7 ms·

> The plaintiff in the case against MindGeek that names Visa as a defendent is Serena Fleites, who, when she was 13, said she was pressured by her then-boyfrien

> The plaintiff in the case against MindGeek that names Visa as a defendent is Serena Fleites, who, when she was 13, said she was pressured by her then-boyfriend into making a sexually explicit video — which he allegedly uploaded to Pornhub without her knowledge or consent. So if someone uploads porn video on Dropbox, should it be banned too?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nvahalik 4y ago
You don’t have to even upload it. Possession is a crime.
- wiseowise 4y ago
  I mean from platforms standpoint.
  - ehnto 4y ago
    I believe safe harbor laws cover this for the platform, but perhaps some platforms are pushing the limits and litigation will likely still be how we decide upon that. It would be surprising if there isn't precedent on this already, I would be surprised if it goes anywhere.
uxcolumbo 4y ago
She was 13 when she was filmed by her boyfriend. He uploaded it. She asked for it to be removed… but those mindgeek scummy leadership folks ignored it initially. Nothing wrong with adults showing others how they are rubbing their various body parts together and exchanging fluids (aka porn)… as long as it’s consensual and nobody is getting exploited or hurt. But Mindgeek are / were exploitative. https://traffickinghub.com/ https://traffickinghub.com/
- dijit 4y ago
  Worth noting that pornhub and other mindgeek properties actually attempts extensive moderation of their platforms and err on the side of caution about complaints on videos. It’s exceptionally easy to deplatform someone on pornhub as flagged videos are almost instantly removed and put up for review. They even made the controversial move of only allowing verified accounts to post on pornhub for precisely this reason.
  - blackbrokkoli 4y ago
    That needs context. In 2021, the company was subject to a massive lawsuit and PR disaster after PornHub failed to remove a video of a rape for over 10 fucking years. Not rape as in "sex that turned out to be not consensual after examining the fine points", no. Dragged into a van and gang-raped is what we are talking about. The victim's story finally got picked up by NYT [0] after the victims pleas, legal attempts etc. to the company fell on deaf ears for, again, over a decade. After this became widely known, they reluctantly made the change you are talking about. So yeah. [0](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...)
    - dijit 4y ago
      I should start by saying unequivocally that of course this situation is extremely awful and anyone involved not helping deserves to be condemned. However two things are apparent: 1) this is of course really one-sided, especially the op-ed which punches up the source quite a lot. Here is the source of the 10y story: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/ETHI/Brief/BR11156366/br-external/KalembaRose-e.pdf https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/ETHI/Brief/B... 2) the original source was upset by the fact the video kept recirculating, not that pornhub refused to take it offline, a lot fo I'm not saying more couldn't be done, but in that context it makes things slightly different. There are other problems where filters don't work against everything, you can filter "rape" but "forced", "coerced", "tricked", "rpe", "r4pe" etc; ad infinitum and including greedy matching ("grapeseed"?) would be a near impossible task; though they do try. So the Op-Ed saying they can search '14yo' and get results doesn't surprise me, but that's been quashed by the verified-only system now. You should also know: A large part of the media backlash against PornHub was the fact that a show called "girls do porn", an otherwise normal seeming show complete with F.B.I warnings and notices about consent: was featuring girls who did not consent and/or were underage. -- in fact most of those stories from the op-ed that I managed to trace were from this. The issue with the second thing here is that if a business entity looks legitimate and has their paperwork completely in order: there's very little you can do except deciding that you don't want to service them for some other more personal reason.
imadierich 4y ago
onion2k 4y ago
I wonder why you didn't phrase your question as "Should Dropbox be free to host child porn?"
- wiseowise 4y ago
  It was more of a "how do industry behemoths deal with this" in case I create my own file hosting service (which is highly unlikely).
  - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
    Review every video. "But that doesn't scale..." So fucking what? Deal with it. From a judge's (scathing) denial of Visa and Mindgeek's motion to dismiss: >Why would MindGeek allow Plaintiff’s first video to be posted despite its title clearly indicating Plaintiff was well below 18 years old? Why would MindGeek stall before removing the video, which Plaintiff alleges had advertisements running alongside it? Why would MindGeek take the video and upload it to its other porn websites? Why, after being alerted by Plaintiff that the video was child porn, would it allow the video to be reuploaded, whereafter advertisements were again featured alongside the reuploaded videos? And why did Plaintiff have to fight for years to have her videos removed from MindGeek’s sites? https://pershingsquarefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/031138281455.pdf https://pershingsquarefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022... Regarding dropbox, if dropbox publicly hosts a video titled childpornography.mp4 that contains child pornography, indexes it so people searching for it can find it, automatically tags and categorizes it for easy discovery, stalls for weeks when asked to remove it, runs ads alongside it in the meantime, distributes it to a myriad of other file hosting services, allows any file matching the hash of that file to be uploaded again, and then take years to finally purge it from their systems, they should 100% be held liable for distributing child pornography. And instagram should ban them. As an aside, WTF is wrong with people? Just get a paid membership to Dorcel and jerk off to sexy flight attendants seducing pilots and passengers and frustrated 40 year old housewives cheating with their gardeners like a normal fucking human being. If you can't afford that you should probably be doing something other than viewing pornography.
JohnHaugeland 4y ago
I'm really exhausted by these pseudo-wise table turn comments from people whose table turn doesn't even slightly resemble what actually happened Stop it
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  It's hard to know what you're saying, other than that people should stop because you're exhausted, but not willing to stop reading.
- dang 4y ago
  Since we've asked you more than once to stop breaking the site guidelines and you're not only still breaking them but doing it in almost every comment you post, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. (This is not a comment on the current issue in any way. I just needed a place to hang this comment, and picked this one arbitrarily.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
selfmodruntime 4y ago
If Dropbox‘ Execs knowingly deny victims their help by ignoring calls for removal, yes. That shouldn‘t be such a surprise.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nvahalik 4y ago

