D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I read them, I find them impractical and unlikely to be mobilized or conducted efficaciously.
Time to Shut Down Pornhub
- Thread starter The Name of Love
- Start date
SergeantBrother
Notorious Member
Pornhub isn't making child pornography, it is a site which hosts what ever people post to it and will take down illegal material. I am sure that the people at Pornhub want to keep child pornography off of their site as much as anybody does - as they are the ones who look bad from it.
If we can shut down an open hosting website because sometimes people post illegal stuff there, even if it is removed when the website owners discover it, then there is no limit to what can be censored. The elites who run our governments would love nothing more than to be able to censor dissent online and they are well on their way to doing so. Any law which allowed them to go after Pornhub for child pornography would be exploited to censor so called "Nazis" in no time at all.
Obviously, I'm against child pornography, but when the issue of child sexual exploitation arises, people become complete idiots and are willing to advocate for all sorts of irrational extremes. Which is why exploiting hysteria over child molestation is such a useful tool for tyrants.
Pornographers aren't saints by any means, but they don't pose a threat to society that can remotely compare to censorship. If you don't like porn, don't watch it, don't get a job doing it, and don't let your kids watch it. How much of an effect pornography has in your life is your choice as an individual. Censorship unfortunately is not.
If we can shut down an open hosting website because sometimes people post illegal stuff there, even if it is removed when the website owners discover it, then there is no limit to what can be censored. The elites who run our governments would love nothing more than to be able to censor dissent online and they are well on their way to doing so. Any law which allowed them to go after Pornhub for child pornography would be exploited to censor so called "Nazis" in no time at all.
Obviously, I'm against child pornography, but when the issue of child sexual exploitation arises, people become complete idiots and are willing to advocate for all sorts of irrational extremes. Which is why exploiting hysteria over child molestation is such a useful tool for tyrants.
Pornographers aren't saints by any means, but they don't pose a threat to society that can remotely compare to censorship. If you don't like porn, don't watch it, don't get a job doing it, and don't let your kids watch it. How much of an effect pornography has in your life is your choice as an individual. Censorship unfortunately is not.
Wait, I thought that from a Christian perspective, everybody roasts (dead, not alive) in Hell if they don't repent, even people who dedicate their lives to doing good deeds.
The article's claims, citations, and proposed solution don't seem to line up. For example:
They did not knowingly verify any such think. They "verified" her, in a process that the article outright admits is extremely lax and proves nothing beyond identify, requiring no ID, proof of age, ect.
Doing a quick search, the vast majority of those videos are obvious lies, because on googling the actresses name they're all at or above the age of 18, and I don't see anything to back up the article's claim that most of those videos feature just "girls" and not adult women outside of the title. Perhaps the next handwringing article will be about pornhub's lackadaisical attitude toward incestuous content being hosted on their site, I saw a bunch of videos featuring what they claimed were step siblings fucking each other's brains out, clearly that must be what's actually happening on a massive scale.
They're putting the cart before the horse, by proposing solutions to a problem they haven't established is a problem.
The national discourse article is literally a bunch of "think of the children" hogwash, which concludes that because porn is something children should not be exposed to (correct), therefore, we must punish those who provide it because reasons. That's obviously absurd, if you are concerned your children might be watching porn on the internet, deal with it yourself. The article even brings up the old "information superhighway" metaphor without realizing that we solved the issue of kids being endangered on real highways by not letting them drive and mandating safety seats, not by throwing Henry Ford in jail because someone ran over a toddler in one of his cars.
Parental controls exist. Tools to limit what your children can do on the internet exist. The opition of just disabling the internet and just letting them play singleplayer games exists. If you don't use those tools and just let your kids run wild, that's your fault, you can't go around throwing other people in jail because you're a bad parent.
The first things article doesn't even bother to go that far and just starts tossing out proposed solutions without even a slight effort to establish that there is a problem in the first place.
This isn't to say that porn industry is a precious little cinnamon bun, it's not. The porn industry is deeply dysfunctional and exploitative. While the explicitly illegal stuff that places like girlsdoporn got up to is thankfully extremely rare, that's because the norm (or at least the far from unheard of alternative) is to just hire someone who's mentally unstable enough to agree in the first place, but no so unstable that they can't legally consent in the first place, use them up, then toss them by the wayside and start over. Mia Khalifa has talked about this a fair bit after she quit the industry. But the thing is, think of the children crap like the OP's article's propose will not fix any of this. Pornhub, to my knowledge, doesn't make porn, they just host content, and shutting them down won't make bangbros or brazzers start treating their performers better.
