[HN Gopher] Inside Pornhub
___________________________________________________________________
Inside Pornhub
Author : basisword
Score : 125 points
Date : 2022-02-23 14:26 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Don;t take legal advice from someone online who cannot even spell
| correctly. I am not your lawyer. I will never be your lawyer.
|
| Back when I practiced I had several clients come to me with the
| same story: My daughter is at home crying because she got drunk
| at a party and now there is a topless photo of her on
| facebook/youtube/email etc. We had the image taken down but it
| keeps popping back up in reverse-image searches. To these clients
| I offer two scenarios:
|
| (1) Pamela Anderson's approach: Sue the internet. Bring lawsuits
| against every platform where you find the picture. Everyone in
| town will hear about this. It might make the news. You daughter
| will probably change schools. She will likely have to testify or
| record a statement describing the impact the sharing of these
| images have had on her. She will need to talk to the police at
| least once, perhaps many times. For the next several years her
| life will be interrupted by this issue again and again. It will
| define her life as a teenager.
|
| (2) The "what's best for my daughter" approach: Only go after
| those incidents where her name is attached. I, your lawyer, send
| a note to the platform and they remove the image. If necessary we
| get the boy who took the picture to sign over copyright and I get
| the image added to the platform content management engines. It
| might be uploaded again it but won't be associated with your
| daughter's name. Your daughter never has to involve herself with
| this again. Unless she is trolling deep in amateur porn forums
| she will likely never see the image. It will be lost into the
| constant churn of a thousand other images uploaded every day. Net
| result: It will not define her life.
|
| (Yes, this might well be an illegal image of an underage person,
| but enforcing that law isn't the responsibility of the victim or
| her family. Once it is reported to authorities the victim is
| under no obligation to hunt down copies all over the internet.)
| tasha0663 wrote:
| > enforcing that law isn't the responsibility of the victim or
| her family
|
| IANAL, so I might be mistaken, but isn't the law in some places
| "if you see it, it is illegal for _you_ not to report it "?
|
| (EDIT: specifically when it comes to CSAM, that is)
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Indeed, but you have to see it. You are not obligated to go
| looking for it. If you don't look for it you don't see it.
| Even if you do find it again, no prosecutor would ever dare
| think of bringing charges on a _victim_ for not reporting her
| discovery of such images days /weeks/years down the line.
|
| But things can go very very wrong whenever kids talk to cops.
| The story they tell their parents might not be totally
| accurate. (ie it wasn't some boy. She in fact uploading the
| image herself.) Tell a false story to a cop and horrible
| situations can happen very quickly. Scenario B above avoids
| this by limiting police involvement.
| sharken wrote:
| As a layman i have no experience in the matter, but the
| advice about not involving the police seems like good
| advice.
|
| It's not hard to imagine as you state, that the police is
| an unknown risk that it's best to avoid in these cases.
| [deleted]
| kevincox wrote:
| There is a huge difference between seeing it and hunting it.
| asteroidp wrote:
| You never ever have to have the ianal disclaimer on the
| internet
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| That person's disclaimer is not ianal, it's ianyl. Big
| difference.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I am not a superintelligent shade of the colour blue.
| vasco wrote:
| It's 2022 and people still don't know that on the internet
| nobody knows you're a dog. These disclaimers always make me
| chuckle. I bet the amount of people successfully sued for
| giving advice on the internet is zero.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Possibly. It's pretty ridiculous what some
| courts/prosecutors consider "practicing law without a
| license".
|
| For example, I was told by a judge that just if I help my
| wife fill out an appeal form, or if a real estate agent
| explains about a sale contract, that _could_ be considered
| practicing law without a license. Frankly, that judge
| seemed like he was either an idiot or corrupt /biased based
| on some other stuff he did too.
| ameminator wrote:
| You'd be surprised to know that I may or may not be the
| world's first intelligent toaster.
| mbot5324 wrote:
| > world's first intelligent toaster
|
| At long last! I've been waiting for your emergence!
| ben_w wrote:
| Eh, not so much. If Foone can run Doom on a pregnancy
| test, I'm sure someone can run GPT-3 on a toaster.
| mcronce wrote:
| Hell, I bet the number of people who have even had a
| lawsuit successfully _filed_ for advice on the Internet is
| very very small. A potential plaintiff would need contact
| info, for starters...
| lkbm wrote:
| If you _are_ a lawyer, you need to say "this is not legal
| advice".
|
| IIRC, in the US, if you're a lawyer and someone "reasonably"
| believes you're giving them actual legal council, regardless
| of your intent, I'm pretty sure you're culpable (for lack of
| a better word).
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| There's a 3rd option here:
|
| Make it the boy's responsibility to hunt down the picture. He,
| after all, is the one who produced non-consensual underage
| material and knowingly distributed it. He can make sure stuff
| is taken care of or get registered as a sex offender and have
| to go to court where he might win, or not.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Ah, the answer is to "make" the other child remove the images
| from the internet. I suppose if you "make" him do it hard
| enough it somehow becomes less impossible?
| rovr138 wrote:
| If it's not done by him, how is forcing him to do that not
| slavery?
| klyrs wrote:
| "Clean up the mess you made or we'll take this to court" is
| bargaining, not slavery.
| samhw wrote:
| _Slavery?_ Really? Out of interest, do you use this brain
| in your day-to-day working life, or is it just a weekend
| runabout?
| ShockTohp wrote:
| Maybe all those anti-porn "extremists" have a point.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| We don't allow driving without a seatbelt in most states. We
| have rules saying you must be 21 with ID to purchase alcohol.
| We ban minors from purchasing firearms. Giving drugs to a child
| will see you behind bars for a very long time.
|
| But heaven forbid that we regulate porn even though it has been
| scientifically shown to have effects similar to meth in
| addictiveness in the brain and has caused erectile dysfunction
| diagnosis to explode. It's not extremist to say, considering
| the above, it needs to be controlled and potentially even
| banned.
|
| Also, the article is the story of a former porn moderator. _Of
| course_ he would classify anyone opposed to the industry he
| worked in and anyone who wants to hold him accountable as
| extremist.
| [deleted]
| tmp65535 wrote:
| Be careful working in this field (pornography). In 2017 I wrote a
| mildly pornographic app (http://driftwheeler.com) and it appears
| on my resume. When hiring managers or recruiters take a look,
| some of them get upset.
