7 ms·

Visa knew about Pornhub’s child porn, judge says, and now must face trial

50 points by _-david-_ 4y ago

Beltalowda 4y ago
> MindGeek responded to increased pressure from Visa and other companies by immediately deleting 80 percent of its hosted content, approximately 10 million unverified videos. According to a California court, much of that was likely child porn. Much of that 80% of PornHub was "child porn"? Colour me skeptical on that one. They just deleted everything where they couldn't verify it was not child porn, but that's a very different thing. Visa is not law enforcement; if there is evidence of child porn then law enforcement can and should crack down on that. And if there is no evidence ... why should visa do anything? A lot of this is a concentrated effort by evangelical groups what in the past were drooling about things like sex toys or the "sodomite lifestyle" bringing ruin and despair to our society. Not saying there isn't a serious discussion to be had here, but that doesn't mean everyone is acting in good faith or that there isn't a large amount of exaggerated bullshit, too.
- richbell 4y ago
  > Much of that 80% of PornHub was "child porn"? Colour me skeptical on that one. They just deleted everything where they couldn't verify it was not child porn, but that's a very different thing. You are correct; the court's conclusions are absurd. I think they could make a compelling argument that a significant amount of the deleted content was uploaded without its subject's consent... but to claim that most of it was CSAM is crazy.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Much of that 80% of PornHub was "child porn"? Colour me skeptical on that one. They just deleted everything where they couldn't verify it was not child porn, but that's a very different thing. Did they actually do that? I thought they only removed videos where the person who uploaded them did not provide evidence that the uploader was over 18. The uplooader may or may not be the person in the video.
  - richbell 4y ago
    According to Vice: > PornHub [removed] all videos on its site that weren't uploaded by official content partners or members of its model program https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgqjjy/pornhub-suspended-all-unverified-videos-content https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgqjjy/pornhub-suspended-all...
    - tsol 4y ago
      So they deleted videos where they couldn't verify the performers age only. Seems reasonable, to be honest. I know women who had their bodies posted on there against their consent and it can be very hard to take down, while it's trivial to be re-uploaded.
      - richbell 4y ago
        > So they deleted videos where they couldn't verify the performers age only. Which is basically all of the "amateur" / non-professionally produced videos. I recall reading that they went from around 5 million videos to 1 million. That said, I think David is right that a verified account doesn't necessarily mean the subjects consented to the video being uploaded. In theory you're verified and have all the paperwork; I'm not sure how strictly they enforced this in practice. > Videos are only eligible for earnings if you are in the video. You must fill out a co-performer agreement and keep it on you if there are other in your videos. We may request it at any time. > PornHub Model Program FAQ
- HereIGoAgain 4y ago
  Just skeptical? They deleted Hentai with rape, "too young looking" anime characters and other such stuff in it! So it's pretty safe to say that it wasn't all CP. Not to mention that even RP rape and other types of content got the boot as well. At the demand of the CC companies. So if anything, they were being over protective against something that should never have been their business to police.
cptcobalt 4y ago
Holy fuck, this is so pernicious. I don't see Visa as culpable here—no more culpable than the ISP serving PornHub, or their analytics provider, data center, ad services, or anything else. If the judge is after Visa, they should be after the others equally. The blame for platforming the content and careless-moderation lies squarely on PornHub. And there are surely other institutions than Visa that should be obliged to take immediate serious issue with CSAM on PH. Why isn't Visa being forced to stop providing payment processing services for liquor stores that sell alcohol to people who drive drunk and injure themselves and others? I swear, this isn't a strawman argument—Visa is as removed from culpability in this case as they are in this PornHub case, and deaths caused by drunk driving are reasonably far more damaging to human life. The specific behavior users posting CSAM on PornHub is unquestionably damnable (and those who posted it are the most culpable, and must suffer the most consequences). This doesn't mean PornHub is a whole is a net-bad. Sex work is real work, and America has a damn hard time appreciating the aesthetics of the human body in a comfortable and unproblematic manner, and the pressure to keep PornHub hidden in the shadows reinforces the negative feedback loop of unhealthy perspectives of sex, and promotes some bad behavior—we can't culturally talk about sex comfortably and openly, when we're all made for it. In any case, Visa's job is not to moderate the content of the internet, nor any other purchases on their platform—aside from an interested best-effort response to deny outright the sale of illegal goods and services. Visa should be able to fine or sue PornHub for breach of contract. Or increase their payment processing fees, and force them provide reports and transparency. It is not ok for Visa to feel forced by external pressure to cut off this entire business category as a whole.
