Leftist Child Grooming

[S'task]

Yeah, saying that "Age verification" is a restriction on the 1st Amendment seems a stretch. The second part of the law struck down (the warning of damage) I CAN see an argument for, but we've long required other companies to place warnings on their products that cause harm and thus can be argued to be compelled speech against their interest (see, most obviously, Tobacco companies and the surgeon general's warnings).

Honestly, I'd need to read the decision, but I'm not sure this stands on appeal. Both restrictions to content based on age appropriateness and mandatory content warnings have long been allowed exceptions to the 1st Amendment.

And note: this is not "banning" porn, no matter how much folks want to spin it like this, this is the state mandating that porn distribution companies utilize active and verifiable age verification methods to prevent children from viewing porn. What this means in practice is requiring people to input something like a Credit Card number or other verifiable ID form to the porn website in order to access it. Right now the MOST porn sites tend to do is put up a splash page with the words "do not enter this site unless you are over 18, are you over 18: YES/NO". Click No will, in fact, close the website, but... there's no verification if you're over 18 when you click "Yes" it just... goes right through. And many porn sites don't even do THAT.

Porn sites don't want to have proactive age verification foisted on them, even though we do it for numerous other things IRL, as even many adults will be hesitant to provide such information for access, thus cutting their traffic and potential revenue down. This isn't about the 1st Amendment for them, it's about their bottom line, and make no mistake that's all this is about. Easy and quick access to porn is very lucrative, and anything that slows that down, and especially anything that makes it harder to get kids hooked early on their product, is a long term earnings threat.

 

[Marduk]

And unlike guns porn actually harms children, en masse.
That 40% LGBTQP highschooler figure did not come out of nowhere, and porn is a massive contributor to it.
Parental controls have proven to be completely ineffective.

If random, more likely than not heterosexual porn was what made them crazy like this, the leftists would not have to waste huge amounts of money and PR to get weirdo activists to propagandize to said students or have teachers show them material designed by them in the very schools, in this regard progressive school administration is probably a bigger threat to the students than porn, ironically enough.

As someone who has once been a teen I can tell you that parental controls are trash at blocking porn. But if you do not believe my anecdotal claim. Here is some research on the subject which shows... that parental controls are completely and wholly ineffective in restricting a child's access to porn

Parental controls do not stop teens from seeing pornography

New research has found that Internet filtering tools are ineffective and in most cases, were an insignificant factor in whether young people had seen explicit sexual content.

www.sciencedaily.com

Of course it will not stop a teenager with a minimum of tech skills who actually wants to see it.
Besides that, younger children definitely should not have unsupervised internet access, period. And not because of porn. But because if you are lucky you will only have to de-malware their device every few weeks so better get your IT skills up to not pay a hundred bucks or few each time. If you are not lucky, they will get targeted by blackmailers, conmen or even actual groomers or pedos. That's why.

I get what you are saying and you can hate on “moral crusaders” but do you honestly think the court ruled correctly? Remember the judge said that the requirements to put age verification violate the 1st amendment. Again Americans don’t support judge’s deciding based solely on their beliefs. If a judge said “Fuck this law is stupid and it should not be a thing, I don’t give a shit about the constitution though and I wipe my ass with it.” People would be outraged and yell for impeachment.

So I have to ask can you explain how requiring age verification violates the constitution?

The judge actually does give his explanation. Privacy, too vague and compelled speech mostly.

Federal judge blocks Texas law requiring I.D. to enter pornography websites

U.S. District Judge David Ezra ruled a child protections bill signed by Gov. Abbott in June violates free speech rights.

www.cbsnews.com

Banning porn makes some people feel righteous, but most of them will admit they cannot do it without violating the 1st Amendment and likely enabling a Prohibition 2.0 that is even less successful and more damaging.

Last but not least, i'm amazed no one brought up a political pragmatism argument. Statistics show that about 65% of US men watch porn, even more among the young. With ~50% men voting for GOP, that means at very minimum (as in assuming no anti-porn people, even Muslims and feminists, ever vote for DNC, which would be silly) 30% of GOP men must be in that group, and they probably would not appreciate having to show their government ID to a fucking porn site to access it, especially with all the internet security fuckups happening all the time. For one it's a great way to cause an internal rift on the right, as some religious conservatives, despite all the shit happening, apparently don't have anything more important to do with their activism than pissing off their less religious political allies.