|
| For example, a scheduled interview was abruptly cancelled the
| night before. I pursued the matter through a friend who had a
| senior role at the hiring company and it was determined that the
| (middle-aged female) in-house recruiter had been deeply offended
| when she followed the link on my resume and had cancelled
| everything. Eventually, I received a sincere apology from the
| CEO.
|
| There is a real stigma, and it will affect you. Beware.
| slingnow wrote:
| You realize you have full control over your resume, right?
|
| "It appears on my resume" makes it sound like some other
| controlling entity has put it on your resume, so that it now
| just appears there as a matter of fact.
|
| What an odd statement to make.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| "Don't link to NSFW content on your resume" seems like a
| common-sense rule that's applicable independently of whether
| you worked in the porn industry or not.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| For real, just take it off the resume after the first non-
| positive reaction.
|
| Pro tip: Your resume is your greatest hits album, not an
| encyclopedia entry on you.
| wldcordeiro wrote:
| Maybe they did good work and felt proud of it and thought
| the hiring managers could look past the content of the
| product of the company and look at the real work needed to
| deliver that product.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Unfortunately, here on planet earth, people are not
| always reasonable, logical, or act in their best
| interests.
|
| We must calibrate our messaging to have the intended
| effect. If what you're putting out isn't being received
| as intended, modulate the signal.
| toyg wrote:
| TBF, that calculation is only necessary in some
| circumstances.
|
| Want to get into FAANG? Corporate HR is dominated by
| women, better clean up your act.
|
| Wanna get hired by the hot bro-startup to be single-
| digit-employee? No purge necessary - if anything, those
| blue entries will score more points.
| sdoering wrote:
| Exactly. That is why such a entry in your resume works
| like a great filter.
|
| If I had worked in NSFW and an application would get
| rejected because of that I would sincerely thank my
| former job for saving me a job in an environment I would
| not want to touch with a ten foot pole.
|
| If people in (even small power) like HR drones abuse
| their position as to flag a resume because of such a
| former experience I doubt there is a company culture of
| honesty, openness, respect or value of the individual.
|
| To me personally a great filter to have.
|
| If one is desperately in need of a job. OK - remove it
| and try to jump ship once secured in the current place.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| A great non-obvious take. I like it.
| wldcordeiro wrote:
| Good summary of my thoughts on this, thanks for jumping!
| tshaddox wrote:
| There's a big difference between surprising someone by
| leading them to a website that immediate shows NSFW content
| and putting on your resume that you previously worked for a
| company that published NSFW content. The latter absolutely
| should not be considered "NSFW" and shouldn't be considered a
| red flag by a potential employer.
| amelius wrote:
| Even less applicable if you didn't work in the industry.
| nefitty wrote:
| Seriously. All he had to do was make a SFW version for his
| resume if he was so keen on showing off the work. Use
| pictures of smurfs and puppies.
|
| I might unfairly be making assumptions about how
| technically feasible the change would be. If it would be
| difficult to do so, I'd be interested to learn how/why, eg
| was it a system design choice or is it inherent to the tech
| itself...
| brailsafe wrote:
| It's probably true that most work worth keeping on a
| resume, after some experience, is going to be non-trivial
| to replicate at best, and awkward to lie about/dance
| around in explaining purely to accommodate the
| sensitivities of adults who should chill out. I've worked
| mostly for companies I wasn't fired from, and it'd be
| great to avoid talking about the experience directly.
| Could I re-create the frontend interface for massive
| auction company? Maybe, but it would take a large amount
| of extremely unsatisfactory work. Could I recreate the
| database, backend infrastructure, and conditions that
| really made the work hard? No
| potentialporner wrote:
| > There is a real stigma, and it will affect you. Beware.
|
| Small anecdote, but I was recruited by and almost took an offer
| for the folks behind "BangBros." Their corporate structure was
| apparently such that the IT / Software roles worked for a shell
| company with a generic name, generic website, etc. This company
| apparently works in a "consulting" like capacity for all of
| their assets (BangBros, "tube" sites, cam sites, etc.)
|
| I asked what was going on with the shell company, because it
| seemed sketchy as all hell. It was explained that because of
| industry stigma most of their employees use the shell company
| for their resume with generic "worked on highly-scalable
| systems handling N amount of traffic."
|
| Apparently it was a highly professional outfit, and the closest
| you could get to dealing with FANG-level problems while not
| being a FANG-eligible person. Great pay and benefits, business
| casual dress located in a nice building in Miami Beach.
| toyg wrote:
| Same sort of arrangement, I casually discovered, is often in
| play for gambling sites (pun intended). Because the overall
| outfit can be seen as questionable (occasionally by accident:
| gambling regulations change very often, so what is legal
| today might well be illegal tomorrow), the technical side is
| kept at arm's length, so that they can still attract good
| talent.
| PKop wrote:
| Or just don't create pornographic apps. The stigma is good.
| It's perfectly normal and natural to have a disgust reaction at
| pornography and those who produce it.
|
| It's not healthy and contributes to the psychological and
| social degradation of both the creators and the people
| consuming it. At a societal level it should not be glorified or
| respected, but rather shamed.
| [deleted]
| twiclo wrote:
| Johanx64 wrote:
| Porn is a tool. It's a tool that enables men to disable
| their sex drive... for a set amount of time.
|
| What most people don't realize is how awfully strong the
| sex drive is and can get given time... since they never let
| it get to that point.
|
| And I'm saying this after 6weeks of complete abstinence.
|
| It's utterly distracting and frustrating, making it
| extremely hard to focus and get any work done.
|
| Rubbed one out and I can finally focus again and do some
| quality programming work.
|
| Should have rubbed one out way sooner than that. The amount
| of actual work I've missed out due to this is not
| negligible.
| not1ofU wrote:
| do you NEED porn to rub one out? It might be quicker to
| go that route, but the answer is, you don't (or at least
| shouldn't).
| Johanx64 wrote:
| Obviously porn is not a necessity to rub one out,
| especially if you're really, really horny. As I was.
|
| However, being in that really horny frame of mind, you
| really dont want to jerk off at all, or even watch porn
| frankly - that is not what you want at all. You want to
| fuck a woman in the most direct-est animalistic raw kind
| of way.
|
| I wouldn't have rubbed one out without porn, it wouldn't
| have happened.