They did not knowingly verify any such think. They "verified" her, in a process that the article outright admits is extremely lax and proves nothing beyond identify, requiring no ID, proof of age, ect.
Doing a quick search, the vast majority of those videos are obvious lies, because on googling the actresses name they're all at or above the age of 18, and I don't see anything to back up the article's claim that most of those videos feature just "girls" and not adult women outside of the title. Perhaps the next handwringing article will be about pornhub's lackadaisical attitude toward incestuous content being hosted on their site, I saw a bunch of videos featuring what they claimed were step siblings fucking each other's brains out, clearly that must be what's actually happening on a massive scale.
They're putting the cart before the horse, by proposing solutions to a problem they haven't established is a problem.
The national discourse article is literally a bunch of "think of the children" hogwash, which concludes that because porn is something children should not be exposed to (correct), therefore, we must punish those who provide it because reasons. That's obviously absurd, if you are concerned your children might be watching porn on the internet, deal with it yourself. The article even brings up the old "information superhighway" metaphor without realizing that we solved the issue of kids being endangered on real highways by not letting them drive and mandating safety seats, not by throwing Henry Ford in jail because someone ran over a toddler in one of his cars.
Parental controls exist. Tools to limit what your children can do on the internet exist. The opition of just disabling the internet and just letting them play singleplayer games exists. If you don't use those tools and just let your kids run wild, that's your fault, you can't go around throwing other people in jail because you're a bad parent.
The first things article doesn't even bother to go that far and just starts tossing out proposed solutions without even a slight effort to establish that there is a problem in the first place.
This isn't to say that porn industry is a precious little cinnamon bun, it's not. The porn industry is deeply dysfunctional and exploitative. While the explicitly illegal stuff that places like girlsdoporn got up to is thankfully extremely rare, that's because the norm (or at least the far from unheard of alternative) is to just hire someone who's mentally unstable enough to agree in the first place, but no so unstable that they can't legally consent in the first place, use them up, then toss them by the wayside and start over. Mia Khalifa has talked about this a fair bit after she quit the industry. But the thing is, think of the children crap like the OP's article's propose will not fix any of this. Pornhub, to my knowledge, doesn't make porn, they just host content, and shutting them down won't make bangbros or brazzers start treating their performers better.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Your opinion, not a political fact. The only reason they would be impractical is because
This here is what I call p. By this logic, we shouldn’t even have a state. Are you an anarchist?
Do you want to go into Christian escatology
They verified her knowing she was fifteen. That’s complicity. Again, actually read the Washington Examiner article.
So pretending to be a pedophile is alright?
It is a problem, the proof is in the articles I posted, and your dismissal of the problem is actually dishonest. I also didn’t post any article from “National Discourse,” so thats another proo you actually haven’t read it.
I did, all it said was:
Which does not establish that they knew she was 15.
People having creepy fetishes is not a legitimate reason to get the government involved.
The problem those articles are positing the existence of is porn in general, not lackluster verification and content controls on pornhub.
Porn has problems, both in how the industry works and how lax parenting means it's easy for kids to access, but shutting down pornhub willful neither.
I think you'll need better proof than "well actually, it was the Public Discourse, not the national discourse" to prove I didn't read it.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Really now?
This sounds to me like they knew she was a minor as they verified her. That, or they didn't even care. Either way, they assisted in her being trafficked.
People having creepy fetishes that actually result in people being raped does give legitimate reasons to get the government involved. Again, none of the girls in those videos looked a day over thirteen according to the article.
Actually read the scientific case for a porn ban. It's pretty long, but it's very thorough.
Okay. How about not reading the article in-depth?
Yes, really.
It was written by someone with an axe to grind, of course it sounds that way. But there's no factual basis to it.
No one cares, because pornhub verification does nothing.
No, they didn't, or at least not the way the article tries to make it sound. If the door guard at a club doesn't notice you've got a fake ID and lets you in, yes maybe he technically assisted your underage drinking, but the article keeps trying to frame this as not mere ignorance but active complacency, without having the evidence to back it up.
The article establishes no link between particular porn habits and sexual violence, and neither have you.
I checked pornhub, and that's not the case.
Wow, watching tons of porn is probably bad for you, what a shock.
And I have serious doubts about that articles honestly. It claims kink.com is some kind of hugely popular site, but check king it's traffic on similarweb, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Kink.com gets 7.73 million visits per month.
