• The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The TMF is sponsored by:

Clips4Sale Banner

pornhub is ruined by the Nazi nanny state

Bansama said:
I'd rather it be a "Nazi nanny state" than be rampant with child porn.

Straight men are weird.
Click to expand...

This. Exactly. What the hell.

You lost some of your favorite tickling videos? I just searched for tickling on their site and pages and pages worth of content still shows up. That isn't enough for you?

But kudos, I haven't heard someone use the term "nanny state" since 2010.

Edit to add one more point: We live in the fucking age of YouTube. People are making fetish content all over the world wide web, and some of it's for free! Imagine that! But go on and pout about how Pornhub caved to the big bad liberals by deleting lots of their illegal videos.
 
Are people really upset or surprised that a business doesn't want to give away it's product for free?
 
TicklerKoops said:
Besides, why would you want to miss out on that rush when you click "purchase" for a clip you are hyped to watch?? I still get that feeling after good lord knows how many clips, I've bought lol
Click to expand...

Some clips I want to purchase and would happily today if I could are not available to buy anywhere right now for some reason. Parker's Amateur Videos as a studio comes to mind; so do clips like FTKL's Ha-Ha for Harley and its sequel, or a great series I remember from TheLastLaugh involving two girls in sports jerseys having a tickle fight

I disagree completely that legal consensual content should just go away for good forever and not be made available to watch or to buy
 
I'm not sure how to feel, because on one hand it was a place I could go and watch free clips at no cost but on the other hand you have to sympathize for the clip store owners and the website producers their product is being shown for free and people were able to download it and pirate it Etc. So yes it is unfortunate for pornhub.com, who knows things may start looking up in 2021.

LBFT
 
Bansama said:
I'd rather it be a "Nazi nanny state" than be rampant with child porn.

Straight men are weird.
Click to expand...

What if I told you that any rational and decent person despises child porn, it has nothing to do with straight men, just a gross generalization by you. If you want to get technical, just go look at the Church to see who those pedos were targeting.
 
Always assume that a site which has a lot of free videos could shut down ay any given moment and you won't be disappointed

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
turtleboy said:
I meant to post this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/world/europe/facebook-libel-paul-tweed.html

Nothing major, just an example of the vast difference in the way the subject of revenge porn is handled when discussing FB vs PH.
Click to expand...

OK, so your issue here is that, in attempting to prove some sort of media "agenda," you've drawn a false equivalence between a reporting piece and an opinion piece. The above article about Tweed is reporting, which means just that -- it's supposed to report the news as "objectively" as possible. The piece on Pornhub that you previously quoted is, by contrast, opinion -- if you pull it up, you'll notice that it's even headlined "Opinion." Opinion pieces, also called "editorials," are news pieces that are explicitly not objective. They are supposed to argue an opinion. So, if you're seeing a "vast difference" at the NYT, that's the difference between reporting and opinion.

I believe that certain elements of society view porn, in general, in an unduly negative light, while also viewing social-media platforms in an unduly positive light. If you want to call that discrepancy an "agenda," then be my guest. Beyond that, though, I'm still genuinely unsure of what you are trying to argue.
 
Studious_Hustler said:
OK, so your issue here is that, in attempting to prove some sort of media "agenda," you've drawn a false equivalence between a reporting piece and an opinion piece. The above article about Tweed is reporting, which means just that -- it's supposed to report the news as "objectively" as possible. The piece on Pornhub that you previously quoted is, by contrast, opinion -- if you pull it up, you'll notice that it's even headlined "Opinion." Opinion pieces, also called "editorials," are news pieces that are explicitly not objective. They are supposed to argue an opinion. So, if you're seeing a "vast difference" at the NYT, that's the difference between reporting and opinion.

I believe that certain elements of society view porn, in general, in an unduly negative light, while also viewing social-media platforms in an unduly positive light. If you want to call that discrepancy an "agenda," then be my guest. Beyond that, though, I'm still genuinely unsure of what you are trying to argue.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining what an opinion piece is - I'm sure that someone will benefit from that.

I'm going to credit you with enough awareness to assume you don't genuinely believe that a newspaper's opinions are only expressed through the section marked 'Opinion'. You do seem to hold the strange idea that an agenda (or "agenda" as you like to say) is a mythical concept however, rather than an approach to reporting on certain topics adopted by literally all media companies including newspapers and TV networks. As for objectivity, story reporting may be more direct and to the point than a rambling op-ed but it is never even remotely objective. It is shaped and influenced at every stage from the decision to pursue a story, through the entire editorial process and final selection of stories for publishing. Every piece is shaped to fit within the overall agenda of the newspaper or news network that publishes it. Pretending that some pieces are objective while others are subjective is bordering on the ridiculous.

The example I gave whilst not the best, was just one example to illustrate that a publication like the NYT will not go after a large social media organisation such as Twitter or Facebook, for hosting abusive content despite there being overwhelming evidence of it's existence. I'd love to be able to give you a more accurate comparison by linking you to an op-ed about the exploitation of children through Facebook - but of course that doesn't exist.

