5 ms·

>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 t

>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.

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.