Current Events > >claims a porn site has videos taken down

(+) Yeah! (+)

Um they're disabled to be verified this isn't child abuse

this is a good thing
they'll be back soon
---

Oh they're not gone forever? I didn't realize that

---

Child abuse? What the hell I thought it was to protect copyrighted shit or something

But tbf I read 0 about it

---

Smackems posted...

Child abuse? What the hell I thought it was to protect copyrighted shit or something

But tbf I read 0 about it

Mastercard and Visa refused to do business with the company that owns all the popular porn sites after discovery that sexual abuse and revenge porn are all over the 'unverified' uploads.

---

Are they actually going to go through like 10 million unverified porn vids? >_> They'll probably just nuke them all

---

NeonOctopus posted...

Are they actually going to go through like 10 million unverified porn vids? >_> They'll probably just nuke them all

They'll probably have a simple system
Did Johnny Fuckhead upload abuse porn? Ban him and delete all videos on his account
---

NeonOctopus posted...

nuke them all

yeah! Lets do this!!!!

---

nothanks1 posted...

They'll probably have a simple system

They do

They nuked any unverified videos. I imagine moving forward you have to verify to upload.

---

Hey tc how often would you watch ronda rousey porn vids of there were some? (Assuming there arent already. I dont actually know)
---

nothanks1 posted...

They'll probably have a simple system
Did Johnny Fuckhead upload abuse porn? Ban him and delete all videos on his account

Probably, but what about JohnnyFuckhead2?
or Jawneefh1024445?

Never
Unless she put it up herself
And then still just once to see what she looks like
---

I doubt the deleted videos will be back anytime soon, if ever. If they are verifying them I imagine it would take years of work to get them all back up. I heard millions of videos were deleted. I guess they could have some sort of automated AI program or something but you think they would have used that in the first place rather than simply deleting everything.

And I really doubt anything copyrighted will be put back up even if it is not abusive or illegal content.

CoolMaskGuy posted...

I guess they could have some sort of automated AI program or something

1. Send email to the uploader stating "verify your shit or we'll delete it!" or similar.
2. Mention there's a time limit for doing so.
3. Nuke the account and all its uploads as soon as that time limit expires.

That was easy.

It'll have the side-effect of nuking bots and forgotten amateur clips, which probably should have been pruned by now anyway.

yet they don't look as bad as this site where you can't even say the news because it might give 13 year old boys the idea to google naked ladies

---

incredibly lazy solution

---

If the New York Times estimate is correct, GameFAQs has more moderators than they do. Using a scalpel and not a chainsaw is not an option for them.

---

The whole thing is nonsense based on some stupid hit piece news article like all the YouTube shit over the past five years. It may very well have had laxer uploading restrictions than they should have, but whole thing feels like the MSM being the morality police once again.

NightRender posted...

GameFAQs has more moderators than they do.

How the fuck lol

---

Error1355 posted...

How the fuck lol

Yeah. Error is the only mod who actually logs in regularly. Surely their mod count must be greater than 1.

---

What can I watch now that they took my "Granny eats three cocks" or "Anal with Grandmother" videos down?

---

You all laughed at me when I told you to download it!

---

Turbam posted...

You all laughed at me when I told you to download it!

You were right >_>

---

those videos aren't coming back lol

I'm curious now what my favorites list looks like -_-

---

Turbam posted...

You all laughed at me when I told you to download it!

RIP

---

I have suffered a deep personal tragedy today.

There was a website whose videos I enjoyed much back between 2005-2007. Over time I forgot about the site and it went out of business.

Literally less than a week ago I happened to stumble upon the videos under a channel on *that* site; all the videos were labeled with totally random names that had nothing to do with the content, but w/e. They were all there.

And then today... they are gone. Again. As if I had rediscovered a sweet spring in the virgin mountains of my youth only to see the final drops seep through the soil before it became arid, dry.

Am I doomed to lose these masterpieces for the remainder of my fragile life here on earth, deprived of such a pure ecstasy

---

Hexenherz posted...

I have suffered a deep personal tragedy today.

There was a website whose videos I enjoyed much back between 2005-2007. Over time I forgot about the site and it went out of business.

Literally less than a week ago I happened to stumble upon the videos under a channel on *that* site; all the videos were labeled with totally random names that had nothing to do with the content, but w/e. They were all there.

And then today... they are gone. Again. As if I had rediscovered a sweet spring in the virgin mountains of my youth only to see the final drops seep through the soil before it became arid, dry.

Am I doomed to lose these masterpieces for the remainder of my fragile life here on earth, deprived of such a pure ecstasy

lol, but that sucks man

---

nemu posted...