And note: this is not "banning" porn, no matter how much folks want to spin it like this, this is the state mandating that porn distribution companies utilize active and verifiable age verification methods to prevent children from viewing porn. What this means in practice is requiring people to input something like a Credit Card number or other verifiable ID form to the porn website in order to access it. Right now the MOST porn sites tend to do is put up a splash page with the words "do not enter this site unless you are over 18, are you over 18: YES/NO". Click No will, in fact, close the website, but... there's no verification if you're over 18 when you click "Yes" it just... goes right through. And many porn sites don't even do THAT.

Porn sites don't want to have proactive age verification foisted on them, even though we do it for numerous other things IRL, as even many adults will be hesitant to provide such information for access, thus cutting their traffic and potential revenue down. This isn't about the 1st Amendment for them, it's about their bottom line, and make no mistake that's all this is about. Easy and quick access to porn is very lucrative, and anything that slows that down, and especially anything that makes it harder to get kids hooked early on their product, is a long term earnings threat.

And speaking of pragmatic arguments, also a more pragmatic argument that this is pure virtue signalling that in the end, if passed, would achieve nothing more than creating a sense of false security for parents too incompetent or lazy to properly use supervision or controls.
For one i'm absolutely sure that the jolly roger sites will not follow such ID laws, and of course those have porn too, usually the premium kind that sites like pornhub want payment for.
Sure, they are a bit harder to find and use, but if your kid is old and smart enough to circumvent a basic parental filter block on pornhub, it's not harder than that.

Yeah, saying that "Age verification" is a restriction on the 1st Amendment seems a stretch. The second part of the law struck down (the warning of damage) I CAN see an argument for, but we've long required other companies to place warnings on their products that cause harm and thus can be argued to be compelled speech against their interest (see, most obviously, Tobacco companies and the surgeon general's warnings).

Why Cigarette-Makers Are Still Managing to Hide the Gruesome Effects of Their Products

The FDA has made warning labels. Tobacco giants are suing.

slate.com

Tobacco is apparently an ongoing case. And that's with FDA and its established regulatory presence being involved due to the nature of the product.

 

[LordsFire]

This is just some bullshit that moral crusaders have always used to ban things they don't like. Even the Leftists will do it - look at how they try to use children to ban guns. There are such a thing as parental controls on both the PC and the browser. You've already said more than once that you want to ban porn, so don't pretend this is about kids getting groomed by anyone. This is just you being a petty little tyrant by seeing something you don't like and wanting to ban it. Just like Leftists. Hell, a bunch of them are anti-porn, too, because "muh objectification." Fuck all of you petty little tyrants.

No matter how much you don't like it, promiscuity is destructive. Calling people tyrants for pointing that out and discouraging it does not change the truth.

I believe freedom of choice means adults can legally engage in self-destructive behavior if they want, but that does not make it moral.

 

[Captain X]

I get what you are saying and you can hate on “moral crusaders” but do you honestly think the court ruled correctly? Remember the judge said that the requirements to put age verification violate the 1st amendment. Again Americans don’t support judge’s deciding based solely on their beliefs. If a judge said “Fuck this law is stupid and it should not be a thing, I don’t give a shit about the constitution though and I wipe my ass with it.” People would be outraged and yell for impeachment.

So I have to ask can you explain how requiring age verification violates the constitution?

How would verification be done? In any case, compelled speech is not free speech.

This has nothing to do with objectification. What porn does to children is the number 1 reason I actually want it banned. Because it is far far far too hard to actually restrict children's access to it.

And banning things using the Helen Lovejoy argument is never going to go well with me. I should not have anything banned from me because of someone else's kids.

And unlike guns porn actually harms children, en masse.
That 40% LGBTQP highschooler figure did not come out of nowhere, and porn is a massive contributor to it.
Parental controls have proven to be completely ineffective.

Porn didn't do that - fucking Leftist ideology did that. And you know what? They'd have studies to show you about how much harm guns do to children, too.

As someone who has once been a teen I can tell you that parental controls are trash at blocking porn. But if you do not believe my anecdotal claim. Here is some research on the subject which shows... that parental controls are completely and wholly ineffective in restricting a child's access to porn

Parental controls do not stop teens from seeing pornography

New research has found that Internet filtering tools are ineffective and in most cases, were an insignificant factor in whether young people had seen explicit sexual content.

www.sciencedaily.com

Again, anyone can drag out any kind of a study to prove whatever they want. This isn't the '90s anymore. Website url blockers work. Parental control work. One of the best controls is actually doing your job as a parent. Having the mindset that anyone and everyone else needs to be responsible for your kid is what put us in the mess we are in as far as kids getting groomed.