- ss108 4y ago
  The judge isn't "after" Visa. The government has brought charges against Visa, and seemingly not against the other entities you mentioned
  - miracle2k 4y ago
    It'a civil suit, and MindGeek is a defendant. You should probably read the article.
yieldcrv 4y ago
I think this highlights the folly of regulating transactions. It should really be as neutral as a power utility. As an analogy - where dissimilar things are compared for the ways that they're similar - if you asked people "should we keep the power on for people involved with CSAM", many people would say "no!" and vilify anyone arguing against the premise itself, because any punishment is a valid punishment to them. So our liability laws should factor this in.
stefantalpalaru 4y ago
jjk166 4y ago
The judge claims that this is not a serious threat to the basic operation of our financial system because this case is "special" in two ways - the business visa was providing monetary services to had been accused of wrongdoing in a news article, and was so seriously concerned about visa pulling it's payment processing that it would take drastic measures to get them back. I do not see how either point is in any ways special. Any company can be accused by private journalists of wrongdoing, and an extremely large fraction of companies probably are guilty of some wrongdoing at some point or another, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any company engaged in commerce which didn't care if a payment processor on the scale of visa stopped recognizing them. So by that logic, anyone who can allege wrongdoing by a company that has payments processed has standing to sue payment processors as well. > It is simply being asked to refrain from offering the tool with which a known alleged criminal entity performs its crimes. That is not a tall order and does not spell out an existential threat to the financial industry. In a society where innocence is presumed, "known alleged criminal entity" is an oxymoron as far as the law is concerned. If anyone can be an alleged criminal entity, how could this not be an existential threat?
- HereIGoAgain 4y ago
  Yup, this a terrifying standard. CCs, banks and PPs already have no business playing police, but now this judge just handed the MSM the veto on pretty much anything. Since a crime doesn't even need to have been proven to happen, let alone guilt on anyone's part to open financial services up to legal action. Insanity. We need the financial institutions to stop being asked (forced) by the government to do law enforcement's job. This is yet another argument for why we need some kind of 'financial services neutrality act'
HereIGoAgain 4y ago
Oh fuck.. Just what we need.. Big money, tech, media companies being even more terrified of anything related to sex and nudity! Also that argument is insane and dangerous in so many ways? What's next, employers being held culpable for the things employees spend their money on? And on another level.. Policing money is the VERY LAST thing private entities should be doing in the first place. If they aren't directly alerted/warned by law enforcement or some other overt way, then it shouldn't be their business. Not that I feel too bad for the companies, they have their self to blame in a way.. Once you start playing money police games, well you get this. To be fair though it isn't entirely their fault. That kind of mentality is a nice size part of why the government as been so idle on issues of ensuring equal access to banking and transfer services by organizations largely held up and protected by the government. Doing so would make it difficult for them to cut off people and orgs the government wants without official reason. Since the system now is set up to allow the government to pressure or threaten institutions to do their bidding in a way that now court would allow for any other issue!
eimrine 4y ago
Pornhub is dead IMO. I would suggest leaving so-called CP untouched but with no fiat payment. What kind of jerk might think about real age of some models which he is observing if they aren't looking like children?
- anthk 4y ago
  Pornhub it's almost every company for online under several names. Far from dead. Porn industry made millions since forever, and all the new tech was in porn before the mainstream. Videoconference? First at porn sites? Online credit card usage? Porn users first. And so on.
  - tharne 4y ago
    True. If you look at porn on the internet, you're almost certainly visiting pornhub-owned sites whether you know it or not.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    That might be an exaggeration. According to [1] (who knows how accurate this is / what the metrics are), of the top 5 sites, it looks like 2 are MindGeek (PornHub, YouPorn), 2 are WGCZ Holding (xVideos, xnxx), and 1 is Hammy Media (xHamster). Of course ownership interests for porn are really hard to unravel so it's annoying to do this in aggregate. [1] https://toppornsites.com/ https://toppornsites.com/