The whole thing is nonsense based on some stupid hit piece news article like all the YouTube shit over the past five years. It may very well have had laxer uploading restrictions than they should have, but whole thing feels like the MSM being the morality police once again.

Nah they had problems with child porn and revenge porn. Of course they would if they let millions of people upload videos with no verification.

---

Darmik posted...

Nah they had problems with child porn and revenge porn. Of course they would if they let millions of people upload videos with no verification.

Every site has problems with that kind of stuff. What matters is how they deal with it, percentages of content that fall under those types, and how long they're retained. It's just like the Youtube shit. There are definite minor problems, but the MSM blows it out of proportion and then the site goes full scorched earth in an attempt to appease the content police.

nemu posted...

Every site has problems with that kind of stuff. What matters is how they deal with it, percentages of content that fall under those types, and how long they're retained. It's just like the Youtube shit. There are definite minor problems, but the MSM blows it out of proportion and then the site goes full scorched earth in an attempt to appease the content police.

Other sites having the same issue isn't a defence. There should always be some sort of effort to stop that stuff being uploaded to their site. Revenge and child porn isn't a minor problem for the people who are in those videos.

---

Darmik posted...

Other sites having the same issue isn't a defence. There should always be some sort of effort to stop that stuff being uploaded to their site. Revenge and child porn isn't a minor problem for the people who are in those videos.

The point is other sites deal with this kind of horrible shit on a daily basis, so the simple act of it being uploaded in itself is not a reflection on the site. That's why I said percentage, retention, and reaction are what matter. If they have tens of thousands of videos that have been up for years, that is a problem. If 0.001% of their videos are of an illegal nature and they're removed relatively quickly, then it's not a problem in terms of how the site handles things. The issue is the MSM puts out vague ass articles on these issues without any particular numbers, but the affected sites feel forced to act as quickly as possible to avoid backlash like card issuers and ad revenue pulling out. It's generally just been an assholish bullying tactic.

Facebook removed 12.4 million images related to child exploitation in a three-month period this year. Twitter closed 264,000 accounts in six months last year for engaging in sexual exploitation of children. By contrast, PH notes that the Internet Watch Foundation, an England-based nonprofit that combats child sexual abuse imagery, reported only 118 instances of child sexual abuse imagery on its site over almost three years, seemingly a negligible figure.
Eliminating illegal content is an ongoing battle for every modern content platform, and we are committed to remaining at the forefront, PH said in its statement.
The Internet Watch Foundation couldnt explain why its figure for PH is so low. Perhaps its because people on PH are inured to the material and unlikely to report it. But if you know what to look for, its possible to find hundreds of apparent child sexual abuse videos on PH in 30 minutes. PH has recently offered playlists with names including less than 18, the best collection of young boys and under- - age.

Its site is infested with rape videos. It monetizes child rapes, revenge pornography, spy cam videos of women showering, racist and misogynist content, and footage of women being asphyxiated in plastic bags. A search for girls under18 (no space) or 14yo leads in each case to more than 100,000 videos. Most arent of children being assaulted, but too many are.

After a 15-year-old girl went missing in Florida, her mother found her on PH in 58 sex videos. Sexual assaults on a 14-year-old California girl were posted on PH and were reported to the authorities not by the company but by a classmate who saw the videos. In each case, offenders were arrested for the assaults, but PH escaped responsibility for sharing the videos and profiting from them.

Mindgeeks moderators are charged with filtering out videos of children, but its business model profits from sex videos starring young people.
The goal for a content moderator is to let as much content as possible go through, a former Mindgeek employee told me. He said he believed that the top executives werent evil but were focused above all on maximizing revenue.
While PH would not tell me how many moderators it employs, I interviewed one who said that there are about 80 worldwide who work on Mindgeek sites (by comparison, Facebook told me it has 15,000 moderators). With 1.36 million new hours of video uploaded a year to PH, that means that each moderator would have to review hundreds of hours of content each week.
The moderators fast forward through videos, but its often difficult to assess whether a person is 14 or 18, or whether torture is real or fake. Most of the underage content involves teenagers, the moderator I spoke with said, but some comes from spy cams in toilets or changing rooms and shows children only 8 to 12.
The job in itself is soul-destroying, the moderator said.

---

Yes, a vague article that doesn't have actual numbers, tries to correlate total search results as a justification, and for some reason lumps in fetish videos with actual exploitation and rape. They fail to mention how many playlists they found, how easy it was to find them, and how many cases of exploitation they were able to actually dig up from the search. I'm not saying it's impossible for the site to have had a major issue, but I find this to be their general vague BS.

Darmik posted...

But if you know what to look for, its possible to find hundreds of apparent child sexual abuse videos on PH in 30 minutes.

What? There's absolutely no way this is true.

---

nemu posted...

