A lawsuit filed by more victims of the sex trafficking operation claims that Pornhub’s moderation staff ignored reports of their abuse videos.


Sixty-one additional women are suing Pornhub’s parent company, claiming that the company failed to take down videos of their abuse as part of the sex trafficking operation Girls Do Porn. They’re suing the company and its sites for sex trafficking, racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, and human trafficking.

The complaint, filed on Tuesday, includes what it claims are internal emails obtained by the plaintiffs, represented by Holm Law Group, between Pornhub moderation staff. The emails allegedly show that Pornhub had only one moderator to review 700,000 potentially abusive videos, and that the company intentionally ignored repeated reports from victims in those videos.

The damages and restitution they seek amounts to more than $311,100,000. They demand a jury trial, and seek damages of $5 million per plaintiff, as well as restitution for all the money Aylo, the new name for Pornhub’s parent company, earned “marketing, selling and exploiting Plaintiffs’ videos in an amount that exceeds one hundred thousand dollars for each plaintiff.”

The plaintiffs are 61 more unnamed “Jane Doe” victims of Girls Do Porn, adding to the 60 that sued Pornhub in 2020 for similar claims.
Girls Do Porn was a federally-convicted sex trafficking ring that coerced young women into filming pornographic videos under the pretense of “modeling” gigs. In some cases, the women were violently abused. The operators told them that the videos would never appear online, so that their home communities wouldn’t find out, but they uploaded the footage to sites like Pornhub, where the videos went viral—and in many instances, destroyed their lives. Girls Do Porn was an official Pornhub content partner, with its videos frequently appearing on the front page, where they gathered millions of views.

read more: https://www.404media.co/girls-do-porn-victims-sue-pornhub-for-300-million/

archive: https://archive.ph/zQWt3#selection-593.0-609.599

    • emmie@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      87
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah it’s fucking disgusting. I just googled what is it in google images because I used to watch a lot of porn in the past probably from that brand too. I seen those faces, those women that probably some of them at least were forced to do it…

      Nowdays I don’t enjoy consuming mainstream porn at all because like it’s… violent in a way. Consensual or not it always looks like something is seriously off, wrong like someone is waiting with a gun behind the camera you know. Like they just treat the girl like a doll and throw her around, cum, then away. Guys are ugly as fuck

      There is this bellesa stuff, amateur vids, lots of things that seem more enjoyable for everyone and of course old good hentai

      • Taco@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, nothing beats two consenting adults enjoying eachother and sharing it with the world. Professional porn is disgusting imo

          • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            34
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s messed up when people go to sex work out of desperation, but way too often recognizing this is used as an excuse to ban sex work, when it should be a reason to provide everyone with basic living conditions.

            Banning sex work often makes the situation of those people even worse because they are driven into shadier environments rather than having any amount of protections.

            • Banana_man@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The people who run said shadier environments usually support banning sex work so they can get cheaper labour force :). Capitalism runs even behind the scenes.

            • andros_rex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, as someone who has done survival sex work, the illegality is a plus for the Johns’s. “Officer, the man that was supposed to pay me for a sex act changed his mind afterwords!” Or removed the condom mid act, or “oops, wrong hole!” Or the fact that if you get murdered it’s not really a big deal - are you going to ever talk to cops?

              I think sex work is a hell that no one should have to go through. Maybe you can run an OF or sell feet pics without trauma, but I don’t have nightmares about working fast food or retail like I do the sex work. The illegality makes the hell worse though.

          • nephs@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s exactly the point.

            How much of our lives can money buy?

            What if I wanted to sell my whole remaining time for the benefit of the ones I love, in the form of organs?

            Should we allow money to buy anything? Or should we actually make people less desperate so that they are not willing to sacrifice all they have for peanuts?

            • Beaphe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can sell your organs and body to Emory in Atlanta. We’ll, you COULD, around 2010 still.

              $2000 cash, and you signed off your corpse.

          • Nevoic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m glad you brought this up, because yeah we’re all selling our bodies and time. I wouldn’t say this means we consent, though. We don’t need to change what consent means to make capitalism sound better than it is.