You are here explicitly arguing against... age verification on porn sites. Under the basis that... what, children need porn? No, you don't even defend your position, you just attack me. calling me a tyrant, would be leftist, muh objectificaiton, and someone who wants to ban porn so therefore my position should be discarded...

Because you are a petty little tyrant. You've shown that by indicating you just want to ban porn, period. This isn't about age verification. And, yeah, I'm going to be against anything that requires I give up the best means of maintaining privacy - anonymity. Guess who else is against that? Oh, right, Leftists

 

[AnimalNoodles]

I know, the gall of these people who want to get married out of love and as a culmination of romance. Pfft!

If your marriage is based on dopamine, it will fail. Thats why traditions around marriage emphasise obligations, continuity, and most of all..children.

 

[colorles]

If your marriage is based on dopamine, it will fail. Thats why traditions around marriage emphasise obligations, continuity, and most of all..children.

yes indeed.

anyone that says otherwise does not understand how dopamine, addictions and an ever increasing need for stimulation works. it never ends well

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Having to show ID of some form for every single little thing is not at all a free country. What's next, having to show ID to buy kitchenware? Oh the horror that lil Timmy can buy a steakknife set!
Not to mention such things are piss easy to bypass anyways. I think youtube bitches to me about needing ID to watch certain videos (No, not THOSE sorts, get your head out of the gutter!), but a handy tampermonkey script avoids it.

 

[colorles]

Having to show ID of some form for every single little thing is not at all a free country. What's next, having to show ID to buy kitchenware? Oh the horror that lil Timmy can buy a steakknife set!
Not to mention such things are piss easy to bypass anyways. I think youtube bitches to me about needing ID to watch certain videos (No, not THOSE sorts, get your head out of the gutter!), but a handy tampermonkey script avoids it.

had to post it. but your point stands

 

[King Arts]

Having to show ID of some form for every single little thing is not at all a free country. What's next, having to show ID to buy kitchenware? Oh the horror that lil Timmy can buy a steakknife set!
Not to mention such things are piss easy to bypass anyways. I think youtube bitches to me about needing ID to watch certain videos (No, not THOSE sorts, get your head out of the gutter!), but a handy tampermonkey script avoids it.

I mean yes the regulations have gotten out of hand. But I mean it all started with requiring I’d to buy alcohol. Do you think that should remain?

had to post it. but your point stands

Lol libertarians. I remember that debate it was comedy gold.

 

[Captain X]

No matter how much you don't like it, promiscuity is destructive. Calling people tyrants for pointing that out and discouraging it does not change the truth.

No matter how much you don't like it, basically anything in excess can be harmful. So just because you don't like porn, is not a reason to ban it. This desire to ban things so other people can't enjoy them absolutely makes one a petty little tyrant. No different from Leftist cancel culture.

I believe freedom of choice means adults can legally engage in self-destructive behavior if they want, but that does not make it moral.

Then you should likewise be against efforts to ban porn.

 

[LordsFire]

No matter how much you don't like it, basically anything in excess can be harmful. So just because you don't like porn, is not a reason to ban it. This desire to ban things so other people can't enjoy them absolutely makes one a petty little tyrant. No different from Leftist cancel culture.


Then you should likewise be against efforts to ban porn.

I'm not supporting efforts to ban it.

I'm absolutely not going to support efforts to put it in front of or make it easily accessible for children either.

It's wrong. It's bad. It's destructive. People can choose to be self-destructive if they want.

Pushing that crap on children is a different manner.

 

[mrttao]

If random, more likely than not heterosexual porn was what made them crazy like this, the leftists would not have to waste huge amounts of money and PR to get weirdo activists to propagandize to said students or have teachers show them material designed by them in the very schools, in this regard progressive school administration is probably a bigger threat to the students than porn, ironically enough.

Have you ever been to a porn site?

You cannot opt out of any of the deviant pornography.
this is by design, as various govt probes by verious govts has concluded that most porn sites are owned by an umbrella corporation called "Mind Geek" which is owned by the oligarchs. Who are using it as a form of social engineering.

They are pouring massive amounts of funds into it without regards to profitability. This is why all of them are completely free to watch. By costing nothing they drive their competitors out of business. This is not a profitable business model. but their goal is not to make money.