|
| Instead you do stupid shit, like start texting all your
| EX-es, or going on dates with woman you don't really even
| like or consider booking a prostitutes and all sorts of
| fucked up stuff...
|
| Being horny, really horny is a trip, an altered state of
| mind is what i'm going to say.
|
| Porn very effectively brings you back to earth and
| disables biological imperatives in a quick and enjoyable
| way (hell, it's not even particularly enjoyable after an
| extended long abstinence, since it's is waaay to
| intense).
|
| Porn is definitely easy to abuse for some people, but it
| doesn't mean it's all bad, it is extremely useful tool.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| If I'm working on something _interesting_ , something of
| real tangible value, it's very easy to tune out
| _everything_ --noise, headache, hunger, hornyness. When
| I'm grinding out corporate stuff to pay the bills, it's
| another story. I think our impulses are bursting with
| wisdom. If the work loses out to the sex drive, how
| meaningful was the work in the first place?
| Johanx64 wrote:
| If sex hasn't taken over pretty much everything else in
| the list of priorities, it just means that you haven't
| gotten horny enough.
|
| There a whole wide spectrum between "I'm kind of horny",
| "I think i'm pretty darn horny" and actually full-blast
| horny.
|
| In due time, sex will move up to no1 spot in the list of
| priorities.
|
| And if doesn't, then you're either old (or getting there)
| or perhaps never had a particularly strong sex-drive to
| begin with.
|
| Sex-drive is just an insanely powerful force in men, most
| men have experienced but only a small sliver of how
| powerful it can get, since they never let it get there,
| because porn is always there and easily accessible, and
| you can just rub one out without porn too.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| > sex-drive is just an insanely powerful force
|
| So is hunger. So is survival. I don't think you
| understand what I have written. If your instincts are
| putting sex at the top of the list, maybe it's time to
| have sex, with a real person, instead of muting your
| instincts with soma so you can earn more fiats?
| sofixa wrote:
| How is pornography destroying America? And why only America
| and not also Canada or the UK?
| twiclo wrote:
| I would assume it's affecting most countries with high
| speed internet. I just chose not to opine on those
| countries since I don't live in them and am less
| informed. You can view this comment I made for why porn
| is dangerous:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30443056
| dogleash wrote:
| I'd be all for stigmatization if the ranking wasn't
| absolutely bonkers. Between advertising and porn, advertising
| is worse for the collected psyche. It is a constant onslaught
| that tells everyone to want, and never relents. Porn can be
| avoided approximately 10,000 times more easily than
| advertising.
| twiclo wrote:
| Porn is almost as unavoidable as ads, especially for kids.
| We know the average age of a boy viewing porn is 11 (1)and
| that virtually all of them will see porn by 15(2). Of porn
| viewing done by minors 22% are done by children under 10
| (3). Porn has also been proven to have significantly more
| impact over your brain than advertising. The dopamine
| response to seeing porn is similar to crack (4). You can't
| get addicted to ads. Pornography is categorically more
| dangerous to society than ads, tracking, and privacy
| invasions.
|
| 1: https://youthfirstinc.org/pornography-viewing-starts-as-
| earl...
|
| 2: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1753-64
| 05.1...
|
| 3: https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/bjsn.2
| 017....
|
| 4: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11058476/
| joconde wrote:
| > Porn is almost as unavoidable as ads
|
| Where are these ads? I never see pornographic ads in my
| daily browsing.
|
| > The dopamine response to seeing porn is similar to
| crack (4).
|
| That doesn't prove anything about harmfulness. I think it
| was already obvious that humans are hardwired to be
| attracted to sex. Nothing in these links suggests that
| this response creates to an addiction similar to hard
| drugs.
|
| > Pornography is categorically more dangerous to society
| than ads, tracking, and privacy invasions.
|
| I don't accept that based on your sources.
| jasfi wrote:
| He was making a point about the proliferation of porn.
| It's not so bad if your settings turn off NSFW on various
| sites. However even then, it's often in your face. I
| won't go into details though.
|
| Porn isn't sex. The repeated exposure to a huge volume of
| media can't be compared to a physical experience. It's
| more comparable to a drug.
|
| The ultimate list of the effects of porn on the brain:
| https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-
| articl...
| tshaddox wrote:
| That seems like equivocation on the word "unavoidable."
| There's a big difference between saying "ads are
| unavoidable because they are displayed on nearly every
| computing device you use" and "porn is unavoidable
| because people actively want to see it."
| ipaddr wrote:
| The age has risen since I was younger.
|
| Porn mags where everywhere from corner stores, barber
| shops and some doctor offices. If you never saw porn by 8
| you might be considered legally blind.
| sofixa wrote:
| Oh wow! May i inquire about your age and location of living?
| That sort of view is considered wildly obsolete in my
| circles, so I'm curious.
| PKop wrote:
| Midwest US, mid 30's. This sort of view is strongly held by
| the intellectual and political circles I support and
| follow. I think it is a very insidious and corrupting
| addiction, and the modern incarnation of it is orders of
| magnitude more stimulating than in prior eras. Infinite
| access to a stimulus that simulates in male brains "mating"
| with ever varied women, which is hijacking a strong
| biological imperative.
|
| As another comment mentioned a similar problem with
| "advertising" in general, I think sexualization and over
| stimulus of the population weakens people, and not to say
| there is some conspiracy purposefully pushing this (it may
| just emergent from technology and human instinct) I do
| think the corrupting influence weakens a population and
| makes them more easily dominated by strong forces... media,
| business, government, etc. All to say that, in terms of
| "what is best to cultivate a strong society and people"
| porn is extremely antithetical to this. A stronger society
| is one that would be avoiding, however necessary,
| consumption and production of pornography.
|
| This presentation [0] on the physiological effects of porn
| consumption is very informative. Observations mirror what
| strong opiates do to the brain
|
| A good overview of the public health problem of porn[1]
|
| The psychologically destabilizing and weakening effects of
| porn, and how they breakdown willpower to oppose stronger
| forces are illustrated by the time when the Israeli
| military broadcast pornography onto the televisions of
| Palestinian residents of the besieged West Bank town of
| Ramallah [2]. Why would they do this if porn was good for
| you?
|
| [0] "The great porn experiment | Gary Wilson | TEDxGlasgow"
| https://youtu.be/wSF82AwSDiU
|
| [1] https://eppc.org/publication/a-science-based-case-for-
| ending...
