4 ms·

Out of curiosity, did you read the linked article? It would appear that you're implying that the women that were directly quoted as being harmed by the site wer

Out of curiosity, did you read the linked article? It would appear that you're implying that the women that were directly quoted as being harmed by the site were also lying. If so, I find the stance of "either the author is an idiot or there's a conspiracy" to be an interesting dichotomy that excludes a third possibility.

anotherman554 6y ago
Did you notice the article is in the opinion section? I believe that means it isn't fact checked at all and there's no journalistic expectation it's anything other than fiction.
- newbie789 6y ago
  So you are of the opinion that the women were lying. Thanks for clarifying, I was unsure what you were responding to.
  - anotherman554 6y ago
    I wasn't the person you responded to, I just wanted to point out the expectation should be the article is fiction. The women may not even exist. They may not have been quoted correctly if they even exist. There is no expectation it's been fact checked. The article is in the opinion section, which means NY Times doesn't believe it's journalism at all.
    - newbie789 6y ago
      That's a really interesting take. Do you regularly read opinion pieces and take it as proof that the opposite position is correct? For example, if another writer published an article in the opinion section saying "PornHub has never even accidentally hosted illegal content, especially not child sex exploitation material. These PornHub employees that I've interviewed know this to be true" how would you interpret that?
      - anotherman554 6y ago
        Your framing doesn't make sense. If someone tells me "I'm not a doctor or a scientist but you should eat 4 Apples a day" the correct response is to ignore it, not try to decide what the opposite of 4 Apples a day is and to believe that, whatever the heck the opposite of 4 Apples a day would be. If I read an article where someone says "I'm not a journalist that this isn't fact checked but ABC" it would seem the correct response is to ignore it, not assume what you read is correct or even the opposite is correct.
        newbie789 6y ago
        That's an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure how that's a response to my example question. If every opinion piece is by definition fiction (and by your reasoning should never be believed), what would your response be if you read an article positing the opposite case on this topic? Surely PornHub employees could hypothetically be made up or misquoted in the same way the women in this story possibly were. In that case, we'd know that the article was pure fiction, which indicates that the opposite case is true based on this strict ruleset of "opinion pieces are always fiction" and "fiction is always to be treated as categorically false."
        anotherman554 6y ago
        I didn't say every opinion piece is fiction, I said you should expect it is. That isn't the same thing. I have a counter example to your example. Say the New York Times on Monday runs a opinion column saying trees cause cancer by the Anti-Tree foundation . It is accompanied by a opinion column arguing trees prevent cancer by the Pro- Tree foundation. (I'm trying to pick a silly, non-partisan example rather than a political one) It's clear the NY Times opinion section cannot be trusted because the opinions are mutually exclusive and make claims on facts. I am saying rather than chop down a tree (before it's too late and you get cancer) or plant a tree (to prevent yourself from getting cancer) you should assume both articles are fiction and ignore them.
        newbie789 6y ago
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > I wasn't the person you responded to, I just wanted to point out the expectation should be the article is fiction. The women may not even exist. They may not have been quoted correctly if they even exist. There is no expectation it's been fact checked. The article is in the opinion section, which means NY Times doesn't believe it's journalism at all. You misunderstand what the opinion section is for: it's not for fiction, it's for advocacy [edit: and subjectivity]. A direct condemnation of PornHub or expression of revulsion to them (which I recall the article had) would have been totally inappropriate for the news pages. Nicholas Kristof would be fired if he made all this up.
      - anotherman554 6y ago
        If the opinion section isn't fact checked, why would you believe the premise that results in call for advocacy is correct?
        ardy42 6y ago
        > If the opinion section isn't fact checked, why would you believe the premise that results in call for advocacy is correct? You're just plain wrong that it isn't fact checked. Read this description of their process from a previous NYT Op-ed editor. Emphasis is mine. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/op-ed-and-you.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/op-ed-and-you.htm...: > What happens when your article is accepted? First, you’ll get a contract giving us the right to publish it and laying out some of your responsibilities. The most important ones have to do with originality and truthfulness. You can’t plagiarize yourself, or someone else, and we won’t run something that has appeared in another publication, either print or digital. We request that you disclose anything that might be seen as a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise: Did you invest in a company that you praise in passing? Did you once work with a public official you mention in flattering or critical terms? Could you or an organization or company you represent benefit from the stance you take in an Op-Ed? We need to know. That doesn’t mean we’ll throw out your article on that basis — in most cases it just means disclosing the relationship to the reader. We also need all of the material that supports the facts in your story. That’s the biggest surprise to some people. Yes, we do fact check. Do we do it perfectly? Of course not. Everyone makes mistakes, and when we do we correct them. But the facts in a piece must be supported and validated. You can have any opinion you would like, but you can’t say that a certain battle began on a certain day if it did not.
pizza234 6y ago
Yes, I did, and I find the article very disingenous, biased, and intentionally confused (it mixes different problems in other to make the point). Considering that porn simulates reality (to various degrees), touching somebody else's eye doesn't prove anything. Also a title "very young teen" doesn't prove anything (it's pretty much standard for videos of this genre). If you want to find abusive videos, you can also find them on YouTube, which has been criticized as well, for the same reasons. The legal/moral issue is how the hosting company handles them. The author of the article mentions a low report rate, but he did not investigate the possibility that PornHub makes reporting difficult or ineffective. Ultimately, the article is intentionally ideological, and not factual, because a real investigation may hurt the point. Here's how disconnected from reality the author is: > The problem goes far beyond one company. Indeed, a rival of Pornhub, XVideos, which arguably has even fewer scruples, may attract more visitors. Depictions of child abuse also appear on mainstream sites like Twitter, Reddit and Facebook. And Google supports the business models of companies that thrive on child molestation.