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    Mmmm...I think it seems to make money beyond its actually making money. I read a lot of interviews about it, find them highly entertaining. I'm a male over the age of 10, that inescapably means having seen it. And was a straight male model (saying straight not as a denial being gay would be better just not gay, straight male model that's not very common) in the modeling business. Like modeling is not that incredibly much more dignified, selling how pretty you look. Well the thing is yes women hear I got scouted total game-changer. Ends up being nobody actually judges appearance for themself, like I learned to (again, straight model) to gauge competition for a role. Figured out who is handsome and who isn't, don't have a natural sense for that. Nobody decides for himself, people in fact seek models out on the basis of vocation. Some look terrible, the ones who got work bet they looked great on 4K, just not in the same room, they were the only ones acting like I was like nah...maybe looked bad that day. But it's decadent. And everybody wants to sleep with models, especially models. So in the other industry, people figure hey naked sexually attractive people, decadence, barely legal, anything goes? Has to be profitable. Like prostitution right? Nah. Too efficient. It's sex after all, efficiency is bad. Sex can't be too efficient. There's nothing about the business that's monopolistic, like yes yes there's names but no there's nothing there. Not going to patent any thrusts, it's all pretty old shall we say. Modeling also, similar model strips down almost as far huge camera (they put a ton of their not infinite money into capital giant cameras) takes it all in. True beauty is rare, some people are unique, that is worth something, but mostly there's no monopoly to be had. Celebrity yeah...there is celebrity. But less because people don't gossip about so-and-so, supposedly nobody on hacker news looks at any of that stuff right? Whereas models can be spoken of, actresses actors, people say the name out loud. Modeling is the opposite of coding, instead of lots of money and few female coworkers it's little money and many female coworkers. Well not so little money like for pictures I was told there you could make good money, a Hollywood insider told me that, I was surprised, totally assumed there was no dollar in the industry. In general ads want slightly more women than men from my experience, and the women are generally straight, and the other men are generally gay, I'm pretty much asexual since my lynching but basically straight so I fit in, pretty tolerant environment of eg the huge gaps in my resume. Like the police, I got recruited for that too, they don't care you were unemployed for four weeks or 31 days, they only care about their criteria, which is no arrests no driving accidents. Good pay. Modeling, just look good, and be relatively young, don't have to be that young if you're a man though. Like I told them at the time, yeah I was in Stanford, it was hard got told to take time off, they had no issue with that. Whereas like Fortune 500 wants a 3.0 GPA just to start off at the very least, a top twenty university, internships every summer, no gaps in the resume, like 4 interviews, we want this good now we want this good now we want this eh you're out, unpaid homework (which is disgusting, I completed it with original cutting edge research because that was easier for me than getting the hints which I can't), generated responses to try to get you to focus on just one company and then give an insulting offer. Yeah essays telling you how good a fit you are for each other and nurture and then what like there is one thing and then there are two things GPT-4 for teasing candidates. And generally refuse to hire unconditionally, just want to feel in charge, get a really big auction going. At least models didn't with another model like me. Modeling looks harder than it actually is as far as getting paid, coding looks more profitable but also is just exploitative. Boss impoverishes you every chance he gets in Chile at least. Every metric, everywhere. You have three bosses, you have thirty reqs, you have to write an epic (they should shut the fuck up about epics around me) like the tracking, you get dunned this money, like fuck. Same as porn, fucked business model with no monopoly, always conceiving of it like cornering a market yeah just corner employees.[1] Modeling it's like the money is there, you get work great, you do get paid, if you were smart have a good agent. Dude smart female coworkers man, there's so many models that are really bright, like A+ students just beautiful in addition to that. That's something I've noticed from approaching thousands of women in real life, so much overlap between beautiful and smart, contrary to stereotypes. Just it's a classic for a beautiful woman to be very serious about her studies. One of them told me why don't they make an app so we can get our place in line stedda waiting over three hours, well first off no because those three hours are time to talk to you, and second off no because it does have an exploitative streak still. And third off uh uh, I didn't think of that. Me. I've founded apps. So honestly I got negged by coder employers much less as a model than as a coder. Really the challenge which is why women and gay men are more plentiful than straight men is really taking care of your appearance, dermatology. Like hours a day in upkeep. Be skinny, that's important so there's that. Wear good clothes to the casting, so invest in your wardrobe, the girl I got my first portfolio done with had beautiful clothes, I neglected that. And the appearance. Like with skin straight men don't even see it, like one straight man I saw I did notice "wow great skin" and that was only because he was a dermatologist himself. [1] Although due to the nature of torture I only got interest from crappy companies that had no business. Also Facebook, and a few others, but they always identified me as a false positive on an early round--torture, too much spine because I didn't cooperate with it, companies hate that like they hate veterans and American citizenships. Fuck.