|
| [2] https://reason.com/2002/04/03/porn-and-politics-in-
| palestine...
| ipaddr wrote:
| Do you remember porn mags in the corner store growing up?
| PKop wrote:
| Yes, they weren't a good thing but even those were taboo
| and fairly inaccessible to the average kid and came with
| a stigma for the adults buying them in public.
|
| Do you not see how the infinite novelty of endless porn
| videos accessible in the palm of your hand is different
| than the (crude and still objectionable) magazines sold
| in corner stores?
| sdoering wrote:
| Oh wow. I am blown away. You just threw me back some 30
| years.
|
| Let me explain. About three decades ago I was (gladly not
| to strongly) part of a Christian youth group. Led by
| honorable members of the parish. They condemned porn,
| Sex, condemned schools doing sex ed. The condemned
| viciously youth magazines doing sex ed as well (German
| Bravo magazine).
|
| Kids naturally discovered their budding sexuality. Looked
| at porn or nudism magazines. Tried maturation (oh what a
| sin in the eyes of the elders). As said everything
| sexusl, everything bodily was tabu.
|
| Kids, especially in the inner part of these groups with
| parents active in the parish were fearful. Full of shame
| because they felt their bodies betraying them and their
| faith. Felt the touch of Satan. Felt dirty and without
| being worthy.
|
| You (or at least others) might get the drift.
|
| And - more importantly - these kids (boys and girls
| alike) were vulnerable. And believe me - easy prey. And
| prey they were. The most respected members of the flock,
| leaders of youth groups and excursions who prayed with us
| and always told us that we could always come to them with
| any question about our faith and life in general. These
| were the wolves. Males as well as females. They longed
| for the confessions. Let the kids show what they had
| done. Wanted to see in detail. Some even went further.
| Did not constraint themselves to confessions and private
| shows of underage maturation.
|
| So yeah I learned early that porn is to blame for a
| rotten society. Porn is the culprit. Not people.
|
| Sorry, but what you wrote is nearly verbatim the
| arguments that were hammered into us.
|
| I don't buy them. Not anymore.
| PKop wrote:
| Porn is not sexual, it is anti-sexual. Young adults are
| having less sex than prior generations. The birth rate is
| collapsing. To equate compulsive consumption of a
| synthetic substitute for real sex and the natural reason
| for its existence is ridiculous.
|
| Like equating criticizing unhealthy eating of candy and
| junk food to an opposition to "food" would be similar.
| drekipus wrote:
| this is a long winded approach to saying you enjoy
| wacking off. just admit it bro
| octopoc wrote:
| Thank you for this! This is something that is really
| really important to me and my wife. We have seen some
| horrible consequences in our parents' generation from
| porn addictions. I also had an addiction to it, but
| thankfully I am free now. My biggest desire as a father
| is that my children would grow up addiction free. Boys
| are exposed to porn when they are simply unable to
| understand what it is, what sex is, and what the price of
| the short-term pleasure is. I know I was. I hate what
| happened to me, I hate what I did, but I felt like I had
| to do it.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| The parent is quoting a short article about porn in
| Israel from a questionable source with a questionable
| amount of facts in it.
|
| And they have been quoting it in a few threads in this
| conversations.
| ipaddr wrote:
| That's not a healthy opinion or reaction. Shaming the naked
| body is wrong.
| PKop wrote:
| It is shaming the abuse of a naked body, and the mind that
| goes with it. I have more respect for the beauty of the
| naked body than do porn producers and consumers. Real
| meaningful sex is respect for the naked body, porn is a
| poor, pathetic, addictive, mind altering and weakening
| synthetic substitute. Get it?
| leppr wrote:
| Your view seems based on over-generalization. It's fine
| to think "most porn is disrespectful", but that shouldn't
| lead you to conclude all porn should suffer from
| repressive laws or social norms.
| [deleted]
| _bax wrote:
| Pecunia not olet..
| theideaofcoffee wrote:
| I'll echo a sub post on this and say, with a most gentle: fuck.
| that. I consider it a positive signal that I would be rejected
| for some of my past work in adult. It shortcuts the whole
| you're-interviewing-them portion of the recruiting process.
| They've done my work for me. In the past, my involvement in the
| area has proven to be an interesting facet of my work history
| that others don't have, often resulting in interviews just out
| of curiosity on their end. Did I receive offers on all of them?
| No, and I don't care either and that's not the point.
|
| My point is that I'm not going to censor myself or my
| background in anticipation of someone being offended. Let them
| be offended, there's lots of other places where that isn't a
| problem.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| That is fine if you don't mind loosing out on some
| opportunities because a very religious recruiting coordinator
| 6 months out of college making 45K per year decides your
| profile is icky.
|
| It's probably not the CTO, your direct manager, or even any
| of your peer that would be offended. Anyone in the long chain
| of people that are involved in your process from applicant to
| employee could cause a stink.
|
| It's difficult to say one employees who might filter you out
| is indicative of the entire company culture. I know a lot of
| happy employees who absolutely hated their experience being
| onboarded because of 1 or 2 difficult people. But who gives a
| shit about how Michael from HR took 9 days to send an
| official offer letter if you're never going to have to
| interact with them again?
| latchkey wrote:
| F' that. I worked for Kink.com (NSFW) (as a software engineer)
| and I'm proud of it. I got experience building cutting edge,
| high demand systems and services that I wouldn't have gotten
| elsewhere. We did realtime 1080p streaming video before anyone
| else and a full micro currency (Kinks). I even built a whole ad
| serving system that served banners from sites like PornHub (so
| I got a taste of the traffic levels they had).
|
| If that held me back from getting a job at some puritanical
| company, so be it. I wouldn't have wanted to work there any
| way.
| twiclo wrote:
| claytongulick wrote:
| That seems like a purposefully inflammatory and reductivist
| response to a sincere post about technical experience.
|
| Perhaps you should evaluate whether your post adds to the
| conversation, or is intended to be a character attack on
| the GP.
| twiclo wrote:
| dang wrote:
| You broke the site guidelines badly in this thread. We
| ban accounts that do that. If you'd please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and
| stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
| latchkey wrote:
| It is funny, they describe it below as a character
| attack, but I don't even take it as that. Their quote is
| spot on and correct. Yes, I happily missed out on jobs to
| work on cool things like porn streaming.