Of course it will not stop a teenager with a minimum of tech skills who actually wants to see it.
Besides that, younger children definitely should not have unsupervised internet access, period. And not because of porn. But because if you are lucky you will only have to de-malware their device every few weeks so better get your IT skills up to not pay a hundred bucks or few each time. If you are not lucky, they will get targeted by blackmailers, conmen or even actual groomers or pedos. That's why.

Your suggestion of the parents spending all day looking behind the child's shoulder is completely unrealistic.
Children are expected to do their homework online, and since covid to also take their classes online too.

You are basically expecting a wage slave (or two if you are lucky) to somehow spend multiple hours per day PER each individual child watching over their shoulder as they do their homework on the computer.

Also, libraries and schools exist and provide unsupervised internet access.
yea they got parental controls, but we established those do not work.
I still remember in highschool every time we had computer lab class I would sit in the back and see several people playing video games and several others playing porn on the school computers. Despite software designed to block both.

Last but not least, i'm amazed no one brought up a political pragmatism argument. Statistics show that about 65% of US men watch porn, even more among the young. With ~50% men voting for GOP, that means at very minimum (as in assuming no anti-porn people, even Muslims and feminists, ever vote for DNC, which would be silly) 30% of GOP men must be in that group, and they probably would not appreciate having to show their government ID to a fucking porn site to access it, especially with all the internet security fuckups happening all the time. For one it's a great way to cause an internal rift on the right, as some religious conservatives, despite all the shit happening, apparently don't have anything more important to do with their activism than pissing off their less religious political allies.

The law was literally passed in texas so this argument is already proven wrong.

 

[mrttao]

The judge actually does give his explanation. Privacy, too vague and compelled speech mostly.

The judge gave the judge's opinion. Captain X did not give a single justification.

The judge's opinion is bogus and retarded.
Compelled speech? Putting aside that porn isn't speech, verifying age is not compelling anything.
Too vague? There is nothing vague about requiring pornographers to check age of customer.
Utter nonsense.

The only thing that even barely maybe holds water is the privacy claim... And even then it is bullshit since you need to show an ID to get booze, cigarettes, and guns.
You need to show an ID to rent a motel room.

Not to mention there are many ways in which you can maintain anonymity while still doing some basic age verification.

 

[mrttao]

Then you should likewise be against efforts to ban porn.

The only mention of banning porn in regards to this discussion is your ad hominem attack against me. Where you asserted my words on the subject are moot because I am "a tyrant" in your opinion.

What we are discussing here is a real actual law that was passed by texas.
And a judge who struck it down.
This law had nothing to do with banning porn. Only age verification to prevent pornographers from pushing porn on children.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Have you ever been to a porn site?

You cannot opt out of any of the deviant pornography.
this is by design, as various govt probes by verious govts has concluded that most porn sites are owned by an umbrella corporation called "Mind Geek" which is owned by the oligarchs. Who are using it as a form of social engineering.

A bit of an elaboration on that.

 

[Captain X]

Have you ever been to a porn site?

Yes.

You cannot opt out of any of the deviant pornography.

Depends on the site. Some sites have these things called tags, and you can opt out of seeing some things by taking advantage of that tag system, or, you know, not watching things that you have no interest in.

Also, libraries and schools exist and provide unsupervised internet access.

Not in my school. And even in the '90s there was a porn-blocker on there that worked pretty good as far as I could tell.

The judge gave the judge's opinion. Captain X did not give a single justification.

Oh, so now you're a liar in addition to being a petty little tyrant.

The judge's opinion is bogus and retarded.

In your opinion.

Compelled speech? Putting aside that porn isn't speech, verifying age is not compelling anything.

No, verifying age is just a threat to privacy. The compelled speech would be the bit about explaining the "harm" porn does that was also being required of them.

The only thing that even barely maybe holds water is the privacy claim... And even then it is bullshit since you need to show an ID to get booze, cigarettes, and guns.
You need to show an ID to rent a motel room.

So what.

Not to mention there are many ways in which you can maintain anonymity while still doing some basic age verification.

About the only way to do that would the the standard "click on this button if you are over the age of 18" that would stop absolutely no one if they were under 18 and wanted to look at porn. Stop asking the Nanny State to raise people's kids for them.

The only mention of banning porn in regards to this discussion is your ad hominem attack against me. Where you asserted my words on the subject are moot because I am "a tyrant" in your opinion.