50 points by _-david-_ 4y ago

> MindGeek responded to increased pressure from Visa and other companies by immediately deleting 80 percent of its hosted content, approximately 10 million unverified videos. According to a California court, much of that was likely child porn. Much of that 80% of PornHub was "child porn"? Colour me skeptical on that one. They just deleted everything where they couldn't verify it was not child porn, but that's a very different thing. Visa is not law enforcement; if there is evidence of child porn then law enforcement can and should crack down on that. And if there is no evidence ... why should visa do anything? A lot of this is a concentrated effort by evangelical groups what in the past were drooling about things like sex toys or the "sodomite lifestyle" bringing ruin and despair to our society. Not saying there isn't a serious discussion to be had here, but that doesn't mean everyone is acting in good faith or that there isn't a large amount of exaggerated bullshit, too.

richbell 4y ago
> Much of that 80% of PornHub was "child porn"? Colour me skeptical on that one. They just deleted everything where they couldn't verify it was not child porn, but that's a very different thing. You are correct; the court's conclusions are absurd. I think they could make a compelling argument that a significant amount of the deleted content was uploaded without its subject's consent... but to claim that most of it was CSAM is crazy.
_-david-_ 4y ago
>Much of that 80% of PornHub was "child porn"? Colour me skeptical on that one. They just deleted everything where they couldn't verify it was not child porn, but that's a very different thing. Did they actually do that? I thought they only removed videos where the person who uploaded them did not provide evidence that the uploader was over 18. The uplooader may or may not be the person in the video.
- richbell 4y ago
  According to Vice: > PornHub [removed] all videos on its site that weren't uploaded by official content partners or members of its model program https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgqjjy/pornhub-suspended-all-unverified-videos-content https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgqjjy/pornhub-suspended-all...
  - tsol 4y ago
    So they deleted videos where they couldn't verify the performers age only. Seems reasonable, to be honest. I know women who had their bodies posted on there against their consent and it can be very hard to take down, while it's trivial to be re-uploaded.
    - richbell 4y ago
      > So they deleted videos where they couldn't verify the performers age only. Which is basically all of the "amateur" / non-professionally produced videos. I recall reading that they went from around 5 million videos to 1 million. That said, I think David is right that a verified account doesn't necessarily mean the subjects consented to the video being uploaded. In theory you're verified and have all the paperwork; I'm not sure how strictly they enforced this in practice. > Videos are only eligible for earnings if you are in the video. You must fill out a co-performer agreement and keep it on you if there are other in your videos. We may request it at any time. > PornHub Model Program FAQ
HereIGoAgain 4y ago
Just skeptical? They deleted Hentai with rape, "too young looking" anime characters and other such stuff in it! So it's pretty safe to say that it wasn't all CP. Not to mention that even RP rape and other types of content got the boot as well. At the demand of the CC companies. So if anything, they were being over protective against something that should never have been their business to police.

cptcobalt 4y ago

Holy fuck, this is so pernicious. I don't see Visa as culpable here—no more culpable than the ISP serving PornHub, or their analytics provider, data center, ad services, or anything else. If the judge is after Visa, they should be after the others equally. The blame for platforming the content and careless-moderation lies squarely on PornHub. And there are surely other institutions than Visa that should be obliged to take immediate serious issue with CSAM on PH. Why isn't Visa being forced to stop providing payment processing services for liquor stores that sell alcohol to people who drive drunk and injure themselves and others? I swear, this isn't a strawman argument—Visa is as removed from culpability in this case as they are in this PornHub case, and deaths caused by drunk driving are reasonably far more damaging to human life. The specific behavior users posting CSAM on PornHub is unquestionably damnable (and those who posted it are the most culpable, and must suffer the most consequences). This doesn't mean PornHub is a whole is a net-bad. Sex work is real work, and America has a damn hard time appreciating the aesthetics of the human body in a comfortable and unproblematic manner, and the pressure to keep PornHub hidden in the shadows reinforces the negative feedback loop of unhealthy perspectives of sex, and promotes some bad behavior—we can't culturally talk about sex comfortably and openly, when we're all made for it. In any case, Visa's job is not to moderate the content of the internet, nor any other purchases on their platform—aside from an interested best-effort response to deny outright the sale of illegal goods and services. Visa should be able to fine or sue PornHub for breach of contract. Or increase their payment processing fees, and force them provide reports and transparency. It is not ok for Visa to feel forced by external pressure to cut off this entire business category as a whole.