|
| I certainly could have gone to work for Facebook or some
| other FAANG, but given the choice of selling my soul for
| porn or selling my soul to Mark and FB... I'd pick porn
| any day. It was a great job. Full benefits, matching
| 401k, like minded coworkers, interesting and challenging
| use cases, best after work parties, etc.
|
| I wonder where twiclo works...
| cookieswumchorr wrote:
| given the overall favourable situation on the IT job market,
| maybe it's not bad to have a filter against having to work with
| hypocrites?
| crtasm wrote:
| I'm not supporting their decision but what about it was
| hypocritical?
| sdoering wrote:
| If HR passed on them because 'porn' they either abused
| their position or gave a clear signal about company
| culture. They need to find someone that fits. In terms of
| skills and team fit/professionalism.
|
| Either the company values prude/neoconservative value
| signaling (the at least I wouldn't want to work there and
| they should openly tell people what ideology is expected)
| or the HR person abused their position and did not do their
| job in finding someone that fits the skill set and role.
|
| Either way is hypocritical in my book.
| caeril wrote:
| The hiring process is determining who is a good fit for whom,
| both skills-wise, and other-wise. What if they never followed
| the link, and you had been hired, and you ended up working with
| a team of people who were culturally incompatible with you?
|
| This falls into the same category as "be careful having
| opinions in public". Ever since we've been easily Googlable,
| right-wing employers have canceled left-wing candidates and
| very much vice-versa (e.g. Antonio Garcia Martinez and Apple).
| There's been some degree of outcry and stink about this, but in
| the end it's probably a net good for employees to work with
| teams they are culturally aligned with. Getting cut early on
| account of what you believe or what else you worked on is
| probably best for everyone involved.
|
| Would you like to be able to enjoy a beer with your coworkers
| or not?
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| This neopuritanism is awful. I thought we already left it
| behind, but looks like it's returning full force.
| alkaloid wrote:
| Is it though?
|
| The article specifically talks about people's lives being
| ruined by sites like this.
|
| Plenty of feminists are anti-porn, and are not right wing nor
| "puritan" in the least.
| cookieswumchorr wrote:
| who said puritanism has to be right-wing. It's also not
| necessarily about sexuality. It's about putting up a set of
| idealistic moral standards and trying to force everybody to
| comply or pretend to comply.
| alkaloid wrote:
| I mean, pretty much everyone associates puritanism with
| the right-wing, but ok my bad...
|
| We put up sets of idealistic moral standards that some or
| most of a society generally agree protects vulnerable
| people. This is why we have age limits on alcohol, for
| example. This is why we have age limits on porn, too.
|
| Everyone is forced to comply or pretend to comply with
| minimum drinking ages, which are pretty common throughout
| the world. I think all would agree.
|
| It doesn't really seem to be puritanism that drives a
| society to protect its vulnerable populations. It's not
| out of a hatred of alcohol that drinking ages exist, it's
| because alcohol abuse has been proven to ruin lives. Just
| like porn.
| haliskerbas wrote:
| Have you heard "family-values" being touted by media
| correspondents as an excuse for everything.
| nix23 wrote:
| Just think where Wikipedia would be without the porn
| industry...and VR-"Gaming" ;-)
|
| Porn and advertising is the driving force of the Internet.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| This is a soundbite falsehood. The military industrial
| complex is the driving force of the internet and all things
| computing. Porn is just another monetization.
| nix23 wrote:
| >The military industrial complex is the driving force of
| the internet and all things computing.
|
| Was the initial force...but since we call it "internet"
| and "personal computers" instead of "mainframe" and
| "arpanet" not anymore.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| If you closely study Twitter's actions (How did that Arab
| Spring turn out for everybody?), or read about the InQtel
| origins of google (Assange's "Google Is Not What It
| Seems"), or how the Israelis blasted the Palestinians
| with porn during a siege (the OnlyFans economy!), you
| will see that it is still very much a weapon.
|
| Of the actual innovations in this field, how many came
| from defense (DOD, CIA, NSA, ARPA, & their contractors),
| and how many came from pornography?
| nix23 wrote:
| I never said secret-services...governments etc have
| nothing to-do with the Internet, and it would be stupid
| not to use it for psyop's, but the money comes from
| private sectors and not the "military" anymore.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| What innovation in computing, hardware or software, has
| the porn industry made?
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Back in the day, RedTube had incredibly high quality, low
| bandwidth video compared to YouTube (which at that stage
| had been owned by Google for a couple of years). They
| also had mouse-over previews on the seek bar years before
| anywhere else did.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Regardless of whether the woman in question is a neopuritan -
|
| I am not offended by OPs app, nor the display of a woman's
| breasts or genitalia. But I would greatly question what kind
| of employee OP would be if they're putting their jerk-off
| apps on their resume. If OP lacks the basic social awareness
| to not cause steam to come out the ears of the large percent
| of society that might be deemed neopuritan, then I have to
| suspect OP is lacking in social awareness that is going to
| affect their/coworkers performance in the office.
|
| If I had written an app like that, and wanted to use it as a
| demo of my knowledge in some field on my resume, I would
| reimplement it to work on puppies or something.
| ss108 wrote:
| "mildly pornographic"
|
| Demo video literally depicts naked chicks. Sure, it's soft
| porn, but it's fully pornographic lol
| crtasm wrote:
| indeed. perhaps they forgot about all the closeup photos of
| genitalia in the demos!
| exolymph wrote:
| Absent some mitigating context, I would also conclude that
| something is wrong with you for putting NSFW content on your
| resume. The issue here is mainly what you're telegraphing about
| your grasp of social norms.
| BeefWellington wrote:
| This is an interesting follow up to the morality discussion
| earlier in the week.[1]
|
| It really does seem as though you'd wind up defending or turning
| a blind eye to a lot of shady practices for a paycheck working
| for companies like this.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30436189
| prirun wrote:
| From the article:
|
| "I often encountered videos that were uploaded again and again,
| no matter how many times I removed them. One day, a woman emailed
| me, calmly explained that her ex-boyfriend had uploaded a video
| of them having sex, and asked me to remove it. I deleted the
| clip. Later that week, it was re-uploaded. The woman wrote again,
| I removed it, and this continued for months; I must have pulled
| the same video down a dozen times. This was before I had ever
| heard the term "revenge porn."