            If you’re “incentivized” (e.g will be starved and punished otherwise) by a system to do something you hate, you can’t call that consent.

            If you had a system where women were raised and then presented with the option of either having sex with you & being allowed to participate in modern society, or being discarded in the wilderness, not being allowed to even build anywhere/make it on your own because all the land is owned by either private individuals or the government, then those women aren’t free.

            As we agree, just by changing the demand from “have sex” to “do manual labor” or “rent out your mind so someone else can own the product of your thoughts (IP)” doesn’t change whether or not it’s consensual.

      • tim@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty much only somthing like Reddits gonewild community. Wich forces uploaders to verify and not be a seller. Its mostly for pictures tho. Atleast thats as far as i can see.

      • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just don’t watch pornography. It’s inherently built around exploitation

        • 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d say it’s become more morally murky now that so many individuals are making porn as almost a gig economy thing. Sure, the economic pressures that caused that are themselves pretty exploitative but I’m reminded of the line: ‘if you think a prostitute is selling their body and a construction worker isn’t then that’s your problem’.

  • Damage@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s quite simple honestly, if you profit off something, you have the responsibility to make sure it’s legal. We all like platforms like YouTube where you can find anything you want, but the truth is that they’re currently unsustainable when forced to comply with the law.

    With the advent of AI there’s hope for improved systems for detecting violations, but it doesn’t seem to be there yet.

    • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree that pornhub, et al, should be liable for abuse their platform distributes, but how on earth is AI meant to help in sex trafficking?

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        65
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of people have this very naive view that if we just build AI overlords to monitor all human activity, we can somehow automate good behavior and make the world a better place.

        Really we’ll just end up with RoboCop.

          • leftzero@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            That seems like an excellent idea, we should all make everything possible to make sure such AI overlords are built.

            Please don’t hurt me, or an eventual future indistinguishable facsimile of myself…?

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But robocop was the good guy.

          ED-209 was the bad guy.

          He looked much cooler, but he was kind of a dick. And bad at stairs.

      • Riskable@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        AI will help with sex trafficking by generating all the porn so humans won’t need to be involved at all.

        In the future the equivalent lawsuit will be from the victims of hackers who used people’s PCs to generate porn.

        • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s like saying professional porn got rid of amateur / “real” sex porn. It didn’t.

          There will always be a demand for real humans actually doing the thing depicted. While I’m sure there will be very popular AI production houses, similar to hentai, etc, if you think AI generated porn will completely remove the desire for humans from performing, then you do not understand why people watch porn.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Edit: I said “ideally,” as in utopian. In practice, corporations, governments and overall greed are in the way.


        Ideally, sci-fi style, an effective AI can sift through all the reports and take down the videos that are clearly suspicious (as opposed to popular and well-known videos of porn stars that could be found elsewhere, for example, in dvd format.) It could message the reporter asking for more information, for example. Then it could message an actual human for the videos it is not confident to deem as abusive.

        It may even try to contact the victims and offer them options to report the perpetrators to the authorities. Or lead them to a safe house, etc.

        It could do this without never being tired, never being hungry, never feeling shocked.

        In practice, we’re not there yet. Close, but not there.

        • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Close? Pull the other one.

          And that’s long before we get the ethical quandary of sourcing training data, and implicit biases.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know what you mean.

            My scenario was ideal, from the point of view of my 80s kid self looking forward to a promising future.

            That future is now, and I hate it, because governments and big corporations ruined it for all of us.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is why I can’t jive with idealists. They put forth a proposal because “ideally…” and get people to thinking “yeah he’s right,” but he conveniently left off the fact that due to human nature it is basically an impossible pipedream and you’re more likely to find true gnosis than for that to become reality.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The funny thing is that I’m a realist. But if course I like to think about what the supposed scenario is.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well here’s the question, is an AI detection software legal if it’s trained to identify this material? Strictly speaking, unless it is 100% free, selling the AI software would be profiting off the illegal material that you used to teach the AI.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s quite simple honestly, if you profit off something, you have the responsibility to make sure it’s legal.