You might not have said it in this particular thread, but you have said it. So, yes, you are a petty little tyrant, no different from the Leftists who want to ban whatever they don't like.

What we are discussing here is a real actual law that was passed by texas.

Have you heard of the boiled frog?

And a judge who struck it down.

Which you were butthurt against.

This law had nothing to do with banning porn.

I mean, it's not like PornHub has been constantly under attack from people trying to ban porn or anything, coincidentally since they made a statement about being pro-free speech.

Only age verification to prevent pornographers from pushing porn on children.

Dude, pornographers aren't trying to push it on children. That's just more Helen Lovejoy bullshit from you and people like you.

 

[mrttao]

Depends on the site. Some sites have these things called tags, and you can opt out of seeing some things by taking advantage of that tag system, or, you know, not watching things that you have no interest in.

No, the tags are carefully designed to not allow you to opt out of the current grooming agenda.

Not in my school. And even in the '90s there was a porn-blocker on there that worked pretty good as far as I could tell.

A porn blocker app is not supervision.
You literally joined an argument that went something like
> me: blockers do not work
> marduk: true, but parents should personally supervise a child on internet at all times instead of relying on blockers
> me: parents cannot supervise in school where all there is is a blocker. nor at all times due to homework requirements
> you: blockers are parental supervision

About the only way to do that would the the standard "click on this button if you are over the age of 18" that would stop absolutely no one if they were under 18 and wanted to look at porn. Stop asking the Nanny State to raise people's kids for them.

Have you ever seen a prepaid phone card or a video game steam key on a box you buy at the store?

step 1: Print one use anonymous porn IDs which get distributed through any place that sells cigarettes. Show your ID at the store when buying the anonymized ID. make sure the ID number is not visible on the outside of the box.
step 2: Use such a one time ID to activate an account.

Also, it is hilarious that you think your porn habits are private.
Do you know what browser fingerprinting is?
Do you know what web fonts are?

Dude, pornographers aren't trying to push it on children. That's just more Helen Lovejoy bullshit from you and people like you.

Your dishonesty disgusts me

A bit of an elaboration on that.

Sad but true

 

[Captain X]

No, the tags are carefully designed to not allow you to opt out of the current grooming agenda.

Porn sites do not have a grooming agenda. The only agenda they have is to make money. Tags are designed to let someone find what they like, and to avoid things they don't like.

A porn blocker app is not supervision.
You literally joined an argument that went something like
> me: blockers do not work
> marduk: yes, but parents should supervise instead of relying on blockers
> me: parents cannot supervise in school where all there is is a blocker
> you: blockers are supervision

No, that's just a misrepresentation. I stated that the computer room in my school was not available without supervision. I also stated that they had pretty effective blockers.

Are you stupid or just pretending?
step 1: Print one use anonymous porn IDs which get distributed through any place that sells cigarettes. Show your ID at the store when buying the anonymized ID. make sure the ID number is not visible on the outside of the box.
step 2: Use such a one time ID to activate an account.

I shouldn't need to purchase a license to view porn.

Also, it is hilarious that you think your porn habits are private.
Do you know what browser fingerprinting is?
Do you know what web fonts are?

Your dishonesty disgusts me

Sad but true

Cope harder.

 

[mrttao]

A bit of an elaboration on that.

This is exactly what I mean when I saw we jews need to start excommunicating people.
Such utter degeneracy is unacceptable and makes us look bad.

 

[mrttao]

Porn sites do not have a grooming agenda. The only agenda they have is to make money. Tags are designed to let someone find what they like, and to avoid things they don't like.

Objectively false.

Various govts had parlimentary hearings about mindgeek.
Which is an oligarch backed umbrealla corporation that buys out all the smaller porn sites. And makes all of it completely free to kill competition to ensure they have total control over the market.

They are constantly receiving massive financial donations from oligarchs which allow them to operate at a big loss.
And their employees are very hostile towards request for filtering options.

https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/the-canadian-parliaments-hearing-taking-on-mindgeek-executives/

On February 1st, 2021, the Canadian House of Commons Ethics Committee launched their investigation into MindGeek, the parent company of Pornhub, for hosting videos of child sexual abuse, rape, sex-trafficking, and non-consensually distributed content. The Ethics Committee opened the investigation by interviewing Serena Fleites, a survivor of image-based child sexual abuse distributed through Pornhub, and Michael Bowe, an American Lawyer who has been rigorously investigating MindGeek sites for almost a year.

