pornhub is ruined by the Nazi nanny state

[9j34AYF]

I would assume Fetish Producers are working with a limited amount of money

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I’m sure, and acknowledge the weight of that (for so many of us). I’m proposing we find a way to encourage consumption of the product and thereby bottom-line profits for producers as well.

 

[pacattack]

But they want free stuff

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.

 

[ericw86]

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.

Yes, exactly this. Models don't work for free, camera gear costs money, editing takes time, tickle tools and bondage gear aren't free either. I could see an argument for pirating old clips from producers who have gone out of business, but producers have to deal with stuff like their videos ending up on pirate forums and tube sites within a week of them being released.

 

[turtleboy]

The strangest part to me is attributing a move that was performed by a private corporation and clearly intended to benefit capitalist content producers to a "nanny state." Like, this is a seriously sophisticated grasp of politics and economics that we've got on display here lol

If that were true, I would applaud it but I fear you give Pornhub way too much credit! They couldn't give a shit about producers, as their whole business model has been based on piracy as a tool for driving traffic. They could have made this move to benefit producers at any time, but never would have done until they were forced to by the Visa/Mastercard situation.

As some have pointed out, I don't think PH ever had a major problem with rapey or underage content as (to their credit at least) they've always been fairly swift to remove reported clips. Way more innappropriate/illegal content exists out there on social media and the countless tube sites, forums etc. Pornhub just became far too big, too well known and that placed it in the crosshairs of journalists with their own agenda and others with axes to grind. It was inevitable this would happen in the current climate. PH's latest action is a just a way of trying to protect themselves and possibly become legitimate enough to find a partner company again, since they were left with no other option.

It isn't the 'nanny state', but it is the nannying behaviour of certain elements in our society that brought PH down - for better or worse.

 

[Angel_2]

PH getting rid of all unverified tickling videos sucks but it was necessary to do. The people who created the tickle content we wanted to see takes time, effort and money. The models have to be paid, camera equipment is expensive and it takes time to edit. Is it fair that a person buys the clip and redistributes it for hundred of Thousands to see for free? It isn't, and I'm not going to pretend I didn't view content for free. Perhaps if there was some sort of revenue sharing, say x amount of views on videos would enable the site and content producers to split the revenue. Buying clips is the obvious answer but let's face facts people don't want to pay. It's not right but it's the truth.

 

[kingmaker]

If that were true, I would applaud it but I fear you give Pornhub way too much credit! They couldn't give a shit about producers, as their whole business model has been based on piracy as a tool for driving traffic. They could have made this move to benefit producers at any time, but never would have done until they were forced to by the Visa/Mastercard situation.

As some have pointed out, I don't think PH ever had a major problem with rapey or underage content as (to their credit at least) they've always been fairly swift to remove reported clips. Way more innappropriate/illegal content exists out there on social media and the countless tube sites, forums etc. Pornhub just became far too big, too well known and that placed it in the crosshairs of journalists with their own agenda and others with axes to grind. It was inevitable this would happen in the current climate. PH's latest action is a just a way of trying to protect themselves and possibly become legitimate enough to find a partner company again, since they were left with no other option.

It isn't the 'nanny state', but it is the nannying behaviour of certain elements in our society that brought PH down - for better or worse.

As always, wise and true words from you

 

[Studious_Hustler]

I don't think PH ever had a major problem with rapey or underage content

Define "major." Speak from your anecdotal experience, sure, but from mine, I've seen issues for years with revenge porn that Pornhub refused to take down and plenty of underage content. To me, that's a problem worth addressing.

Pornhub just became far too big, too well known and that placed it in the crosshairs of journalists with their own agenda and others with axes to grind. It was inevitable this would happen in the current climate. PH's latest action is a just a way of trying to protect themselves and possibly become legitimate enough to find a partner company again, since they were left with no other option.