|
| Requests like this were not uncommon. Once, a woman wrote to say
| there was a video of her on Tube8 that showed her being sexually
| assaulted after someone spiked her drink at a party. The video
| had tens of thousands of views, so I had to review it before
| making the call to remove it. In the clip, the woman is clearly
| high, laughing and head lolling, having sex on a bed surrounded
| by fully dressed people holding drinks and watching as colored
| lights flashed and music blared in the background. I took it
| down, but it was uploaded again repeatedly in the following
| months. Each time, the mortified woman flagged it, and each time,
| I removed it; both of us were aware that there was nothing we
| could do to stop the clip from resurfacing."
|
| I have read the same thing from Facebook content moderators. They
| got so frustrated at having to watch and take down the same
| videos over and over.
|
| This seems to be such a simple problem to solve: record a hash of
| the video file, don't allow uploading it again. That would
| probably get rid of most re-posting.
|
| It could be bypassed by modifying the file slightly, but the
| hashing could also get more sophisticated. At some point, an ex-
| boyfriend is not likely to want to keep modifying a video to piss
| off his ex.
| boneitis wrote:
| I've always been interested in the technical problems in the
| adult entertainment industry, so I tend to read all the porn-
| related submissions here.
|
| Along with the quoted passage in the parent post, I think
| adding a couple more for TLDR will do justice in relaying much
| of the author's intended conveyance of sentiment/sorrows (note
| the original headline's mention of `moderation problems`):
|
| ```
|
| When you work at a company that is doing well, that showers
| employees with generous pay and a sense of belonging, you
| become saturated with the sense that what you're doing is
| right. Even as performers shouted from rooftops that we were
| destroying their livelihoods and people begged us to remove
| videos that showed them in their most intimate moments without
| consent, those negatively impacted [..] were shrugged off as an
| afterthought, unfortunate collateral damage to a great
| undertaking.
|
| [..]
|
| I'd like to think that if I hadn't been "Nate-Tube8" for those
| two years, the women I tried to help perhaps wouldn't have had
| an ally on the other side of the screen to help them regain
| their dignity. But maybe I'm just trying to convince myself I
| was the good guy, despite the fact I was tweeting to promote
| the company in between video takedowns.
|
| ```
| willcipriano wrote:
| I've never used it, but apparently you can hash a image in such
| a way that small changes will result in the same hash. I think
| that is what Apple was doing with it's child abuse filter
| announced earlier this year.
| acchow wrote:
| > I've never used it, but apparently you can hash a image in
| such a way that small changes will result in the same hash
|
| This is equivalent to image recognition. It works ok, but has
| lots of false positives and false negatives.
| mannykannot wrote:
| In a sense, image recognition is like that - multiple
| different images hash to "cat", for example.
|
| For the purpose here, robust hashing seems to be the relevant
| term:
|
| https://www.netclean.com/netclean-report-2019/robust-
| hashing...
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| I don't know if perpetual hashes will work with full videos
| though, and linking the hash to a singular frame seems very
| unreliable, especially considering how randomly lossy video
| compression is
| shakna wrote:
| You're probably thinking of a perceptual hash. [0] It's a
| relatively new field, academically speaking, so only a few
| players dominate, and there is a huge amount of research
| going into it.
|
| There are other techniques for automatic flagging of similar
| files, like PhotoDNA's [1] enormous database - which I
| believe PornHub are already using.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_hashing
|
| [1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/photodna
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| It seems like a natural evolution of PhotoDNA to have this
| content (non consensual adult content) flagged
| programmatically, with a flow for folks to attest to
| content to be fingerprinted and scanned for.
| EnKopVand wrote:
| I think the only real solution to this is going to be once we
| hold platforms accountable for the content they let people
| host.
|
| I know the general HN crowd is very much against this, but it's
| the standard we hold every other media platform and I don't see
| why things should get a free pass just because they pretend to
| be platforms.
| slothtrop wrote:
| This sort of occurred with pornhub. However users just
| migrated elsewhere. So the question is whether any heavy
| legislation is looming that might coerce all platforms to
| employ this type of screening, or if wackamole will
| pointlessly persist.
| csunbird wrote:
| No, I think, in this specific case, there should be a way of
| escalation to the LEO on repeated offenses, providing the
| details of the uploader.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| You are right. If I distribute copyright infringing content
| on a USB stick and sell it, I can look forward to an FBI
| investigation, 5 years in prison, and a fine of $250,000. If
| I write an algorithm to do the exact same thing over the
| internet, and monetize it with ads and subscriptions, I'm in
| the clear--as long as I can afford a staff of wagies to play
| copyright whack-a-mole in a somewhat timely manner.
| ipaddr wrote:
| People sell USB sticks in flea markets all the time. Your
| risk of a 250,000 fine would match your profile (are you
| making 100,000?)
|
| You are more likely to get the fbi over the internet.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| Investigation? Maybe. Punishment? Definitely not. As long
| as my financial benefit isn't "directly attributable,"
| and my takedown procedure is "expeditious," DMCA has me
| covered!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringeme
| nt_...
| 015a wrote:
| I don't feel something to that extreme is necessary.
|
| But I do believe something similarly controversial, which is:
| platforms which host user generated content should be
| required to enforce strong know-your-customer on UGC
| submission. That doesn't mean other users should be able to
| click on my HackerNews profile and see my real name, but at
| minimum the service provider should be required to have that
| information; to map an account back to a real person (though,
| I strongly believe people behave more positively when their
| name is known to everyone they're interacting with; its
| actually a good thing, overwhelmingly but not totally of
| course).
|
| Argument against: right to anonymity. I don't feel this is a
| right any human has ever had in contexts of interpersonal
| communication. Moreover, I don't feel its a desirable right
| to uphold. HackerNews is a public square; anyone is welcome
| to join and talk. But public squares always had an element of
| accountability; I, being human and present in the physical
| plane of existence, had to travel there in person,
| accountable to anyone else there listening, authorities
| patrolling the square, etc. The _only_ examples of anonymity
| in the non-digital are niche; masked protestors, maybe, but
| even that involves physical presence where improper conduct
| could be responded to by authorities unmasking the
| individual. Books published anonymously? Possibly, but...