ss108 4y ago
The judge isn't "after" Visa. The government has brought charges against Visa, and seemingly not against the other entities you mentioned
- miracle2k 4y ago
  It'a civil suit, and MindGeek is a defendant. You should probably read the article.

yieldcrv 4y ago

I think this highlights the folly of regulating transactions. It should really be as neutral as a power utility. As an analogy - where dissimilar things are compared for the ways that they're similar - if you asked people "should we keep the power on for people involved with CSAM", many people would say "no!" and vilify anyone arguing against the premise itself, because any punishment is a valid punishment to them. So our liability laws should factor this in.

stefantalpalaru 4y ago

jjk166 4y ago

The judge claims that this is not a serious threat to the basic operation of our financial system because this case is "special" in two ways - the business visa was providing monetary services to had been accused of wrongdoing in a news article, and was so seriously concerned about visa pulling it's payment processing that it would take drastic measures to get them back. I do not see how either point is in any ways special. Any company can be accused by private journalists of wrongdoing, and an extremely large fraction of companies probably are guilty of some wrongdoing at some point or another, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any company engaged in commerce which didn't care if a payment processor on the scale of visa stopped recognizing them. So by that logic, anyone who can allege wrongdoing by a company that has payments processed has standing to sue payment processors as well. > It is simply being asked to refrain from offering the tool with which a known alleged criminal entity performs its crimes. That is not a tall order and does not spell out an existential threat to the financial industry. In a society where innocence is presumed, "known alleged criminal entity" is an oxymoron as far as the law is concerned. If anyone can be an alleged criminal entity, how could this not be an existential threat?

HereIGoAgain 4y ago
Yup, this a terrifying standard. CCs, banks and PPs already have no business playing police, but now this judge just handed the MSM the veto on pretty much anything. Since a crime doesn't even need to have been proven to happen, let alone guilt on anyone's part to open financial services up to legal action. Insanity. We need the financial institutions to stop being asked (forced) by the government to do law enforcement's job. This is yet another argument for why we need some kind of 'financial services neutrality act'

HereIGoAgain 4y ago

Oh fuck.. Just what we need.. Big money, tech, media companies being even more terrified of anything related to sex and nudity! Also that argument is insane and dangerous in so many ways? What's next, employers being held culpable for the things employees spend their money on? And on another level.. Policing money is the VERY LAST thing private entities should be doing in the first place. If they aren't directly alerted/warned by law enforcement or some other overt way, then it shouldn't be their business. Not that I feel too bad for the companies, they have their self to blame in a way.. Once you start playing money police games, well you get this. To be fair though it isn't entirely their fault. That kind of mentality is a nice size part of why the government as been so idle on issues of ensuring equal access to banking and transfer services by organizations largely held up and protected by the government. Doing so would make it difficult for them to cut off people and orgs the government wants without official reason. Since the system now is set up to allow the government to pressure or threaten institutions to do their bidding in a way that now court would allow for any other issue!

eimrine 4y ago

Pornhub is dead IMO. I would suggest leaving so-called CP untouched but with no fiat payment. What kind of jerk might think about real age of some models which he is observing if they aren't looking like children?

