4 ms·

This article completely misses the causes of the rule changes. Banks and payment processes pushed new rules because they were being held accountable. The change

This article completely misses the causes of the rule changes. Banks and payment processes pushed new rules because they were being held accountable. The changes were all implemented in response to hugely influential NYT opinion piece on PornHub in December [1] that specifically called out payment processors, and preempted a BBC investigation into OnlyFans that was hinted to do the same [2]. The conversation here should about how rulemaking via media outrage is a problem given the public has conflicting morals. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58255865 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58255865

tqi 5y ago
Yeah this piece seems to forget that the Guardian[1] was also very critical of Pornhub when the NYT story came out. It seems like their position is that neither a completely hands off approach or a complete ban is acceptable, and that the only moral path is to allow the good and police the bad with perfect precision and recall. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/16/pornhub-untold-damage-pain https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/16/pornhu...
hamstergene 5y ago
Accountability by definition requires proper accounting practices. There should be level-headed discussions, legal actions, and punishment proportional to the wrongdoing. Taking damage from public outrage is being lynched, coerced, blackmailed, retaliated, scapegoated, it is being anything but held accountable. The author is talking about having power to discriminate anyone's business via private corporate decision. It seems OK in the context of sex trafficking/CP because we know those are bad things, but the power is not limited to any of that, and that is unaccountability.

tqi 5y ago

Yeah this piece seems to forget that the Guardian[1] was also very critical of Pornhub when the NYT story came out. It seems like their position is that neither a completely hands off approach or a complete ban is acceptable, and that the only moral path is to allow the good and police the bad with perfect precision and recall. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/16/pornhub-untold-damage-pain https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/16/pornhu...

hamstergene 5y ago

Accountability by definition requires proper accounting practices. There should be level-headed discussions, legal actions, and punishment proportional to the wrongdoing. Taking damage from public outrage is being lynched, coerced, blackmailed, retaliated, scapegoated, it is being anything but held accountable. The author is talking about having power to discriminate anyone's business via private corporate decision. It seems OK in the context of sex trafficking/CP because we know those are bad things, but the power is not limited to any of that, and that is unaccountability.