3 ms·

I don't disagree with the article overall, but it is very sensationalized. Statements like this > It is monetizing video compilations with titles like “Screami

I don't disagree with the article overall, but it is very sensationalized. Statements like this > It is monetizing video compilations with titles like “Screaming Teen,” “Degraded Teen” and “Extreme Choking.” Look at a choking video and it may suggest also searching for “She Can’t Breathe.” imply Pornhub is going out of it's way to specifically monetize rape or child videos, when the truth is they monetize every single video on their platform. If it was as easy as creating some sort of child or rape filter and de-monetizing those videos as the sentence seems to imply they should be doing, they would just remove the videos entirely, not de-monetize them. And the bit about related suggestions sort of implies to a non-techie that Pornhub employees are generating these suggestions, and it's not the only place in the article they make this point. The reality isn't an evil mustache-twirling Pornhub employee sitting at a desk and brainstorming "Ah yes, if they searched for ‘Young Asian’ they probably want to search for 'young tiny teen. The reality is an algorithm detecting patterns in user searches, and some of those users are sick people, and there's basically no level of human moderation of videos or search terms happening at the scale of usage Pornhub gets. Sentences like > Mindgeek’s moderators are charged with filtering out videos of children, but its business model profits from sex videos starring young people. Implies that Pornhub is getting a substantial amount of it's profit from illegal porn, which I highly doubt is the case and the article provides no evidence of. Again, I agree overall with the content of the article, and approve of Pornhub's reaction to only allow verified videos (which was suggested by the article). I'm not angry at Nicholas Kristof for sensationalizing some things, as it appears that is what it took to actually make something happen. But the article is definitely skewing towards misleading in some sections to get more reach.

afavour 5y ago
This all seems extremely hand-wavey to me. > the bit about related suggestions sort of implies to a non-techie that Pornhub employees are generating these suggestions They are, in a sense. They're not actively doing it in person but the code they wrote is generating those suggestions. Changing the code is within their power, yet they don't. If the code processing payments accidentally started charging everyone $0 you can bet it would get fixed pretty quickly. Why not fix the code that suggests rape videos? > The reality isn't an evil mustache-twirling Pornhub employee sitting at a desk and brainstorming "Ah yes, if they searched for ‘Young Asian’ they probably want to search for 'young tiny teen. The reality is an algorithm detecting patterns in user searches, and some of those users are sick people, and there's basically no level of human moderation of videos or search terms happening at the scale of usage Pornhub gets. "We created a feature that can be actively harmful, but there's no way for us to moderate it. Oh well!". Wouldn't it be better to just... not have that feature? Why isn't it an option to just turn it off?
- squeaky-clean 5y ago
  > Why not fix the code that suggests rape videos? None of those titles say rape or child in them, and the article already covered that they have a blacklist of search terms. Ever played a videogame with a censored wordlist for profanity? People will still find a way to call you a racial slur, even if it involves some really creative uses of text to get around the filter. > Wouldn't it be better to just... not have that feature? Why isn't it an option to just turn it off? Related searches in a search engine is a pretty core feature, and it's not like it prevents people from just coming up with related searches with their own mind and typing them in manually. And your statement sort of applies to every facet of Pornhub. Uploading user submitted videos can be actively harmful. Comments can be actively harmful. Edit to respond to this bit: > Changing the code is within their power, yet they don't. I'm pretty certain it's not just taking search term and running it through a thesaurus or something like that. It likely correlates searches from users that make similar search terms. The code isn't really generating any suggestions, just aggregating correlated search terms. I don't have hard proof of this of course, but it's a very common implementation for related searches.
- twic 5y ago
  > Why not fix the code that suggests rape videos? Deciding what is and isn't rape is an AI-hard problem.
  - afavour 5y ago
    So it being difficult is enough to absolve the company of responsibility?
  - 55555 5y ago
    Pornhub literally hasn't even let you search "rape" in years. Go ahead and search it. 0 results. This precedes the now infamous editorial. Same with "forced" and "brutal".
    - shadilay 5y ago
      This doesn't help, just ask Winnie the Pooh. (Xi) People are very creative with language to get around filters.
PastaMonster 5y ago
The problem is real amateur porn were kicked out because many feared to get verified which means people seek other less reputable sites to upload their videos on. Sites which some don't care about if it's legal or not like pornhub did and of course people will flock to sites that provide what pornhub destroyed. So many shady porn sites will get an income boost from what pornhub did in panic. Would you consider that a win since you agree with the verified only move? I definitely don't. It was a very bad move without any consideration of the consequences. You're supposed to support good sites. What pornhub was. Now it's just filled with professional garbage. I've been on these sites and stumbled upon illegal stuff. I never did that on pornhub. Nicholas Kristof only made the problem much worse. Journalists never consider the consequences. They only care about writing hit pieces.