The NYT does however, choose to run a very aggressive opinion piece over a site like Pornhub for the same reasons, despite all the solid evidence pointing to it being far less of a problem. It's a straightforward point that I've made many times over - quite easy to see when you dig into the numbers. I notice though that you have a habit of simply debating me (and my 'confusing argument') rather than the issue. It's a handy way of ignoring awkward facts.

Whilst I can't find an equivalent opinion piece on the subject, here's a closer example at least - a broader piece of investigative reporting, covering the enormous problem of internet exploitation:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html

It is some very unpleasant reading - the graphic details and the numbers outlined make the Pornhub accusations (inaccurate as they were) seem light by comparison. Whilst it does reference the ways in which mainstream tech firms and media companies have enabled the huge expansion in child abuse abuse and pornography, it then simply skips over any real discussion of their responsibility for it, focusing instead on policing, lack of federal funding etc instead. It mentions measures that soc media companies have put in place and then skirts around the fact that they really haven't worked at all. If they were discussing these issues in relation to a porn site, I feel the tone would be very different indeed.

The decision to follow a story like this, is absolutely an agenda. It's borne out of whatever social movements and trends that seem to be gaining traction - usually through social media. Print and TV media are constantly seeking spicy topics to stay relevant and the idea of scalping the most visited website on the planet (particularly when it is the focus of so much hatred by certain pressure groups) is always going to be tempting for a publication like the NYT. It appeals to readers who may welcome the idea of Pornhub being cancelled, but not so much Facebook, Apple, Dropbox etc. NYT will be doing very well from this financially. As for combatting internet abuse, I don't really feel anything at all will have changed.
 
I went on the hub today to see what the fuss was about. Was actually pleasantly surprised to see original content on there vs the regurgitation of uploaded videos from known producers that was clearly piracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
turtleboy said:
Thanks for explaining what an opinion piece is - I'm sure that someone will benefit from that.

I'm going to credit you with enough awareness to assume you don't genuinely believe that a newspaper's opinions are only expressed through the section marked 'Opinion'. You do seem to hold the strange idea that an agenda (or "agenda" as you like to say) is a mythical concept however, rather than an approach to reporting on certain topics adopted by literally all media companies including newspapers and TV networks. As for objectivity, story reporting may be more direct and to the point than a rambling op-ed but it is never even remotely objective. It is shaped and influenced at every stage from the decision to pursue a story, through the entire editorial process and final selection of stories for publishing. Every piece is shaped to fit within the overall agenda of the newspaper or news network that publishes it. Pretending that some pieces are objective while others are subjective is bordering on the ridiculous.

The example I gave whilst not the best, was just one example to illustrate that a publication like the NYT will not go after a large social media organisation such as Twitter or Facebook, for hosting abusive content despite there being overwhelming evidence of it's existence. I'd love to be able to give you a more accurate comparison by linking you to an op-ed about the exploitation of children through Facebook - but of course that doesn't exist.

The NYT does however, choose to run a very aggressive opinion piece over a site like Pornhub for the same reasons, despite all the solid evidence pointing to it being far less of a problem. It's a straightforward point that I've made many times over - quite easy to see when you dig into the numbers. I notice though that you have a habit of simply debating me (and my 'confusing argument') rather than the issue. It's a handy way of ignoring awkward facts.

Whilst I can't find an equivalent opinion piece on the subject, here's a closer example at least - a broader piece of investigative reporting, covering the enormous problem of internet exploitation:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html

It is some very unpleasant reading - the graphic details and the numbers outlined make the Pornhub accusations (inaccurate as they were) seem light by comparison. Whilst it does reference the ways in which mainstream tech firms and media companies have enabled the huge expansion in child abuse abuse and pornography, it then simply skips over any real discussion of their responsibility for it, focusing instead on policing, lack of federal funding etc instead. It mentions measures that soc media companies have put in place and then skirts around the fact that they really haven't worked at all. If they were discussing these issues in relation to a porn site, I feel the tone would be very different indeed.

The decision to follow a story like this, is absolutely an agenda. It's borne out of whatever social movements and trends that seem to be gaining traction - usually through social media. Print and TV media are constantly seeking spicy topics to stay relevant and the idea of scalping the most visited website on the planet (particularly when it is the focus of so much hatred by certain pressure groups) is always going to be tempting for a publication like the NYT. It appeals to readers who may welcome the idea of Pornhub being cancelled, but not so much Facebook, Apple, Dropbox etc. NYT will be doing very well from this financially. As for combatting internet abuse, I don't really feel anything at all will have changed.
Click to expand...

See below:

Studious_Hustler said:
I believe that certain elements of society view porn, in general, in an unduly negative light, while also viewing social-media platforms in an unduly positive light. If you want to call that discrepancy an "agenda," then be my guest. Beyond that, though, I'm still genuinely unsure of what you are trying to argue.
Click to expand...
 
pacattack said:
Lol yup. I'm surprised this is a foreign concept to you. Basically exercise your PC muscles and learn how to control your body reflexes and you'll be able to last as long as you'd like someday too.
Click to expand...

