3 ms·

> There is no way that you will find any video containing the word "rape". Those got purged a long time ago. Like most other terms mentioning violence. It had

> There is no way that you will find any video containing the word "rape". Those got purged a long time ago. Like most other terms mentioning violence. It had 30,000 views on PornHub when it was removed in 2019. We can discuss the fact that policies have changed, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the methodologies were "bullshit" based on them looking at the videos that were online at the time they conducted their research. > The nationalities are exactly that, nationalities. This ignores the widely understood power dynamics between nations especially those nations that are in such serious conflicts as the ones mentioned. Honestly your response here feels like I'm talking to the Men in Black and you want me to just wipe my understanding of the real world. > (« teen », la catégorie pédopornographique étant une des plus populaires I took this to mean that the subcategories where the actors pretended to be under 18 were the most popular. > If you think you are able to find actual illegal stuff Where did illegal come from here? The law isn't my moral barometer and I didn't bring it up. The fact that these depictions are so popular and normalised is already notable enough for me to want to discuss it with my peers. I don't know if it needs to be banned and I'm not suggesting that any of what is up there is currently illegal, but I believe that this study shows us some very real truths about ourselves and our consumption. But if that's where you want to go, I would note that this is a report coming from a French governmental department. It is my understanding laws in France mean that actresses cannot consent to be harmed in the way that is common is the videos they studies, and would be illegal to produce within that jurisdiction. Where I grew up, in the UK, even simulated depictions of underage sex acts are illegal, so much of the teen category would have been a no go there as well. The laws will of course vary from country to country, but again that's not why I shared this article.

cf141q5325 3y ago
>I took this to mean Silly me took the clearly defined term literal. >Honestly your response here feels like I'm talking to the Men in Black and you want me to just wipe my understanding of the real world. Claiming racial categories to be racist is nonsense. You quoting long since removed videos with bad sounding placeholder titles doesnt show that. >Where did illegal come from here? From the report, its what we are discussing here. >when it was removed in 2019. I am glad we that we could come to an agreement that the study is referencing something that doesnt exist anymore. Might explain why the article is flagged. I really hope you can see how ludicrous it is to make these kind of claims. There are some serious concerns with the structure of the porn industry and exploitation of sex workers, especially with the videos produced for freesites, derailing with these hyperboles is extremely counterproductive. Without credibility there is no basis for communication. There is no room for overstating for effect. edit: Even if you could take the report serious (no), arguing with the state of pre 2019 and presenting it as current is disingenuous and shows a clear lack of credibility.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  > Silly me Could we speak without this kind of rhetoric? My command of French is not perfect and I'm telling you my understanding and asking you questions politely. If I misunderstand something then I apologise but you can point it out without being rude. Having looked at it further I can see that they indeed meant that there was a great deal of underage content available on these sites at the time. > Claiming racial categories to be racist is nonsense. The racist element is in the use of race to depict power dynamics in a violent way. > I am glad we that we could come to an agreement that the study is referencing something that doesnt exist anymore. Might explain why the article is flagged. It doesn't explain it to me. We often discuss articles from the past on here. I still find it worthy of discussion that this was the case very recently, and I would also note that the move to remove this content only came as the result of legal pressures against the distributors. > I really hope you can see how ludicrous it is to make these kind of claims. Are you saying that what the study claims was not true at the time of their research?
  - cf141q5325 3y ago
    >Could we speak without this kind of rhetoric? Good point. Its just really bad to present slander as scientific or journalistic. Even for a pre purge state of pornhub, the claim that there was a child porn category is just really really wrong. But that post was quite helpful, i think we got the point responsible for the different perspectives. >We often discuss articles from the past on here. The article, as well as the study dont present it as a picture of the past but one of the present state. The guardian article is from yesterday and the study had been going on for 18 months. Presenting stuff they found from 2019, with quite questionable methodology at that, as current breaches journalistic, scientific and ethical standards. >Are you saying that what the study claims was not true at the time of their research? Unfortunately the study itself doesnt seem to have a date, but from the article, yes absolutely. edit: URL of the PDF of the report contains the same date as the guardian article.

cf141q5325 3y ago

>I took this to mean Silly me took the clearly defined term literal. >Honestly your response here feels like I'm talking to the Men in Black and you want me to just wipe my understanding of the real world. Claiming racial categories to be racist is nonsense. You quoting long since removed videos with bad sounding placeholder titles doesnt show that. >Where did illegal come from here? From the report, its what we are discussing here. >when it was removed in 2019. I am glad we that we could come to an agreement that the study is referencing something that doesnt exist anymore. Might explain why the article is flagged. I really hope you can see how ludicrous it is to make these kind of claims. There are some serious concerns with the structure of the porn industry and exploitation of sex workers, especially with the videos produced for freesites, derailing with these hyperboles is extremely counterproductive. Without credibility there is no basis for communication. There is no room for overstating for effect. edit: Even if you could take the report serious (no), arguing with the state of pre 2019 and presenting it as current is disingenuous and shows a clear lack of credibility.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
> Silly me Could we speak without this kind of rhetoric? My command of French is not perfect and I'm telling you my understanding and asking you questions politely. If I misunderstand something then I apologise but you can point it out without being rude. Having looked at it further I can see that they indeed meant that there was a great deal of underage content available on these sites at the time. > Claiming racial categories to be racist is nonsense. The racist element is in the use of race to depict power dynamics in a violent way. > I am glad we that we could come to an agreement that the study is referencing something that doesnt exist anymore. Might explain why the article is flagged. It doesn't explain it to me. We often discuss articles from the past on here. I still find it worthy of discussion that this was the case very recently, and I would also note that the move to remove this content only came as the result of legal pressures against the distributors. > I really hope you can see how ludicrous it is to make these kind of claims. Are you saying that what the study claims was not true at the time of their research?
- cf141q5325 3y ago
  >Could we speak without this kind of rhetoric? Good point. Its just really bad to present slander as scientific or journalistic. Even for a pre purge state of pornhub, the claim that there was a child porn category is just really really wrong. But that post was quite helpful, i think we got the point responsible for the different perspectives. >We often discuss articles from the past on here. The article, as well as the study dont present it as a picture of the past but one of the present state. The guardian article is from yesterday and the study had been going on for 18 months. Presenting stuff they found from 2019, with quite questionable methodology at that, as current breaches journalistic, scientific and ethical standards. >Are you saying that what the study claims was not true at the time of their research? Unfortunately the study itself doesnt seem to have a date, but from the article, yes absolutely. edit: URL of the PDF of the report contains the same date as the guardian article.