Bowe informed the Committee that his investigation has found hundreds of cases of rape, abuse, and trafficking being hosted on MindGeek sites. To list just a few examples, he shared:

• A girl was raped at 15, and her video was posted on Pornhub and distributed to her community. Pornhub refused to remove the video for 3 weeks, then claimed it had been removed but left it up for another 2 months.
• A child under the age of 10 was trafficked and had Child Sexual Abuse Material made of her for over 10 years. This abuse material was posted on Pornhub and remained there until late last year.
• A 15 year old was secretly filmed then coerced into making other intimate videos. These videos were posted on Pornhub along with her personal information, which resulted in her suffering long-term abuse and stalking. When she contacted Pornhub, they refused to search for the videos or take any other measures to prevent their distribution.

Bowe emphasized that he believed MindGeek hosting these videos was not "a mistake," but that they knowingly profited from illegal content. "How do we know that they know?" he asks. "The evidence is overwhelming." Furthermore, MindGeek itself publicly stated that all of its content is reviewed by moderators; this amounts to an admission that they knowingly allowed child sexual abuse and other illegal content on its sites.

Serena Fleites added a personal face to the problem illustrated by Bowe by sharing her own story. At age 14, Fleites' boyfriend manipulated and pressured her into sending him an intimate video, which he proceeded to share with his friends and which eventually ended up on Pornhub. Fleites states that when she contacted Pornhub to ask them to remove the video, they delayed the removal by several weeks by asking her to prove her identity again and again multiple times.

"It was clearly child porn," Fleites says. "Even if I wasn't the girl in the video, they could tell that was a child in the video and they were still dragging out this process. They didn't want to take the video down because at this point it had millions of views and was bringing them in ad revenue and clicks to their site."

The MP's in attendance commended Fleites for courageously sharing her story, assuring her it was having a profound impact and informing legislative decisions. "We are going to take action," says NDP MP Charlie Angus. "We are going to hold these guys to account. That is our job as legislators and as parents, because the system failed you."

We are anxious for MindGeek Executives to be held to account during the hearing scheduled for February 5th, 2021, where they will testify before the Canadian Parliament Ethics Committee. This is one of the most momentous developments in the fight against pornography in a generation, and is not something to be missed!

https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/fact-check-mindgeek-executives-pornhub-defense-before-canadian-parliament/

MindGeek, the parent company of online pornography website Pornhub, continued to face scrutiny for its role in facilitating—and profiting from—child sexual abuse and exploitation as its executives were questioned by the Canadian Parliament's House of Commons Ethics Committee in early February 2021.

The Parliamentary hearings regarding MindGeek were called for shortly after the publication of Nicholas Kristof's blistering piece for the New York Times entitled "The Children of Pornhub" in December 2020—an article which followed in the courageous footsteps of survivors who have helped pull the curtain back regarding Pornhub's profiteering from child sexual abuse material (among many other things).

Pornhub and MindGeek scrambled to "save face" in the wake of the new allegations and subsequent media fallout—including announcing "reforms" and eventually removing over 10 million videos from their site—but that didn't stop major credit card companies Visa, Mastercard, and Discover from cutting ties with Pornhub and launching their own investigations.

During the course of the testimony of MindGeek's executives, which included MindGeek CEO Feras Antoon and MindGeek COO David Tassillo, it was evident that they were desperate to hide from any form of accountability for their hand in the abuse and trauma of countless individuals. The hearing also revealed the lack of plausibility behind MindGeek's myriad attempts at deflecting and denying responsibility, as the executives were purposely vague, refused to make substantive remarks about corporate structure or profits when prompted, and essentially admitted to possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) while claiming true verification for posted videos was "impossible."

MindGeek Executives Give Testimony During Canadian Parliament Hearing, February, 2021
What follows are just a few of the lowlights that show the untrue, problematic, and concerning statements that MindGeek executives made during their hearing before the Canadian Parliament's House of Commons Ethics Committee on February 5, 2021:

• Claiming CSAM and other illegal content could not exist on a wide scale on Pornhub because the viewers of such content would naturally report it right away. Feras Antoon, CEO of MindGeek, had this to say:

"We are very proud that we built a product that gets 170 million people a day. Four million Canadians, 30% of them women, a day. Don't you believe that those four million Canadians coming every day to our site, if they see something so heinous and criminal like that, wouldn't they be calling the police? Wouldn't the police lines and the RCMP would be nonstop ringing? We created a very good product that I am proud of, that our 1,800 employees who have families and children are proud of."