|
| Here's my strongest argument for it: there will always be
| platforms to express yourself truly anonymously. American law
| is written in absolutes, but is rarely enforced so; speeding
| is illegal, but I speed every day. Piracy is illegal, yet my
| NAS over there has twelve terabytes of totally legitimately
| obtained content. They've gone after the Pirate Bay more
| times than I can count, and its still there, at the same
| domain.
|
| The point is not to build a totalitarian internet with one
| world government user registration; it's to correlate
| accountability with scale. Larger platforms have super-linear
| correlation with their ability to inflict real-world pain on
| their users (and those their users interact with
| nonconsensually). Larger platforms also tend to be built by
| corporations who have a difficult time escaping laws like
| this. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did
| it actually fall? If revenge porn is uploaded to a fly-by-
| night no-name site and no one sees it, was harm created? I'd
| argue Yes; but it's an improvement over our current situation
| of the tree falling and everyone hearing it.
| kodah wrote:
| KYC won't work on anything related to sex work, and most of
| the people uploading videos to these websites are semi-
| professionalized to sex work now. KYC doesn't work because
| sex work is largely illegal in most countries or
| states/provinces.
|
| > The point is not to build a totalitarian internet with
| one world government user registration: it's to correlate
| accountability with scale.
|
| You can already do this with PGP. You'd just need an
| operator/vendor who values confidentiality but also can
| handle the overhead of managing identities from a
| systematic viewpoint.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > KYC doesn't work because sex work is largely illegal in
| most countries or states/provinces.
|
| So, KYC + legalization.
| kodah wrote:
| Good luck getting the latter. America is _very_ prude
| across the entire political ecosystem.
| samhw wrote:
| So, an essentially impossible proposal, which you're
| proposing because ... why?
| FDSGSG wrote:
| > KYC doesn't work because sex work is largely illegal in
| most countries or states/provinces.
|
| There are many forms of sex work, usually only specific
| forms are illegal.
| bilekas wrote:
| > I think the only real solution to this is going to be once
| we hold platforms accountable for the content they let people
| host.
|
| I really don't see this as a solution, it's not going to stop
| the reposts laid out above.
|
| I think reporting the infringing uploader to authorities etc
| would be more appropriate given revenge pr0n is a crime in
| most places. This would act as at least a deterant for some.
|
| The hashing seems like it would filter out at least a few
| more, but there are a lot of patterns that could be picked
| up, audio track recognition, frame counts etc. There are
| better ways than manual intervention on every re-upload.
| gruturo wrote:
| Would you agree to go to jail if a user posts something
| illegal on a forum you run?
|
| No? Fair and reasonable. Neither do I. Now let's ask
| ourselves - would ANYONE reply yes? A bit unlikely? Therefore
| the result is absolutely no more forums/hosting of any kind.
|
| I'm not talking pornhub here - even a cake recipe sharing
| site, a scientific forum, a community of model train
| enthusiasts, Stack Overflow, your MMO guild's site, even HN
| itself... nothing. No Discord, no Slack, obviously no social
| media (which I happen to dislike, but I'm quite firmly in the
| minority, I'm told), nothing at all.
| [deleted]
| georgia_peach wrote:
| A nice consistency test would be to create a "platform" for
| production-ready, revenue-generating source code and data
| sets--using pornhub-style content moderation policies of
| course!--and see what happens.
| samhw wrote:
| This actually made me wince. It's the nerdiest thing to
| say, but this actually made me understand better. (And I
| say this as someone who does have porn of myself on the
| internet - without my consent - but I suppose I'm not the
| sort of person who really cares or gets embarrassed about
| that sort of stuff. I don't have that sense of pudeur. But
| this made me understand how it would feel to be that way.)
| manquer wrote:
| > At some point, an ex-boyfriend is not likely to want to keep
| modifying a video to piss off his ex
|
| It is not only the ex who keeps uploading again and again. Once
| videos get into the wild, you have all sorts of people/bots who
| do this, some just for the kinks, some for money / promoting
| the next pill/crypto whatever spam, some "fans" genuinely
| wouldn't know that the video was made without consent and that
| she is really high, There is so much "situational" or "incest"
| porn out there many cannot differentiate acting high and being
| actually high.
|
| Also lines get blurry, how much of any actual porn (amateur or
| professional) is with real informed consent, do actors really
| know what they are getting into? . How many young OF streamers
| are doing it for small money and it will haunt them later in
| life ?
|
| A ton of legal porn is exploitative too, we don't have
| solutions for any of this.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > It could be bypassed by modifying the file slightly, but the
| hashing could also get more sophisticated.
|
| Which is the same thing as saying "have a higher false positive
| rate," and then we have the problem.
|
| This is exacerbated by the same kind of system having the same
| application for copyright infringement, which means there will
| be a large community of people dedicated to defeating it. Every
| time they find another workaround, you have to increase the
| false positive rate. It only ever goes up.
|
| This is why everyone hates Content ID. The pirates know how to
| defeat it, meanwhile it regularly flags public domain works and
| recordings of randomly generated white noise to say nothing of
| fair use etc.
|
| The solution to revenge porn isn't platforms, it's why isn't
| the ex getting called "defendant" by a judge for making the
| recording without permission?
| ppeetteerr wrote:
| Isn't a high false positivity rate favorable to revenge porn
| being uploaded? Shouldn't it be on the uploader to prove that
| a scene depicting sex is legally filmed rather than assuming
| that it is?
| samhw wrote:
| > Shouldn't it...
|
| Yes. Will it? No.
| rectang wrote:
| > _The solution to revenge porn isn 't platforms, it's why
| isn't the ex getting called "defendant" by a judge for making
| the recording without permission?_
|
| The court system's responsiveness to sex crimes could be
| greatly improved if we had the collective will to do so. But
| the problem is both in the courts specifically (because of
| who the judges are, and who the legislators who write our
| laws are), and also the wider world. Victim blaming and
| dismissal/minimizing of the harm inflicted are par for the
| course everywhere, in the justice system, in the general
| population, and in many subgroups. (You'll see them here on
| HN all the time.)
| tharne wrote:
| > But the problem is both in the courts specifically
| (because of who the judges are, and who the legislators who
| write our laws are), and also the wider world.
|
| I don't think this is it. It's a matter of resources.
| Police and courts are already so overburdened that it's
| hard to get enforcement on anything that isn't practically
| life or death. Have you or a friend ever had your apartment
| burglarized or a vehicle stolen? The police will show up,
| usually after several hours, take a statement, after which
| you'll never hear from them again. In fact I don't know a
| single person in real life who was a victim of a burglary
| or auto theft where the perpetrator was caught, save for
| those cases like a car jacking where significant violence
| was involved.