anthk 4y ago
Pornhub it's almost every company for online under several names. Far from dead. Porn industry made millions since forever, and all the new tech was in porn before the mainstream. Videoconference? First at porn sites? Online credit card usage? Porn users first. And so on.
- tharne 4y ago
  True. If you look at porn on the internet, you're almost certainly visiting pornhub-owned sites whether you know it or not.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  That might be an exaggeration. According to [1] (who knows how accurate this is / what the metrics are), of the top 5 sites, it looks like 2 are MindGeek (PornHub, YouPorn), 2 are WGCZ Holding (xVideos, xnxx), and 1 is Hammy Media (xHamster). Of course ownership interests for porn are really hard to unravel so it's annoying to do this in aggregate. [1] https://toppornsites.com/ https://toppornsites.com/
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Mmmm...I think it seems to make money beyond its actually making money. I read a lot of interviews about it, find them highly entertaining. I'm a male over the age of 10, that inescapably means having seen it. And was a straight male model (saying straight not as a denial being gay would be better just not gay, straight male model that's not very common) in the modeling business. Like modeling is not that incredibly much more dignified, selling how pretty you look. Well the thing is yes women hear I got scouted total game-changer. Ends up being nobody actually judges appearance for themself, like I learned to (again, straight model) to gauge competition for a role. Figured out who is handsome and who isn't, don't have a natural sense for that. Nobody decides for himself, people in fact seek models out on the basis of vocation. Some look terrible, the ones who got work bet they looked great on 4K, just not in the same room, they were the only ones acting like I was like nah...maybe looked bad that day. But it's decadent. And everybody wants to sleep with models, especially models. So in the other industry, people figure hey naked sexually attractive people, decadence, barely legal, anything goes? Has to be profitable. Like prostitution right? Nah. Too efficient. It's sex after all, efficiency is bad. Sex can't be too efficient. There's nothing about the business that's monopolistic, like yes yes there's names but no there's nothing there. Not going to patent any thrusts, it's all pretty old shall we say. Modeling also, similar model strips down almost as far huge camera (they put a ton of their not infinite money into capital giant cameras) takes it all in. True beauty is rare, some people are unique, that is worth something, but mostly there's no monopoly to be had. Celebrity yeah...there is celebrity. But less because people don't gossip about so-and-so, supposedly nobody on hacker news looks at any of that stuff right? Whereas models can be spoken of, actresses actors, people say the name out loud. Modeling is the opposite of coding, instead of lots of money and few female coworkers it's little money and many female coworkers. Well not so little money like for pictures I was told there you could make good money, a Hollywood insider told me that, I was surprised, totally assumed there was no dollar in the industry. In general ads want slightly more women than men from my experience, and the women are generally straight, and the other men are generally gay, I'm pretty much asexual since my lynching but basically straight so I fit in, pretty tolerant environment of eg the huge gaps in my resume. Like the police, I got recruited for that too, they don't care you were unemployed for four weeks or 31 days, they only care about their criteria, which is no arrests no driving accidents. Good pay. Modeling, just look good, and be relatively young, don't have to be that young if you're a man though. Like I told them at the time, yeah I was in Stanford, it was hard got told to take time off, they had no issue with that. Whereas like Fortune 500 wants a 3.0 GPA just to start off at the very least, a top twenty university, internships every summer, no gaps in the resume, like 4 interviews, we want this good now we want this good now we want this eh you're out, unpaid homework (which is disgusting, I completed it with original cutting edge research because that was easier for me than getting the hints which I can't), generated responses to try to get you to focus on just one company and then give an insulting offer. Yeah essays telling you how good a fit you are for each other and nurture and then what like there is one thing and then there are two things GPT-4 for teasing candidates. And generally refuse to hire unconditionally, just want to feel in charge, get a really big auction going. At least models didn't with another model like me. Modeling looks harder than it actually is as far as getting paid, coding looks more profitable but also is just exploitative. Boss impoverishes you every chance he gets in Chile at least. Every metric, everywhere. You have three bosses, you have thirty reqs, you have to write an epic (they should shut the fuck up about epics around me) like the tracking, you get dunned this money, like fuck. Same as porn, fucked business model with no monopoly, always conceiving of it like cornering a market yeah just corner employees.[1] Modeling it's like the money is there, you get work great, you do get paid, if you were smart have a good agent. Dude smart female coworkers man, there's so many models that are really bright, like A+ students just beautiful in addition to that. That's something I've noticed from approaching thousands of women in real life, so much overlap between beautiful and smart, contrary to stereotypes. Just it's a classic for a beautiful woman to be very serious about her studies. One of them told me why don't they make an app so we can get our place in line stedda waiting over three hours, well first off no because those three hours are time to talk to you, and second off no because it does have an exploitative streak still. And third off uh uh, I didn't think of that. Me. I've founded apps. So honestly I got negged by coder employers much less as a model than as a coder. Really the challenge which is why women and gay men are more plentiful than straight men is really taking care of your appearance, dermatology. Like hours a day in upkeep. Be skinny, that's important so there's that. Wear good clothes to the casting, so invest in your wardrobe, the girl I got my first portfolio done with had beautiful clothes, I neglected that. And the appearance. Like with skin straight men don't even see it, like one straight man I saw I did notice "wow great skin" and that was only because he was a dermatologist himself. [1] Although due to the nature of torture I only got interest from crappy companies that had no business. Also Facebook, and a few others, but they always identified me as a false positive on an early round--torture, too much spine because I didn't cooperate with it, companies hate that like they hate veterans and American citizenships. Fuck.