The reality that Antoon was attempting to obfuscate using a false equivalency (that a lack of police reports is the same thing as a lack of criminal activity) is rife with examples of illegal material existing on and remaining on Pornhub. There are myriad reasons that illegal activity and material goes unreported to the police and Antoon's statement belies his inability to address the facts head on.

• Admitting at multiple points that Pornhub's moderation systems are not perfect and that they do, in fact, allow CSAM and other extremely harmful content to be posted and viewed on their site, Antoon said, "we recognize that we could have done more in the past and we must do more in the future," while MindGeek COO David Tassillo admitted, "It is possible that people committing crimes are able to circumvent our systems."

With two early candidates for understatement of the year, MindGeek's executives did appear to acknowledge the reality that in spite of claiming to be "proud" of their "very good product" they are aware of the abusive and criminal behavior and material facilitated and distributed by their product.

• Antoon and Tassillo attempted to tout Pornhub's recent reforms—which Pornhub only announced they would be working on after they were pressured financially by credit card companies no more than two months prior to the hearing—as standard and established MindGeek practices. In the hearing, safety standards such as verification and moderation strategies were lauded by the MindGeek executives as proof they are already doing and have been doing all they can as a company to prevent exploitation and abuse—even though 1) they can't fix Pornhub's inherent problems and 2) they have only recently begun to implement them.
• At multiple points, Antoon and Tassillo contradicted themselves regarding their moderation policies. At one point, Antoon claimed that "[Number one,] every single piece of content is viewed by our human moderators. Number two, it goes through software that we have licensed from YouTube, like CSI match from Microsoft, like photo DNA for pictures." However, the MindGeek executives later said that human moderators only go through videos which have been flagged for review.
• They stated that they have a comprehensive and accurate reporting form that would prevent non-consensual material from remaining live. Tassillo said:

"I wanna reiterate, that you can go fill out the form and the content will be disabled. There is actually no human intervention. You could go right now to the site, fill out a content removal form, and the content will be removed immediately. I can't stop it, Feras can't stop it, nobody can stop it. It will happen on its own."

This claim stands in direct contradiction to the lived experience of myriad survivors—including Serena Fleites who testified in the hearing just days before MindGeek's executives did—whose content was not removed from Pornhub even after reporting it.

• The MindGeek executives also attempted to claim that, to them and to Pornhub users, the word "teen" actually refers to adults and not, as it is understood by the rest of society, to children under 18:

"'Teen,' as an example, has created a lot of controversy on the site, because when you're, uh, using the English language in its, in its normal term, in its normal way, my apologies, 'teen' is used as 13 to 19, that's the demographic that's put into your head. Uh, in, in the adult world when people say teen, they're actually referencing 18 to 25, 18 to 27, something in, in that range. Similar to how when you're having a sports conversation, people-we use the word GOAT versus the traditional word of the goat when you're referencing the animal."

It is clear to us that MindGeek has been and is complicit in the distribution of child sexual abuse material and profiting from underage trauma and abuse (among other things).

Accordingly, we are encouraged by Canadian Parliament's willingness to take this case very seriously. In response to survivor testimony, NDP MP Charlie Angus stated that "We are going to take action. We are going to hold these guys to account. That is our job as legislators and as parents, because the system failed you."

of particular note

• At multiple points, Antoon and Tassillo contradicted themselves regarding their moderation policies. At one point, Antoon claimed that "[Number one,] every single piece of content is viewed by our human moderators. Number two, it goes through software that we have licensed from YouTube, like CSI match from Microsoft, like photo DNA for pictures." However, the MindGeek executives later said that human moderators only go through videos which have been flagged for review.

This is just their child porn and rape videos issue.
Nobody is actually investigating their massive intentional push for degeneracy.

Back in the day every porn site you went to a link to an entirely seperate sister site for LGB
Mindgeek integrates those into one website every time they buy a site. You are homophobe if you do not want to see a random gay video interspersed with your straight porn.

They pushed cuckoldry, they pushed racist blacked videos, they pushed incest, they pushed anal everywhere. and various other degeneracy of the day. And every time made it very hard to avoid.

Nobody in govt or corporate media is talking about oligarchs donating to them.