      Morally, yes, in practice that’s not how our economy generally works, this is a gigantic can of worms from cobalt mines to work safety in Asian textile factories and back and forth and into a gazillion places. Germany has recent legislation about this but AFAIK it’s the only such legislation in the world.

      • Damage@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, countries’ laws, with some exceptions, only have authority within their own borders.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The German version is kinda only a proof of concept and saying to the rest of the EU “we’re serious about this shit”.

          The actual goal is a EU-wide version which is in the pipeline, actually stricter (because Parliament wills it). It will apply to any company >250 employees with a net turnover of 40M in the EU (or world-wide for EU companies). And it’s very hard to ignore the EU when you want to make money at scale, see the Brussels effect.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but how far does due diligence go in a matter like this? If company A is buying things they get from company B and company B gives company A all the proper paperwork, is it company A’s responsibility to make sure company B didn’t do anything illegal to obtain what they had? Was there a reason for company A to suspect company B was illegally obtaining something that many other companies legally and legitimately acquire?

      I don’t think so. I think in that case it would be completely company B that is at fault 100%.

      I think it starts to become also company A’s fault when it can be shown that they were aware of company B possibly obtaining things illegally or that company A started getting complaints about what company B was illegally doing. This here is more like what pornhub has done. They seemed to have purposefully understaffed the review and complaints department in order to more or less ignore complaints. Up until that part I don’t think PH would be responsible.

      • Damage@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you re-sell for example stolen goods, your proceeds from those sale may be taken from you together with whatever stolen good you have on stock, and if you are found to be aware of the illegal origin of those goods, then you are an accomplice and are charged accordingly.

        That’s why buyers of used items have the difficult task of ascertaining whether those items are stolen or not.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          In the case of pawn shops, the money made if the item is already gone does not get claimed back. If the item that was stolen is still there, then the item is returned to the owner and the store is out whatever it paid the thief.

          However this is a perfect example of what I’ve said. In the above scenario, the pawn shop is under no legal trouble at all unless it was discovered that they were knowingly buying stolen goods. It is the thief who stole the items that will be in legal trouble.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always hated GDP videos cause the girls never looked like they wanted to be there, now I know why, they didn’t. There’s a lot of porn out there where the girl is very clearly not enjoying it or just laying there, I don’t know how anyone finds that hot.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly I’m running into that a lot with women, especially younger women. They all want to be “dominated” and it does nothing for me.

        • Default_Defect@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Under no circumstances would I be comfortable if someone wanted me to simulate rape or being overly dominant.

          Its at best not what I’m into and at worst a way to catch a court date if the other person is an especially shit human, never mind how it throws clear communication straight out of the window.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No I’ve done it. Done properly it’s with full communication, clear limits, safe words and usually pre-setup and post aftercare which has been very cathartic and important time for my partners.

            It’s totally fine if it’s not something you are into but done properly it’s not something that is outside of communicated carefully and shouldn’t be causing court issues cause it’s definitely not something to just do without precise communication.

            I get that isn’t always reality but I just don’t want people to think it’s something that’s inherently only harmful.

            • Default_Defect@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Being done properly and with clear communication would fall under my “at best” scenario with it just not being my thing, but your comment is important. I never meant to make it sound like BDSM is inherently “dangerous” or whatever.

              • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s fine, yeah I just saw the upvotes and the “no clear communication” thing and knew a partner who would want to write notes afterwards and had a full document of pre agreements and could feel her spirit telling me to not let that go unchallenged

                • Default_Defect@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh yes, I know someone that would have been the same way. She was adamant about clear expectations and establishing boundaries.

            • Enigma@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right. The BDSM world has very strict rules. If you’re ever with a partner who “wants to try bdsm” without multiple conversations beforehand, then walk away. Aftercare is also a huge and important part of BDSM.

        • phx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Been there, uh, didn’t do that because it’s fucking creepy. Also no hitting or calling me “daddy”, which is super creepy IMO

      • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or, like, half of the BDSM community who enjoy when this is roleplayed, like what everyone watching these videos thought it was.

        Unless you think anyone who plays video games with guns only find it fun cause theyre murderers?