Yes, a vague article that doesn't have actual numbers, tries to correlate total search results as a justification, and for some reason lumps in fetish videos with actual exploitation and rape. They fail to mention how many playlists they found, how easy it was to find them, and how many cases of exploitation they were able to actually dig up from the search. I'm not saying it's impossible for the site to have had a major issue, but I find this to be their general vague BS.

I don't think they'd nuke most of their content if it wasn't easily verifiable. The stats compared to Facebook is already very sus.

BeyondWalls posted...

What? There's absolutely no way this is true.

Why? If kids are easily finding porn of their classmates it can't be that hard.

---

Darmik posted...

I don't think they'd nuke most of their content if it wasn't easily verifiable. The stats compared to Facebook is already very sus.

That is the current strategy to deal with any "issues" brought to the mainstream. Youtube already did it several times with their "adpocalypses" because it's simply easier to accept that there is now an issue than try to argue against it. It's just blatantly obvious that the article is full of weasel worded BS.

nemu posted...

That is the current strategy to deal with any "issues" brought to the mainstream. Youtube already did it several times with their "adpocalypses" because it's simply easier to accept that there is now an issue than try to argue against it. It's just blatantly obvious that the article is full of weasel worded BS.

But it shouldn't be an issue people have to accept or tolerate. Child and revenge porn are bad. They've taken some drastic measures to make it significantly harder to get it uploaded on their site. Why is that a problem?

---

Darmik posted...

They've taken some drastic measures to make it significantly harder to get it uploaded on their site.

the problem is that all evidence points to this problem being very small in size in terms of this stuff actually being found. The numbers I have been seeing as far as cited cases are like 100-something. And instead of, i dunno, actually using effective moderation tactics and seeking that content (which they can do, pornhub makes a shitton of money), they instead just dropped a nuke on a bunch of completely innocent people's content

---

Darmik posted...

But it shouldn't be an issue people have to accept or tolerate. Child and revenge porn are bad. They've taken some drastic measures to make it significantly harder to get it uploaded on their site. Why is that a problem?

Because we don't know to what extent it was an actual issue. You could write a scathing article based on any site using their vagueries. I'm arguing against forced overreaction based on the influence of a publication that provides no substantial evidence to their claims despite being called journalists. They should not have the power to force things based on nothing but a flimsy article.

ultimate reaver posted...

the problem is that all evidence points to this problem being very small in size in terms of this stuff actually being found. The numbers I have been seeing as far as cited cases are like 100-something. And instead of, i dunno, actually using effective moderation tactics and seeking that content (which they can do, pornhub makes a shitton of money), they instead just dropped a nuke on a bunch of completely innocent people's content

I think either way they'd need to have some sort of verification process to completely solve the issue. Especially to stop revenge porn. With the amount of stories they of young teen girls getting nude videos of them constantly reuploaded on the site (one of which got 400k views) I really don't believe they only had 118 cases over 3 years.

It should probably be slightly more difficult to upload pornographic material on one of the biggest sites in the world than getting into a strip club.

nemu posted...

Because we don't know to what extent it was an actual issue. You could write a scathing article based on any site using their vagueries. I'm arguing against forced overreaction based on the influence of a publication that provides no substantial evidence to their claims despite being called journalists. They should not have the power to force things based on nothing but a flimsy article.

A major site like this isn't going to nuke most of its content if it wasn't easy enough to find. They were obviously very complacent if they still only hhad 80 moderators for one of the most popular sites in the world that was focused on adult content. This is on them.

---

ultimate reaver posted...

the problem is that all evidence points to this problem being very small in size in terms of this stuff actually being found. The numbers I have been seeing as far as cited cases are like 100-something. And instead of, i dunno, actually using effective moderation tactics and seeking that content (which they can do, pornhub makes a shitton of money), they instead just dropped a nuke on a bunch of completely innocent people's content

Seems like the only way to premptively protect against revenge porn is some sort of verification process like they're implementing.

---

Darmik posted...

A major site like this isn't going to nuke most of its content if it wasn't easy enough to find. They were obviously very complacent if they still only hhad 80 moderators for one of the most popular sites in the world that was focused on adult content. This is on them.

The current landscape is "act first, pick up the pieces later." Action does not inherently equal guilt. The second these articles come out, advertisers pull away, card processors pull away, and their reputation takes a massive hit. They either need to show that they're "taking action" no matter how hamfisted or possibly lose everything. It's no different from when a company instantly disassociates with someone under scrutiny. Sometimes it was the right choice, and sometimes it turns out it was a massive overreaction based on nothing. It could very well be it's actually a major problem pointed out by a shitty article, or it could be it was a relative non-issue caused by a shitty article. I'm more inclined to believe the latter going by past cases.