| The context doesn't change things at all. If you own Pornhub and the same non consensual videos are being uploaded repeatedly, despite complaints from those depicted in the videos, you need to improve your software to recognize the duplicates. If you can't do that, you need to stop accepting unverified videos. In other words, exactly what they did, except only after the pressure campaign. Your post leaves the impression that the NYT article is about Rose Kalemba and about having search results for '14yo', when in fact each of those are one-liner throwaway references. The article is replete with examples of women trying to have non consensual content removed, only to have their efforts not honored in good faith: > “Pornhub became my trafficker,” a woman named Cali told me. She says she was adopted in the United States from China and then trafficked by her adoptive family and forced to appear in pornographic videos beginning when she was 9. Some videos of her being abused ended up on Pornhub and regularly reappear there, she said. > Those videos also ended up on Pornhub. Fleites would ask that they be removed. They usually would be, she says — but then would be uploaded again. One naked video of her at 14 had 400,000 views, she says, leaving her afraid to apply for fast-food jobs for fear that someone would recognize her. > “It’s always going to be online,” Nicole, a British woman who has had naked videos of herself posted and reposted on Pornhub, told me. “That’s my big fear of having kids, them seeing this.” That’s a recurring theme among survivors: An assault eventually ends, but Pornhub renders the suffering interminable. Naked videos of Nicole at 15 were posted on Pornhub. Now 19, she has been trying for two years to get them removed. Pornhub wasn't punished because searching "14yo" finds results, or because they got duped by GDP. Pornhub was kneecapped because they repeatedly failed to demonstrate good faith in honoring takedown requests, over many years. The silver lining is that now, even though they're much more strict (read: applying a level of moderation that anyone with even the thinnest of moral fiber would expect), the payment processors haven't forgiven them. |
Exactly. Always amazed at how people use reverse logic to excuse their unlawful behavior.
All successful social networking platforms use the cost of monitoring user content as their excuse for not monitoring unlawful content: they don't deal with the problem from start, then they pretend solving the problem with solutions that any sane person knows it will not scale, and finally they become big enough to be granted the excuse "that would cost too much".
A good analogy for this would be a car manufacturer, who is eventually asked to install airbags after putting 6 million vehicles on the road, and responds that it would ruin the company.
These businesses navigate with their seed money, ostensibly put monitoring costs aside, and everyone with vested interests applauds when the owner calls for the magic "auto-regulated community crowdsourced content reporting mechanism" (they all invoke this feature, for years, and it always works).
PornHub executives should be fined personally and in jail. There is absolutely zero chance that they didn't understand this cost was part of the business model and the responsibility on their shoulders. It is criminal negligence and they should be in jail.
As long as we don't put one executive in jail, every other executive will continue damaging people's lives individually because he knows that he doesn't risk anything.