      • WhyDoesntThisThingWork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Many of these women did this consenually. Read the article: it says they were told it wouldn’t be posted on online. These women were more than happy to have sex on on film for money, they are just unhappy others found out about it. That is breach of contract but it isn’t rape.

        It says some of the women were violently abused which is totally fucked, that potentially is rape, but this suit includes both those groups and the difference is important. And the offenses are a world of difference between them.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Firstly, Sex by misdirection is rape, flat out. If you agree to have sex with someone with a condom and take it off without their knowledge, you raped them. Saying “lets shoot a video that will never go public” is the same thing.

          Secondly, youre glomming onto one detail and ignoring all the other tactics they used to coerce and rape these woman. They would fly them out to an unfamiliar city for “modeling jobs,” and then demand thousands in payments if they backed out of doing porn. They would sometimes take nudes “for the modeling contract” the threaten to send them to friends/family/etc if they didn’t do porn. Other times, they directly used force and violence, locking them in rooms to kidnap them, or forcing them to do sex acts they dodnt consent at all to, even under duress.

          Then they would say “this video will never be public so if you just do it you get paid and all this goes away.” They then would upload the videos to pornhub. If im not mistaken, the owner of GDP, also ran a website with the girls real info on it.

          On top of it all, Wolfe admitted that GirlsDoPorn co-owner Michael James Pratt, 39, whom authorities are still searching for, operated a website called pornwikileaks.com with identifying information and social media accounts for some women being filmed.

          They were ugly, brutal fucks.

          The owners were not convicted because of a contract “trick.” They brutalized 100s of young women in every way possible. Read the DOJ sentencing document for a full picture of what they did.

          • phx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d say the condom thing is also because it raises the risk level considerably, not just because it was dishonest. It’s not just the act they didn’t consent to but the risk of unnoticed m unprotected sex.

            BUT, by that token the risk level of having your sex-acts put on the internet for potential millions to see - including family members, potential employers, etc - is still considerable. It can ruin lives in different but still very significant ways.

            These scum deserve to be stuffed in a cell.

          • uranibaba@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not sure if I would label uploading the videos after saying not to as rape, it feels more along the lines of mental torture but with a better word for it. I guess that rape is a form of torture at the end of day, so still the same?

            Secondly, youre glomming onto one detail and ignoring all the other tactics they used to coerce and rape these woman. They would fly them out to an unfamiliar city for “modeling jobs,” and then demand thousands in payments if they backed out of doing porn. They would sometimes take nudes “for the modeling contract” the threaten to send them to friends/family/etc if they didn’t do porn. Other times, they directly used force and violence, locking them in rooms to kidnap them, or forcing them to do sex acts they dodnt consent at all to, even under duress.

            This is rape.

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The sex trafficers lied about the public uploads, never used the company’s actual name, had fake “previous models” that vouched for the vidoes being private, and even had the cameraman say that he would never shoot “public” porn. They would lie to the models about what was in the contracts, and never gave them copies. They often got them drunk/high before shooting while having them sign releases that said they were not high/drunk. They also specifically targeted 18-20yr olds to make sure the women were as naive as possbile.

              The founder also had a separate website that published some of the victims real names publically.

              Coercing/lying/tricking/forcing someone into a type of sex that they otherwise would not have had willingly is cut and dry rape. These women were sex trafficed, which the DOJ confirmed.

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    The emails allegedly show that Pornhub had only one moderator to review 700,000 potentially abusive videos(…)

    Well that’d be an interesting job to put on a resume

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just pictures. Stable diffusion type models have huge problems with flickering right now for videos. No consistency.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That seems like it would defeat the humane purpose, but maybe. Perhaps use a rough cg as the base layer?

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is the way. For other content it works reasonably well (especially if you properly mask image zones/depth), so I don’t see why 18+ content would be different.

    • lorty@lemmy.ml
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Time for even more impossible beauty standards!

          • jasondj@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            37
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’ve got it backwards. People take care of themselves because they have self esteem. Depression takes that away.

            Please don’t treat depression like it’s a choice. Nobody chooses to be depressed.

            • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              32
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can always tell the people who have had good lives, by the utter contempt they casually display for people who struggle.

