I guess we'll have to agree to disagree re:the merits of what you've characterized as the "agenda" of combatting revenge porn and underage content.
We don't disagree on the merits of it - just on whether or not it actually does what you say.
Edit: Just to clarify, the 'agenda' I was referring to is not one of combatting child porn - no decent person would disagree with that.
It's the push to try and remove porn altogether, by targeting the largest, most well-known and most 'legitimate' sites. Certain groups have been trying to get porn sites banned over a range of social justice issues that have been continually misrepresented in recent years. The main thrust are arguments that porn is mysoginistic, that it promotes and encourages, rape, violent sexual behaviour towards women and the very outdated notion that female performers don't really want to be there and are somehow forced into it by men.
Anyone who has any involvement in the industry or actually watches any amount of porn will know that simply isn't true. It's a competitive and lucrative industry for the female performers who work hard to get the highest earning jobs and can make a very good income from dealing with customers directly also. They are not forced into it by shadowy male figures - they are free agents and the majority of performers really enjoy their work, including the many amateur level models, webcammers etc. The vast majority of 'abuse' in porn nowadays is carried out against men - male subs being whipped, beaten, burned, trampled, balls crushes, cocks destroyed etc, etc...because this is the type of abuse fantasy that is more popular at the moment. Femdom is by far one of the prolific categories in fetish porn and most of it is very real, unregulated and can result in severe injuries to the men involved (with potential lawsuits for any dommes that don't know what they're doing). Male on female aggression of any kind is relatively rare in western porn and generally involves rough sex, where the female is clearly in control and consenting.
Nevertheless, elements in the media have been pushing the opposite narrative for a very long time - i.e. porn sites are full of depictions of female abuse, non-consensual sex, women are bullied, porn promotes violence towards women. Usually without any tangible evidence whatsoever. The comparatively small (and it is tiny in relation to other examples) number of cases found on PH were used by the NYT article to underline this narrative:
Yet there’s another side of the company: 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 bag
It's a great story for a publication like that but it grossly misrepresents and distorts the issues, whilst citing a couple of extreme examples as evidence. Anyone who has spent time on PH will know that this is not a remotely accurate description of the site. As myself and others have already pointed out, there are
far more examples of the bad content out there on the largest social media sites and they are often quite bad when it comes to removing it. The description above would be more appropriately applied to Facebook, and yet the same people are not remotely concerned about taking these companies down.
https://news.sky.com/story/facebook...use-images-reported-by-us-tech-firms-12101357
https://revengepornhelpline.org.uk/information-and-advice/reporting-content/facebook-pilot/
Here's an interesting example of how the NYT covers the subject of revenge porn and exploitation of minors on FB:
https://revengepornhelpline.org.uk/information-and-advice/reporting-content/facebook-pilot/