I'd rather it be a "Nazi nanny state" than be rampant with child porn.
Straight men are weird.
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
I'd rather it be a "Nazi nanny state" than be rampant with child porn.
Straight men are weird.
Oh well. It is what it is
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
If I wanted to I could last longer but I am impatient.
Then it's your own decision to not get your money's worth isn't it.... unless of course you're lying.
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.
IStraight men are weird.
If anything, aren't you getting more of your money's worth? It's not like it's single use 3 minutes
Buy legit porn now?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
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.
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.