              Thinking depression is just choosing to lounge around in sweat pants eating cheetos, What a fucking twat.

              • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a pretty big assumption, and as with many things in life, repetition and discipline make up 90% of success. You’re never going to start looking at goals as attainable if you’ve resigned yourself to the mentality of “they had a better hand”

                Does self esteem lead to self care or vice versa? Both are true. The only constant is action.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Does self esteem lead to self care or vice versa? Both are true. The only constant is action.

                  Not everyone has the same capability to self heal through action.

                  You are right, that if you are capable of doing that, you should, you shouldn’t just “sit on the sidelines” when it comes to your personal health, but not everyone is built that way.

                  That’s the point that others were trying to get you to understand, that it’s not just a choice one can always act on to self correct.

    • WhipTheLlama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can envision a world where the search bar is an AI prompt. What a time to be alive that will be!

      I wonder if we can also browse other peoples’ prompts. That would be cool.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why take jobs away from people? There are plenty of porn actors who are not being abused. Why would we want to centralize it all more than it is with an automated “AI” tool?

      • wafflez@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Taking jobs from people and replacing them with automation works towards the utopia we want of having to work less so long as the labor is directly to benefit the people and not the ruling class

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          so long as the labor is directly to benefit the people and not the ruling class

          There’s a hell lot riding on that caveat. Personally I’m not as hopeful in that regard.

          • wafflez@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We can make it so the labor benefits the workers. I’m just saying it’s not inherently a bad thing to replace jobs with automation, like many default to

        • PurplePropagule@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the ideal but you know that’s not how it works at all in our current society. Replacing workers with automation just leads to workers needing to find a new job.

          • wafflez@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Businesses replacing them yes obviously but that’s not what I’m referring to. We shouldn’t assume automation or loss of jobs are inherently bad, we should strive for worker-benefited automation. Many people don’t even consider it at all but it directly opposes capitalistic systems in a very meaningful way

            • PurplePropagule@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I know what you mean. You’re talking about an ideal reality. In the real world, people get fucked over when they’re fired, and ai will put a lot of people out of work. Before we can get near what you’re talking about we need widespread labor movements to ensure worker’s rights and to fight for worker-benefited automation among other things. It doesn’t look like we’re close to being there yet, unfortunately. I just don’t see how you can say that automation putting people out of work is moving towards that goal. It just fucks people over because workers have no protection.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ew the other replies to this are so weird. Fuck people really not seeing how having someone like Meta in charge of generating all porn could be a really fucked up thing because it’s better for humans to do nothing at all? Christ that is a bleak fucking idea of a utopia.

        Just because you nerds can’t handle the idea of sex doesn’t mean it should just all be generated.

      • Ragdoll X@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        AI image generators don’t really lead to centralization - quite the contrary in fact. While there are your DALL-Es and ChatGPTs behind closed doors, there’s also Stable Diffusion and its many variants, along with various open-source Large Language Models and several other projects from hobbyist developers. I’ve seen a lot of people make and post their own AI-generated porn with Stable Diffusion, and some who make money out of it. So while some porn actors/actresses may lose their jobs because of AI, this technology is also creating opportunities for other people.

        And the same can be argued about any kind of automation, so how far should we go with this idea? Should mechanical looms be banned to bring back manual weaving jobs? Should automated filters on social media be removed to create more jobs for content moderators?

        I don’t think AI/automation is the problem. A world where most jobs are automated isn’t a bad thing - a world where money takes precedent over humans and people are punished if they’re out of work (i.e. capitalism) is.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Should automated filters on social media be removed to create more jobs for content moderators?

          Maybe not removed but we absolutely need many more people moderating online platforms. We have just so many problems from automated content moderation systems that are caused by the lack of humans reviewing content. Including this very situation, where the site let a lot of sex abuse material in.

          I don’t think AI/automation is the problem. A world where most jobs are automated isn’t a bad thing. A world where money takes precedent over humans and people are punished if they’re out of work - i.e. capitalism - is.

          Yes, but consistently advances in automation come with promises of better lives for people that do not materialize. There have been decades that people talk that we have means to make it so everyone can work less hours a day and less day a week, instead people get fired and we have even less people employed, overworked beyond the limits that worker movements had achieved before.