|
| When the police and district attorney in any given city in
| the U.S. are looking at double-digit unsolved homicides and
| God knows how many unsolved rape cases, I don't think
| they're going to put a high priority on the fact that
| there's a naughty movie out there that someone willing
| filmed themselves in and is now regretful about. This does
| not mean folks don't believe these things matter, because
| they do. It's that relative to what the justice system is
| already dealing with, these things are much less important.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| When the NYPD have a guess at who did around 30% of
| murders, compared to the London police at 90% - and
| despite more funding than a small army - you have to
| wonder if the problem is purely resources. In fact, the
| vast majority of police are assigned to tasks like
| traffic enforcement, in part because that brings in more
| reliable revenue.
|
| (I'm using "guess at" to refer to clearance rate because
| if the cops tell a prosecutor they think you murdered
| someone and the prosecutor says it was obviously someone
| else so they're not charging you that's generally counted
| as cleared.)
| volkl48 wrote:
| > When the NYPD have a guess at who did around 30% of
| murders
|
| This is false.
|
| NYC homicide clearance rates for 2021 look to be over 70%
| for the year, with Q4 2021 at 78%. (worst quarter - 55%,
| best - 86%).
|
| https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/reports-
| analysis/cleara...
|
| > In fact, the vast majority of police are assigned to
| tasks like traffic enforcement
|
| NYPD is not known exactly known for a particularly large
| amount of traffic enforcement, to the point that I think
| you'd find most residents wish they did more of it.
| rectang wrote:
| I agree that lack of resources is a contributing factor.
|
| > _I don 't think they're going to put a high priority on
| the fact that there's a naughty movie out there that
| someone willing filmed themselves in and is now regretful
| about._
|
| This characterization of revenge porn is exactly the
| victim blaming and minimization of harm inflicted that I
| was talking about. Consenting to film a sex act is _not_
| consenting to have it published to the wider world.
| tharne wrote:
| > This characterization of revenge porn is exactly the
| victim blaming and minimization of harm inflicted that I
| was talking about.
|
| While it certainly isn't minimal in terms of the harm
| inflicted, it very much _is_ minimal compared to the
| kinds of things that police departments and courts are
| already dealing with.
|
| There's also a weird and very unproductive ethos that's
| evolved around the concept of victim blaming. Something
| my not be your fault, but that doesn't mean we're all
| free to be careless with zero chance of consequences. If
| I'm walking through a neighborhood at night that I know
| to be dangerous, it would be very foolish of me to be
| carrying several thousand dollars of cash on my person.
| That does not mean it's my fault if I get mugged and lose
| my money - it's purely the mugger's fault. However, my
| actions were stupid and I should have known better. Both
| those things can be true.
| rectang wrote:
| Many judges, police, and prosecutors agree with you that
| the victims "should have known better" and that their
| cases are not important in the grand scheme of things,
| which is why it is more difficult at every step of the
| way to get _any_ sex crime through the court system.
|
| Many in the media also agree with you. So do many in the
| wider society. (Including many in the ridiculously male-
| dominated HN.)
|
| All of these factors contribute to why if a victim even
| goes to court, not only is the likelihood of actual
| consequences for the perpetrator absurdly low, but the
| experience of going down that path will be horrible.
| Instead of sympathy, they get an avalanche of contempt
| and shame dumped on them.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| This is the thin end of the wedge fallacy. It's
| disproportionate to load of the possible extreme outcomes
| of a - true - idea on that idea. The idea is fine. Other
| things you list that are bad and not that idea are not
| fine.
| alar44 wrote:
| Low convictions isn't due to victim shaming, it's due to
| lack of evidence. It's generally a he said she said
| situation with no witnesses or evidence.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't follow the argument that the false positive rate
| necessarily goes up if you notice some successful attempts to
| defeat your system and update your system to detect some
| attempts. Is this some statistical law you're referencing, or
| do you just mean that people tend to do naive updates to
| these detection systems to make them more sensitive (not
| necessarily "more sophisticated")?
| Permit wrote:
| > The pirates know how to defeat it,
|
| Is this true? I never see feature-length movies on YouTube
| for example.
| samhw wrote:
| What about this: Take their IP. Make sure that, to them, it
| displays as uploaded. They can watch it. It registers
| natural-looking traffic. It does whatever else is necessary
| to satisfy them that it's on the internet (besides Google
| SEO; I'm not sure if that's expected). Otherwise, it doesn't
| exist and doesn't show for anyone else. In other words:
| blackhole it, shadow-block it. I feel like that has a
| _chance_ of working.
| itake wrote:
| IP addresses can be obscured.
|
| This inhibits journalists or activists that may want to
| obscure their identity.
|
| In the context of porn, perhaps the person uploading the
| video is the performer and does not want to attached their
| real ID to the performance.
| nix23 wrote:
| Don't they have any fingerprinting software for videos? Should
| not be too difficult.
| astange wrote:
| How is this not the same as spam, and with the same solution:
| require some cost to be borne by the uploader. The video
| hosting site can require a credit card and a small fee, like
| $1, and this problem will go away.
|
| But Pornhub won't do that because it will cut profits.
|
| Which is the real problem here. Pornhub is making $$$ off the
| victim of sexual assault. They will do just enough to pretend
| that they are fighting the problem, but not do the one thing
| that will actually end it.
| FDSGSG wrote:
| >But Pornhub won't do that because it will cut profits.
|
| Try to upload a video to pornhub right now. Go on.
|
| (Perhaps next time do the tiniest amount of research before
| throwing around nonsense like this?)
| badrabbit wrote:
| There are inaccurate hash algorithms like ahash for images,
| isn't there something like this or even ML to detect this? Why
| just delete instead if blacklist?
| ericmcer wrote:
| Wouldn't it be easier to make acquiring upload permissions
| tedious and then permanently ban violations?
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| What website, whose revenue comes from engagement and
| engagement from content, is going to do that?
| samhw wrote:
| And more importantly: it doesn't matter what Pornhub.com
| does. If they develop ethical scruples, another site will
| simply spring up to serve that supply and demand. Like a
| gas, the market will expand to fill the legal space
| available to it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-23 23:00 UTC)