most popular porn site there is (12 billion visits in January 2024 for example) - so not your false analogy of the Branch Davidians or your previous reference to the Westboro Baptists.

Pornhub (or Aylo who own them) are morally bankrupt aren't they? They should face crippling financial liabilities shouldn't they?

And who propagated and continues to propagate them?