          Will AI really help people or will it just make it even harder for the people who do willing sex work? Given how twisted this industry is, maybe a little of both, it could turn out to be a net positive, though it’s hard to judge that. But other fields are probably only going to get the hardship.

          Lets be honest, the whole point of automation is to do more work than what it replaces, so it never creates as many jobs as it takes away. Even worse, AI in particular is already primed to replace the same tech, service and artistic jobs that previous forms of automation freed us to engage with. We will not get the same amount of jobs from AI.

          What then? Back to sweatshops, to try to undercut the automation we can’t outperform? We can’t keep at this “oh well, Capitalism still didn’t change ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”.

        • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I will say that unlike the horse and buggymakers or the barrel makers or the candlestick makers who have all lost their jobs I do admit…

          None of those are as inherently human as sexuality is.

          Capitalism makes a great cell phone. Capitalism is terrible when it takes precedent over humans and people.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            My hope is that this will kill off the makeup-crusted dead-eyed fake moan human doll bullshit that is mainstream porn.

            AI can’t fake all the randomness and idiosynchracy of two real people having real sex. Maybe that’s what human porn will coalesce around.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Such a reductive take. Maybe they want porn that isn’t borderline, or questionable. Something where there’s zero potential for abuse. Unless you yourself are privy to the inner workings of each company and the story of each model individually, then you’re running into a risk of stuff not being kosher just by nature of the content.

        Plus, yeah, what about people who are into more extreme things? May as well let them have an outlet for their desires that doesn’t actually have anyone getting raped.

        • eatthecake@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          May as well let them have an outlet yeah? Some of us dont want to live on that planet. I dont even want to live on the essential porn planet. As if men need more stimulation. Can the penis not be the center of the universe? Nope? Well fuck off then and take your porn requirement with you. I dont know know why your penis needs are foisted on people like me. Im just searching the internet but i have porn forced on me because of you. Rape porn, child porn, disgusting shit i never want to see but apparemtly its popular with dickbrains. Bugger the lott of you.

  • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the allegations hold up in court i hope aside from the victims to be properly compensated that multiple heads go to prison. Being the head of an organized crime ring that is trafficking and rapeing people for profit, in this case at least all C levels of Aylo, should get a life sentence and all assets seized.

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Imagine a world where you read the article and learned that they’ve already been federally convicted. It was in the first paragraph.

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is strictly a civil lawsuit against Pornhub (Aylo) AFAIK

      I guess stuff could turn up in this trial that leads to criminal charges, but from what I understand nobody at Aylo was involved with the GDP activities. They were simply a popular channel on the site.

      The people behind GDP did get charged and convicted with a long list of criminal charges including rape, sexual assault, fraud, sex trafficking, etc. Some got charged with like 20 years. Pratt, one of the founders went on the run and was on the FBI wanted fugitive list. He was arrested by Interpol in Madrid eventually.

      Pornhub was/is a video hosting platform and the lawsuit is because they didn’t react quickly enough to remove the videos. Legally speaking, they aren’t responsible for the content assuming they make a good faith effort to remove it should it be found out it was illegal.

      The law exists in this manner because otherwise social media sites wouldn’t exist. At any point any user can post something illegal and then the website would be liable for criminal charges.

      They had 1 moderator responsible for checking 700,000 videos. The plaintiffs are claiming that this means they weren’t making a good faith effort to remove these videos.

      IANAL but I think they have a legal argument although we’ll have to see what happens. It’ll be interesting to see how the ruling goes. Other social media websites are definitely watching with interest.

    • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      tryptamine

      his case at least all C levels of Aylo, should get a life sentence and all assets seized.

      I get not reading the article but did you even finish the headline lol?

      Aylo wasn’t the one raping people. They’re the parent company of YouTube for porn. A video hosting platform. If you’ve ever watched porn on it, that means you unwittingly helped in perpetuating these videos too.

      Aylo is going to pay heavily no doubt. But there’s a reason why this is a CIVIL lawsuit.