You don’t have to even upload it. Possession is a crime.

wiseowise 4y ago
I mean from platforms standpoint.
- ehnto 4y ago
  I believe safe harbor laws cover this for the platform, but perhaps some platforms are pushing the limits and litigation will likely still be how we decide upon that. It would be surprising if there isn't precedent on this already, I would be surprised if it goes anywhere.

uxcolumbo 4y ago

She was 13 when she was filmed by her boyfriend. He uploaded it. She asked for it to be removed… but those mindgeek scummy leadership folks ignored it initially. Nothing wrong with adults showing others how they are rubbing their various body parts together and exchanging fluids (aka porn)… as long as it’s consensual and nobody is getting exploited or hurt. But Mindgeek are / were exploitative. https://traffickinghub.com/ https://traffickinghub.com/

dijit 4y ago
Worth noting that pornhub and other mindgeek properties actually attempts extensive moderation of their platforms and err on the side of caution about complaints on videos. It’s exceptionally easy to deplatform someone on pornhub as flagged videos are almost instantly removed and put up for review. They even made the controversial move of only allowing verified accounts to post on pornhub for precisely this reason.
- blackbrokkoli 4y ago
  That needs context. In 2021, the company was subject to a massive lawsuit and PR disaster after PornHub failed to remove a video of a rape for over 10 fucking years. Not rape as in "sex that turned out to be not consensual after examining the fine points", no. Dragged into a van and gang-raped is what we are talking about. The victim's story finally got picked up by NYT [0] after the victims pleas, legal attempts etc. to the company fell on deaf ears for, again, over a decade. After this became widely known, they reluctantly made the change you are talking about. So yeah. [0](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...)
  - dijit 4y ago
    I should start by saying unequivocally that of course this situation is extremely awful and anyone involved not helping deserves to be condemned. However two things are apparent: 1) this is of course really one-sided, especially the op-ed which punches up the source quite a lot. Here is the source of the 10y story: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/ETHI/Brief/BR11156366/br-external/KalembaRose-e.pdf https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/ETHI/Brief/B... 2) the original source was upset by the fact the video kept recirculating, not that pornhub refused to take it offline, a lot fo I'm not saying more couldn't be done, but in that context it makes things slightly different. There are other problems where filters don't work against everything, you can filter "rape" but "forced", "coerced", "tricked", "rpe", "r4pe" etc; ad infinitum and including greedy matching ("grapeseed"?) would be a near impossible task; though they do try. So the Op-Ed saying they can search '14yo' and get results doesn't surprise me, but that's been quashed by the verified-only system now. You should also know: A large part of the media backlash against PornHub was the fact that a show called "girls do porn", an otherwise normal seeming show complete with F.B.I warnings and notices about consent: was featuring girls who did not consent and/or were underage. -- in fact most of those stories from the op-ed that I managed to trace were from this. The issue with the second thing here is that if a business entity looks legitimate and has their paperwork completely in order: there's very little you can do except deciding that you don't want to service them for some other more personal reason.

imadierich 4y ago

onion2k 4y ago

I wonder why you didn't phrase your question as "Should Dropbox be free to host child porn?"

wiseowise 4y ago
It was more of a "how do industry behemoths deal with this" in case I create my own file hosting service (which is highly unlikely).
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  Review every video. "But that doesn't scale..." So fucking what? Deal with it. From a judge's (scathing) denial of Visa and Mindgeek's motion to dismiss: >Why would MindGeek allow Plaintiff’s first video to be posted despite its title clearly indicating Plaintiff was well below 18 years old? Why would MindGeek stall before removing the video, which Plaintiff alleges had advertisements running alongside it? Why would MindGeek take the video and upload it to its other porn websites? Why, after being alerted by Plaintiff that the video was child porn, would it allow the video to be reuploaded, whereafter advertisements were again featured alongside the reuploaded videos? And why did Plaintiff have to fight for years to have her videos removed from MindGeek’s sites? https://pershingsquarefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/031138281455.pdf https://pershingsquarefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022... Regarding dropbox, if dropbox publicly hosts a video titled childpornography.mp4 that contains child pornography, indexes it so people searching for it can find it, automatically tags and categorizes it for easy discovery, stalls for weeks when asked to remove it, runs ads alongside it in the meantime, distributes it to a myriad of other file hosting services, allows any file matching the hash of that file to be uploaded again, and then take years to finally purge it from their systems, they should 100% be held liable for distributing child pornography. And instagram should ban them. As an aside, WTF is wrong with people? Just get a paid membership to Dorcel and jerk off to sexy flight attendants seducing pilots and passengers and frustrated 40 year old housewives cheating with their gardeners like a normal fucking human being. If you can't afford that you should probably be doing something other than viewing pornography.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago

I'm really exhausted by these pseudo-wise table turn comments from people whose table turn doesn't even slightly resemble what actually happened Stop it

robertlagrant 4y ago
It's hard to know what you're saying, other than that people should stop because you're exhausted, but not willing to stop reading.
dang 4y ago
Since we've asked you more than once to stop breaking the site guidelines and you're not only still breaking them but doing it in almost every comment you post, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. (This is not a comment on the current issue in any way. I just needed a place to hang this comment, and picked this one arbitrarily.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

selfmodruntime 4y ago

If Dropbox‘ Execs knowingly deny victims their help by ignoring calls for removal, yes. That shouldn‘t be such a surprise.