afavour 5y ago

This all seems extremely hand-wavey to me. > the bit about related suggestions sort of implies to a non-techie that Pornhub employees are generating these suggestions They are, in a sense. They're not actively doing it in person but the code they wrote is generating those suggestions. Changing the code is within their power, yet they don't. If the code processing payments accidentally started charging everyone $0 you can bet it would get fixed pretty quickly. Why not fix the code that suggests rape videos? > The reality isn't an evil mustache-twirling Pornhub employee sitting at a desk and brainstorming "Ah yes, if they searched for ‘Young Asian’ they probably want to search for 'young tiny teen. The reality is an algorithm detecting patterns in user searches, and some of those users are sick people, and there's basically no level of human moderation of videos or search terms happening at the scale of usage Pornhub gets. "We created a feature that can be actively harmful, but there's no way for us to moderate it. Oh well!". Wouldn't it be better to just... not have that feature? Why isn't it an option to just turn it off?

squeaky-clean 5y ago
> Why not fix the code that suggests rape videos? None of those titles say rape or child in them, and the article already covered that they have a blacklist of search terms. Ever played a videogame with a censored wordlist for profanity? People will still find a way to call you a racial slur, even if it involves some really creative uses of text to get around the filter. > Wouldn't it be better to just... not have that feature? Why isn't it an option to just turn it off? Related searches in a search engine is a pretty core feature, and it's not like it prevents people from just coming up with related searches with their own mind and typing them in manually. And your statement sort of applies to every facet of Pornhub. Uploading user submitted videos can be actively harmful. Comments can be actively harmful. Edit to respond to this bit: > Changing the code is within their power, yet they don't. I'm pretty certain it's not just taking search term and running it through a thesaurus or something like that. It likely correlates searches from users that make similar search terms. The code isn't really generating any suggestions, just aggregating correlated search terms. I don't have hard proof of this of course, but it's a very common implementation for related searches.
twic 5y ago
> Why not fix the code that suggests rape videos? Deciding what is and isn't rape is an AI-hard problem.
- afavour 5y ago
  So it being difficult is enough to absolve the company of responsibility?
- 55555 5y ago
  Pornhub literally hasn't even let you search "rape" in years. Go ahead and search it. 0 results. This precedes the now infamous editorial. Same with "forced" and "brutal".
  - shadilay 5y ago
    This doesn't help, just ask Winnie the Pooh. (Xi) People are very creative with language to get around filters.

PastaMonster 5y ago

The problem is real amateur porn were kicked out because many feared to get verified which means people seek other less reputable sites to upload their videos on. Sites which some don't care about if it's legal or not like pornhub did and of course people will flock to sites that provide what pornhub destroyed. So many shady porn sites will get an income boost from what pornhub did in panic. Would you consider that a win since you agree with the verified only move? I definitely don't. It was a very bad move without any consideration of the consequences. You're supposed to support good sites. What pornhub was. Now it's just filled with professional garbage. I've been on these sites and stumbled upon illegal stuff. I never did that on pornhub. Nicholas Kristof only made the problem much worse. Journalists never consider the consequences. They only care about writing hit pieces.