    • AdmiralShat@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve seen a lot of victim blaming in regards to this situation, where people just say it’s girls who get paid and then feels like whores so they go cry about it

      But a lot of those videos are legitimate rapes. Like, coercion is rape. Blocking the door, threatening violence, threatening to show their families, etc, is just rape.

  • Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    54
    ·
    1 year ago

    Think the free and open internet dream is dead.

    Corporations are going to rule the world.

    The amateur porn glory days are gone.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right cuz that’s the real tragedy here. Not that many women got raped, extorted, targetted, bullied had their livelihood and reputations ruined.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t say that.

        Just read the story. It’s huge on corporation’s doing shit and having control. That’s a bad thing. But they are the only ones that can be “trusted”

    • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Onlyfans.

      I think you mean the glory days of stolen porn and videos uploaded w/o both parties consent are gone. Which is a weird thing to reminisce about when you think of these as videos of people and not things to make your peepee hard.

  • 299792458c137@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    62? what about hundreds more vids they had just like that? add the fact that most of the people who watch porn just skip past the interview so they seldom see the consent of the actors involved.

  • ubermeisters@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    OP article says 61 women, just as a polite heads up.I think you’ve got a title edit to make maybe, if you care.

      • ubermeisters@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There it is ok, thank you. Idk why this bothered me so much. Also I’m pretty sure it’s an ai written (structured, or expanded using) article becuase I’ve noticed I have a very hard time reading a lot of the ai written stuff for some reason. I don’t follow it properly somehow.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The phrasing of the first paragraph definitely implies that , I think ai might be a good guess. I’m guessing it read both “62” and “61 unnamed” dropped the adjective and got confused.

          • ubermeisters@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I hate the AI could be such a fucking awesome thing for Humanity and we’re just going to use it to shove disinformation down people’s throats in manners that they can’t discern readily. I know it’s not the case here and it was probably an honest mix-up but you know it’s on the horizon if not already here.

    • tree@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s an error on their part then because if you click the article the headline still says 62, but over a 1 person error I won’t change the title for the post it is close enough

  • Hyperreality@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Given their videos were so highly ranked, the prevalence of coercion in the industry, and the fact that it’s often impossible to tell if someone’s been threatened behind the scenes, it’s highly likely that most people reading this who have watched porn online have also watched plenty of videos of actual rapes.

    This is a simple fact, but one which a lot of people would rather deny, rather than admit their part in perpetuating it, while wondering why watching porn makes them sad. Partly, I suspect, because deep down they know the truth of it.

    • eatthecake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have never watched porn. Some would say that makes me inhuman but it can be done. Those of us with experience in the sex industry would never say ‘sex positive’.

    • loopedcandle@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am a regular consumer of online porn. And I’ll admit, I loved their videos. Now knowing what was going on, that’s on me to do some thinking, i have probably watched a rape and helped the perpetrator make money from that act. That’s hard on the conscience. I don’t know what to think about it.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the producers. You hold as much guilt for that action as anyone who has ever purchased a cell phone has for the conditions for the workers are subjected to. Which isn’t to say 0, but it’s so small that it may as well be.

      • eatthecake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Really? You don’t know how to feel about jerking off to rape? I know how to feel about you. POS.

  • protovack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    what they did was clearly terrible, but at the same time, this is what happens when you make the age of consent for this stuff 18. you could make the exact same argument about military service, they use all the same tactics. I hope they win and get some money and a piece of their dignity back, but what’s done is done. raise your kids right, and don’t normalize objectification of women, teach your daughters to be strong, and they’ll never have to respond to a sketchy ad about “modeling” in the back of some city rag.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Remember Harvey Weinstein? There’s rape in Hollywood, too. That doesn’t mean all of Hollywood should be shut down; it means Harvey Weinstein was a rapist and went to prison for it. Same goes here. Shut down the rapists; don’t suppress sexual entertainment in general.

    • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the most brain-dead take I’ve ever read

      The fuck is wrong with you dude? Had a bad breakup or something?

    • Banana_man@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      My guy these are sex trafficking victims, they don’t get the “choice” you’re mentioning. They were either kidnapped or scammed into doing this, meaning forced. But you’re probably a troll so I won’t elaborate lol.