anotherman554 6y ago

Did you notice the article is in the opinion section? I believe that means it isn't fact checked at all and there's no journalistic expectation it's anything other than fiction.

newbie789 6y ago
So you are of the opinion that the women were lying. Thanks for clarifying, I was unsure what you were responding to.
- anotherman554 6y ago
  I wasn't the person you responded to, I just wanted to point out the expectation should be the article is fiction. The women may not even exist. They may not have been quoted correctly if they even exist. There is no expectation it's been fact checked. The article is in the opinion section, which means NY Times doesn't believe it's journalism at all.
  - newbie789 6y ago
    That's a really interesting take. Do you regularly read opinion pieces and take it as proof that the opposite position is correct? For example, if another writer published an article in the opinion section saying "PornHub has never even accidentally hosted illegal content, especially not child sex exploitation material. These PornHub employees that I've interviewed know this to be true" how would you interpret that?
    - anotherman554 6y ago
      Your framing doesn't make sense. If someone tells me "I'm not a doctor or a scientist but you should eat 4 Apples a day" the correct response is to ignore it, not try to decide what the opposite of 4 Apples a day is and to believe that, whatever the heck the opposite of 4 Apples a day would be. If I read an article where someone says "I'm not a journalist that this isn't fact checked but ABC" it would seem the correct response is to ignore it, not assume what you read is correct or even the opposite is correct.
      - newbie789 6y ago
        That's an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure how that's a response to my example question. If every opinion piece is by definition fiction (and by your reasoning should never be believed), what would your response be if you read an article positing the opposite case on this topic? Surely PornHub employees could hypothetically be made up or misquoted in the same way the women in this story possibly were. In that case, we'd know that the article was pure fiction, which indicates that the opposite case is true based on this strict ruleset of "opinion pieces are always fiction" and "fiction is always to be treated as categorically false."
        anotherman554 6y ago
        I didn't say every opinion piece is fiction, I said you should expect it is. That isn't the same thing. I have a counter example to your example. Say the New York Times on Monday runs a opinion column saying trees cause cancer by the Anti-Tree foundation . It is accompanied by a opinion column arguing trees prevent cancer by the Pro- Tree foundation. (I'm trying to pick a silly, non-partisan example rather than a political one) It's clear the NY Times opinion section cannot be trusted because the opinions are mutually exclusive and make claims on facts. I am saying rather than chop down a tree (before it's too late and you get cancer) or plant a tree (to prevent yourself from getting cancer) you should assume both articles are fiction and ignore them.
        newbie789 6y ago
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > I wasn't the person you responded to, I just wanted to point out the expectation should be the article is fiction. The women may not even exist. They may not have been quoted correctly if they even exist. There is no expectation it's been fact checked. The article is in the opinion section, which means NY Times doesn't believe it's journalism at all. You misunderstand what the opinion section is for: it's not for fiction, it's for advocacy [edit: and subjectivity]. A direct condemnation of PornHub or expression of revulsion to them (which I recall the article had) would have been totally inappropriate for the news pages. Nicholas Kristof would be fired if he made all this up.
    - anotherman554 6y ago
      If the opinion section isn't fact checked, why would you believe the premise that results in call for advocacy is correct?
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > If the opinion section isn't fact checked, why would you believe the premise that results in call for advocacy is correct? You're just plain wrong that it isn't fact checked. Read this description of their process from a previous NYT Op-ed editor. Emphasis is mine. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/op-ed-and-you.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/op-ed-and-you.htm...: > What happens when your article is accepted? First, you’ll get a contract giving us the right to publish it and laying out some of your responsibilities. The most important ones have to do with originality and truthfulness. You can’t plagiarize yourself, or someone else, and we won’t run something that has appeared in another publication, either print or digital. We request that you disclose anything that might be seen as a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise: Did you invest in a company that you praise in passing? Did you once work with a public official you mention in flattering or critical terms? Could you or an organization or company you represent benefit from the stance you take in an Op-Ed? We need to know. That doesn’t mean we’ll throw out your article on that basis — in most cases it just means disclosing the relationship to the reader. We also need all of the material that supports the facts in your story. That’s the biggest surprise to some people. Yes, we do fact check. Do we do it perfectly? Of course not. Everyone makes mistakes, and when we do we correct them. But the facts in a piece must be supported and validated. You can have any opinion you would like, but you can’t say that a certain battle began on a certain day if it did not.

pizza234 6y ago

Yes, I did, and I find the article very disingenous, biased, and intentionally confused (it mixes different problems in other to make the point). Considering that porn simulates reality (to various degrees), touching somebody else's eye doesn't prove anything. Also a title "very young teen" doesn't prove anything (it's pretty much standard for videos of this genre). If you want to find abusive videos, you can also find them on YouTube, which has been criticized as well, for the same reasons. The legal/moral issue is how the hosting company handles them. The author of the article mentions a low report rate, but he did not investigate the possibility that PornHub makes reporting difficult or ineffective. Ultimately, the article is intentionally ideological, and not factual, because a real investigation may hurt the point. Here's how disconnected from reality the author is: > The problem goes far beyond one company. Indeed, a rival of Pornhub, XVideos, which arguably has even fewer scruples, may attract more visitors. Depictions of child abuse also appear on mainstream sites like Twitter, Reddit and Facebook. And Google supports the business models of companies that thrive on child molestation.