Brazzers, a more or less mainstream steam site, gets 27.76 million, and I'll assume that brazzers mainstream competitors are roughly the same, with a fairly limited overlap (since all those sites charge for content, and I don't think it's common to pay for access to more than one porn site).
Pornhub gets 3 billion views a month, and per thier own claims about what users are searching for, the kind of content that your articles are fearmongering about are not particularly common. The main bondage related search term getting traffic was Femdom, which you'll notice also answers your article's question of "oh noes, what does this mean men are thinking about the women around them". Specifically, it says they're thinking "yes mistress, step on my balls harder please".
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
@Battlegrinder Why are you so dishonest to me?
Given all the lies you have said, I don't really believe anything you said. So when you claim to have checked pornhub, I'll assume that that's a lie too. It'd fit the pattern.
This is a lie, as anyone who has read the OP post and what I said about Kink dot com.
Pretty shocking admission coming from someone who thinks that porn isn't even a problem. Kind of walked into that one.
Given all the lies you have said, I don't really believe anything you said. So when you claim to have checked pornhub, I'll assume that that's a lie too. It'd fit the pattern.
Kink.com's content has what relevance to teen porn, the thing you were originally fearmongering about?
Overconsumption of anything is bad for you, dude, that's not some shocking admission.
Also, I didn't say porn doesn't have problems, I've been very clear about what I think of the industry.
Speaking of walking into things:
SimilarWeb kink.com.
SimilarWeb Brazzers.
SimilarWeb pornhub.
Here's a tip, don't accuse people of making stuff up without confirming for yourself that they are in fact making stuff up. Otherwise, they'll do what I just did and prove thier claim, and then you come out of the exchange looking really stupid.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Femdom? That is one of the most painful kinks I can think of.....do they do it while wearing heels?
Femdom does not necessarily imply CBT (not the therapy acronym). If you have other questions about BDSM, feel free to PM me or start another thread in the NSFW place, as I think specifics will quickly get NSFW.
As for @The Name of Love , the reason censorship is resisted is that the censors will eventually come for themselves, as the Far Left is learning. The right embracing censorship when they are being attacked by censorious leftists is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Femdom doesn’t necessarily mean CBT, it just means a dominant woman and submissive man.
Edit: Oops, shows that I should refresh the window before I reply, I got ninja’d by 30 minutes.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Do you know what's even stupider? Thinking that social conservatives should just roll over and die.
I didn't say social conservatives should roll over and die. But I do hope authoritarians will. That's what this is, by the way: Authoritarianism. There are plenty of social conservatives who don't like porn who also have the basic common sense not to like censorship as well. People like Ben Shapiro and David French. And you, as a social conservative who is losing/lost the culture war to the left, should be vary wary of censorship. It will target you. It will target anti-abortion ads for being anti woman. It will target your churches for not being gay friendly. And this is what you are inviting by making a deal with authoritarianism.
With nearly the same words too, lol!
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Authoritarian measures can be unfortunately effective, but its a sword that cut both ways.
The Left wants to censor conservatives, and will happily play the free speech "mean reactionaries want to take away your porn and force women into arranged marriages" sort of spiel to win the support of the population, especially the youth.
The Left wants to censor conservatives, and will happily play the free speech "mean reactionaries want to take away your porn and force women into arranged marriages" sort of spiel to win the support of the population, especially the youth.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Social conservatives absolutely shouldn’t roll over and die. They should spread their ideology in good ways - convincing people, having kids and raising them, living by example, constructing good arguments, etc.
They should not use a government which is their enemy to force their beliefs on others, not only because it’s wrong, but because it’s foolish to do so.
Great minds think alike 😁
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
If pornhub shuts down, someone will eventually replace it with pornhub 2.0. People who have careers in pornhub and consumers who do pay for the extras will switch to it.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
1. I don't consider people like Ben "I want to privatize marriage" Shapiro and David "drag queen story hour is one of the blessings of liberty" French are social conservatives, at least not in a serious ones.
2. If you think what I'm advocating for is authoritarian, then every society up until twenty minutes ago was authoritarian, including 19th century America. And if you think that's the case, then, sure, I'm authoritarian.
So I should become a Leftist?
Yes, they had authoritarian elements. 19th century America was fairly authoritarian, given the slavery and all.
But yeah, using government to force your beliefs on others is textbook authoritarianism. That's what you are doing here. It's wrong to force your beliefs on others. Unless you want to argue Saudia Arabia as a bastion of moral governance?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Of course not. But you should be cautious that the policies you implement don’t backfire in spectacular fashion.