It isn't the 'nanny state', but it is the nannying behaviour of certain elements in our society that brought PH down

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but the tenor of your take here seems... off. Are you just trying to make the obvious point that entities act in their own respective best interests?

At the end of the day, attributing Pornhub's move to the "nanny state" still couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[pacattack]

10 bucks for a 10 minute video when I only use at most 3 minutes? Nah I'm good.

You can only last 3 minutes?

 

[stasiu90]

Yea I'm ok with it. It was standoffish when it came to people not adding you despite having videos. Oh well.

 

[ticklerokla]

Its a good thing. I am happy to see several producers still have non premium clips up though

 

[turtleboy]

Define "major." Speak from your anecdotal experience, sure, but from mine, I've seen issues for years with revenge porn that Pornhub refused to take down and plenty of underage content. To me, that's a problem worth addressing.

Well for a free porn site that has hosted millions of clips over recent years, there has been very little evidence of the mass posting of underage porn, for example - unlike sites such as Facebook, Twitter and tumblr which all have had major problems with this and other harmful content over the years. The process for getting offensive/illegal/copyrighted content removed from Pornhub has always been way faster, more transparent and more effective than it is on other sites. Youtube is the worst site when it comes to takedown requests in my experience, unless you are Sony or another major corporation.

Revenge porn is always harder to prove and a more complex issue as it's harder to prove that consent wasn't given. Hence it does get posted and will continue to get posted on other tube sites, forums etc now that Pornhub no longer functions as a free tube site. The issue is with the posters, not the platform and that won't go away. I daresay an individual would have far more luck getting a personal clip removed from PH than they would on any of the alternatives that will now fill the void.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but the tenor of your take here seems... off. Are you just trying to make the obvious point that entities act in their own respective best interests?

At the end of the day, attributing Pornhub's move to the "nanny state" still couldn't be further from the truth.

If you are confused about my original point, I was responding to the suggestion that PH actions were 'clearly intended to benefit capitalist content producers'. Their actions were intended to limit damage, protect themselves and their own interests. They couldn't really couldn't give a shit about content producers.

The point is that it's a response to certain self-interested groups applying pressure - not the nanny state, but others acting in a similar vein. It's comparable to the behaviour of various conservative groups wishing to censor or ban pornography altogether in previous decades. To be clear, I don't like PH (even though I have a verified account), because their platform has supported, enabled and profited from the piracy of producers like myself. They have helped to spread the illusion of 'free porn' into the mainstream consciousness which has benefited them at the expense of content producers. That said, I do not like the way in which they have been taken down as it has nothing to do with any of the above. It is about a different agenda entirely.

 

[TicklerKoops]

Something had to be done. No matter how many times you reported profiles for having content that shouldn't be there, PH never really did much.

About damn time.

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

 

[Studious_Hustler]

I do not like the way in which they have been taken down as it has nothing to do with any of the above. It is about a different agenda entirely.

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.

 

[lovelovelove]

You can only last 3 minutes?

you can last as long as 3 minutes?

 

[lovelovelove]

What a weird thread that vacillates between excellent points and weirdly downplaying the underaged and/or involuntary pornography that PornHub was truly infamous for.

Seriously, anyone here who thinks the posting wasn't "mass" and therefore must have been minor or negligible is just not considering the scale of a """minor""" problem like that in an enormous site. It magnifies the problem; it doesn't minimize it.

 

[turtleboy]

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/

 

[turtleboy]

What a weird thread that vacillates between excellent points and weirdly downplaying the underaged and/or involuntary pornography that PornHub was truly infamous for.

Seriously, anyone here who thinks the posting wasn't "mass" and therefore must have been minor or negligible is just not considering the scale of a """minor""" problem like that in an enormous site. It magnifies the problem; it doesn't minimize it.

It's true that a few instances on a large site perhaps makes people more aware of it where they otherwise wouldn't be - hence the targeting of PH in the first place. That doesn't mean that it was a major source of this stuff...it is far more prevalent in other places. Believing that underage porn has somehow been wiped out or even massively reduced by this move is a mistake. In the case of PH, it absolutely shoud have been addressed (along with many other things) but could have been done in other ways.