Haha it was a joke. But thanks for the advice bro
 
AlBundyIsMyHero said:
What if I told you that any rational and decent person despises child porn, it has nothing to do with straight men, just a gross generalization by you. If you want to get technical, just go look at the Church to see who those pedos were targeting.
Click to expand...

If that were the only thing that's true, then those people's main take away wouldn't be about the content which included CP that they are now deprived of... Also it's obviously not just straight men, but bringing up the Church as an example of all things kind of makes the point that straight, male run institutions do in fact promote child abuse, huh...?
 
Production of tickling videos is at an all time low today not only due to piracy but also due to pandemic. I hope this PH cleanup will boost it during better stages of the crisis. I know some productions like UK and French still produce a lot today, though.
 
Last edited:
lovelovelove said:
If anything, aren't you getting more of your money's worth? It's not like it's single use 3 minutes
Click to expand...

Then it would make it worth paying for.... wouldn't it? Or... no that just makes too much sense. Lol someone's feathers are ruffled.
 
There’s other sites with free content! It’s just sucks because PH was one of the better ones lol all good things come to an end
 
pacattack said:
This thread is hilarious and the above response to the quoted post is gold.

Seriously though.... buy your clips. The production industry has been tanking because of sites like PH. Look at Czech Ticklish Girls... they aren't producing anymore and put out awesome content for many years.

People complain that the clips being produced aren't as good these days yet cry about PH purging unverified vids. You can't have both worlds.
Click to expand...

Czech ticklish girls Is not a good example. They were hugely successful, I dare say they were much bigger than any other tickle/fetish video companies on Earth. They stopped for other reasons, most likely burnt out after kickin every one's Azz for many years. However I do agree with your post, just not the example. Lol
 
turtleboy said:
Thanks for explaining what an opinion piece is - I'm sure that someone will benefit from that.

I'm going to credit you with enough awareness to assume you don't genuinely believe that a newspaper's opinions are only expressed through the section marked 'Opinion'. You do seem to hold the strange idea that an agenda (or "agenda" as you like to say) is a mythical concept however, rather than an approach to reporting on certain topics adopted by literally all media companies including newspapers and TV networks. As for objectivity, story reporting may be more direct and to the point than a rambling op-ed but it is never even remotely objective. It is shaped and influenced at every stage from the decision to pursue a story, through the entire editorial process and final selection of stories for publishing. Every piece is shaped to fit within the overall agenda of the newspaper or news network that publishes it. Pretending that some pieces are objective while others are subjective is bordering on the ridiculous.

The example I gave whilst not the best, was just one example to illustrate that a publication like the NYT will not go after a large social media organisation such as Twitter or Facebook, for hosting abusive content despite there being overwhelming evidence of it's existence. I'd love to be able to give you a more accurate comparison by linking you to an op-ed about the exploitation of children through Facebook - but of course that doesn't exist.

The NYT does however, choose to run a very aggressive opinion piece over a site like Pornhub for the same reasons, despite all the solid evidence pointing to it being far less of a problem. It's a straightforward point that I've made many times over - quite easy to see when you dig into the numbers. I notice though that you have a habit of simply debating me (and my 'confusing argument') rather than the issue. It's a handy way of ignoring awkward facts.

Whilst I can't find an equivalent opinion piece on the subject, here's a closer example at least - a broader piece of investigative reporting, covering the enormous problem of internet exploitation:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html

It is some very unpleasant reading - the graphic details and the numbers outlined make the Pornhub accusations (inaccurate as they were) seem light by comparison. Whilst it does reference the ways in which mainstream tech firms and media companies have enabled the huge expansion in child abuse abuse and pornography, it then simply skips over any real discussion of their responsibility for it, focusing instead on policing, lack of federal funding etc instead. It mentions measures that soc media companies have put in place and then skirts around the fact that they really haven't worked at all. If they were discussing these issues in relation to a porn site, I feel the tone would be very different indeed.

The decision to follow a story like this, is absolutely an agenda. It's borne out of whatever social movements and trends that seem to be gaining traction - usually through social media. Print and TV media are constantly seeking spicy topics to stay relevant and the idea of scalping the most visited website on the planet (particularly when it is the focus of so much hatred by certain pressure groups) is always going to be tempting for a publication like the NYT. It appeals to readers who may welcome the idea of Pornhub being cancelled, but not so much Facebook, Apple, Dropbox etc. NYT will be doing very well from this financially. As for combatting internet abuse, I don't really feel anything at all will have changed.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely kickin that dude/or dude'ettes (whichever applies) Ass btw. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Door 44 Productions
What's New

4/24/2024
If you need to report a post, click the 'report' button to its lower left.
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
NEST 2024
Register here
The world's largest online clip store

Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
streaming tickling videos on demand at the TMF!
Tickling videos on demand!
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
 The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top