6 ms·

there isnt much of incriminating evidence in the article to justify the writing as if they discovered some terrorist cell or sth. searching for revenge porn and

by jdrc 5y ago

there isnt much of incriminating evidence in the article to justify the writing as if they discovered some terrorist cell or sth. searching for revenge porn and banning shady stuff is laudable, but there s so many people willing to make porn nowadays that it doesnt justify creating panics around it. even facebook and google have corporate structures in the carribean. The names they are printing are probably the owners of companies who serve as directors. I mean it's cool if you want to fight the global shell company system and all, but starting with a medium euro porn site doesnt seem particularly fruitful. I wonder whose audience is this article; i don't think germans are so scared of porn

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
> i don't think germans are so scared of porn I don't think this is the issue at all to be honest. It's not about puritanism or anti-pornography or whatever, it's about the people involved, the victims who are forced into prostitution (on camera or otherwise), or those who get their private videos published as revenge or as a consequence (blackmailing).
berkes 5y ago
> to justify the writing as if they discovered some terrorist cell or sth I read it as whilst trying to uncover the people behind those businesses, we found those spend effort to not be uncovered. Like a reverse "I don't need privacy because I have nothing to hide" fallacy. Only that the reverse isn't that much a fallacy: if you spend this amount of money, effort, technology, and legal structures to hide yourselves, in an industry that is in trouble because of people who do want to hide their privacy but cannot (revenge porn etc. all mentioned in the article), there is something amiss.
- jdrc 5y ago
  i think the main reason is tax avoidance. These porn sites have so much content anyway that they dont stand to gain from distributing revenge porn. Unless they are super-shady, they remove stuff with a DMCA request
  - zwirbl 5y ago
    For the other reasons, might it have something to do with serving and profiting from non-consensual, violent and sometimes even illegal material? Like, the way it was (?) on pornhub before they were forced to remove videos from unverified accounts? People can be pro-pornography and still be offended by those practices
    - jdrc 5y ago
      tbh i don't buy that unless they have clear statistics. Facebook users upload tons more content , and surely a lot of it non-consensual. Why would porn sites, especially the big ones, care about illegal content, they have tons of content already
  - spiralx 5y ago
    Most companies involved in the seedier side of business keep a low profile to avoid attention though. Tube sites were "disruptive" in that they let users upload copyrighted material and said "it's not us!" so it's even less surprising they'd not want their backers to be easily traced, just look at companies like Tether which have equally shady corporate structures designed to shield their owners because they're operating in - at best - legally grey areas. Fascinating story about the world's largest producer of amyl nitrates, the production of which has always been super-shadowy. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/poppers-factory https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/poppers-facto...

by jdrc 5y ago

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

> i don't think germans are so scared of porn I don't think this is the issue at all to be honest. It's not about puritanism or anti-pornography or whatever, it's about the people involved, the victims who are forced into prostitution (on camera or otherwise), or those who get their private videos published as revenge or as a consequence (blackmailing).

berkes 5y ago

> to justify the writing as if they discovered some terrorist cell or sth I read it as whilst trying to uncover the people behind those businesses, we found those spend effort to not be uncovered. Like a reverse "I don't need privacy because I have nothing to hide" fallacy. Only that the reverse isn't that much a fallacy: if you spend this amount of money, effort, technology, and legal structures to hide yourselves, in an industry that is in trouble because of people who do want to hide their privacy but cannot (revenge porn etc. all mentioned in the article), there is something amiss.

jdrc 5y ago
i think the main reason is tax avoidance. These porn sites have so much content anyway that they dont stand to gain from distributing revenge porn. Unless they are super-shady, they remove stuff with a DMCA request
- zwirbl 5y ago
  For the other reasons, might it have something to do with serving and profiting from non-consensual, violent and sometimes even illegal material? Like, the way it was (?) on pornhub before they were forced to remove videos from unverified accounts? People can be pro-pornography and still be offended by those practices
  - jdrc 5y ago
    tbh i don't buy that unless they have clear statistics. Facebook users upload tons more content , and surely a lot of it non-consensual. Why would porn sites, especially the big ones, care about illegal content, they have tons of content already
- spiralx 5y ago
  Most companies involved in the seedier side of business keep a low profile to avoid attention though. Tube sites were "disruptive" in that they let users upload copyrighted material and said "it's not us!" so it's even less surprising they'd not want their backers to be easily traced, just look at companies like Tether which have equally shady corporate structures designed to shield their owners because they're operating in - at best - legally grey areas. Fascinating story about the world's largest producer of amyl nitrates, the production of which has always been super-shadowy. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/poppers-factory https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/poppers-facto...