For the illegal and corrupt sites that host vast the majority of 'bad' porn, nothing will change. The knock-on effects for the legitimate adult industry however, are already starting to show with sites getting nervous about their financial partners. In the last week, clips4sale has had another massive purge of acceptable keywords - it includes phrases such as 'damsels in distress', 'torture' (as in 'tickle-torture'), regardless of their fantasy context. As a producer, I'm also slightly concerned that they felt the need to send out two reassuring messages in the last week, basically saying 'it's ok, we have measures in place.' It doesn't fill me with confidence about the future!

 

[MeatyBreastedDullness]

You can only last 3 minutes?

If I wanted to I could last longer but I am impatient.

 

[Bansama]

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

Straight men are weird.

 

[COOLCAT88]

I never even used Pornhub at all, maybe once or twice..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Studious_Hustler]

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/

I think you accidentally pasted the wrong URL, so I can't tell whether your allegations of hypocrisy by "the media" hold any water or not. From my experience in the US, though, it's kind of bogus to say that FB gets a free pass. FB is justifiably being challenged, and from all sides of the political spectrum. The issue, however, is that FB is much more powerful than even Pornhub. FB can generally afford to just ignore all challenges. And maybe that's your whole point.

Ultimately, it seems like everything that you've been saying in this thread doesn't really have to do with "agendas." Instead, it seems like your intended point is that porn, in general, gets an undeservedly bad name in polite society when compared with the better treatment received by the far-more-dangerous phenomenon of unchecked social media. On that point, we agree.

 

[pacattack]

you can last as long as 3 minutes?

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.

 

[pacattack]

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.

 

[turtleboy]

I think you accidentally pasted the wrong URL, so I can't tell whether your allegations of hypocrisy by "the media" hold any water or not. From my experience in the US, though, it's kind of bogus to say that FB gets a free pass. FB is justifiably being challenged, and from all sides of the political spectrum. The issue, however, is that FB is much more powerful than even Pornhub. FB can generally afford to just ignore all challenges. And maybe that's your whole point.

Ultimately, it seems like everything that you've been saying in this thread doesn't really have to do with "agendas." Instead, it seems like your intended point is that porn, in general, gets an undeservedly bad name in polite society when compared with the better treatment received by the far-more-dangerous phenomenon of unchecked social media. On that point, we agree.

Apologies - I posted one of the links twice. 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. The only issue for them is whether FB should be forced to censor more aggressively and whether they should be treated as a publisher or a platform - not whether the site is enabling and profiting from inappropriate content. Note: PH is also a platform, but being treated as a publisher and held accountable for everything on there in a way that other free sites aren't. It's not so much the size of the company that gets them a free pass - just that big-tech firms in general get an incredibly easy ride. Many articles have been written about these issues but the only real interest is in going after sites like PH, when making social media sites accountable would be a more effective way of cutting down on the amount of bad content out there.

The other link was just an illustration of the fact that revenge porn is so rampant on FB that the UK Govt actually piloted a 'Facebook revenge porn helpline' for the victims.

And much of what I've said does absolutely have to do with agendas - the movement to attack and curtail the wider commercial adult industry. Attempts to portray it as toxic, mysoginistic, harmful, promoting sexual violence, sex trafficking etc have been going on for many years. You're welcome to disagree with my comments all you like, but please don't try to reframe them.

 

[Oddjob0226]

So do what we used to do in the old days; go to your local porn store, rent a tickling video (or pay $89 tot T&T Videos), hook up 2 VCRs to record onto a new blank tape, and then find someone -somehow- and trade tapes.

Good lord you people. It was so easy then. What do you think the TMF was born from? Zuckerberg's algorithm notebook? Half inch tape and the BNC cable!