Petition Calls On Pornhub To Prevent Non-Consensual Videos From Being Posted (theguardian.com) 180
A petition with over 350,000 signatures is calling on Pornhub to stop posting non-consensual videos and marketing them as "pornography." Kate Isaacs writes via The Guardian: Pornhub's argument that "extremists" are lobbying to shut them down is ridiculous. I'm non-religious, liberal and sex positive and in no way "anti-porn." I started the #NotYourPorn campaign after a friend had her iCloud account hacked last year. Videos of her and an ex had been stolen from her phone and then uploaded to Pornhub. We have tried to have my friend's videos taken down: we told the company that she was underage, that she didn't consent to being on their website and still it took several weeks to remove it. Unfortunately, by then the damage was already done. When one video had been removed, an identical video with her full name attached would pop back up again. This cycle of reporting the video to Pornhub, delayed removal and subsequent re-uploading continued for months -- until she ended up on Pornhub's top five trending videos in the UK. My friend fell into a state of depression at the knowledge that she had been reduced to a search term, her body packaged up as porn and sold for profit.
Since then I have worked with 50 women who were turned into "porn stars" without their permission -- some of whom were under 18 -- when videos of them were posted on Pornhub without their consent. Before you tell yourself that this would never happen to you (because you wouldn't be so careless as to have a video of yourself like that in the first place) then I'd ask you to consider Catherine's* case. Catherine got in contact with me when she found that her ex had been secretly recording them having sex, and without her knowledge uploading these videos to Pornhub for glory -- and even a cash reward. When Catherine discovered his Pornhub page, she found videos of what appeared to be other unsuspecting victims too, all promoted under "secret recording" categories on the website. Secret recording categories can still be found on Pornhub. "Pornhub hide themselves behind freedom of expression and argue that all sexual fantasies on their site are just that: legitimate fantasies acted out by consenting adults. They have defended the "young teen" and "drunk stolen snapchat" categories as legitimate fantasy protected by freedom of speech," Isaac writes in closing.
"Let me be clear: this isn't about censorship or stifling kinks -- there are plenty of ethical porn companies who have strong systems in place to ensure everyone involved in production is a consenting adult. This is about a huge corporation profiting from non-consensual videos -- and an industry that publishes abusive content with no regulatory body or government holding them to account."
Since then I have worked with 50 women who were turned into "porn stars" without their permission -- some of whom were under 18 -- when videos of them were posted on Pornhub without their consent. Before you tell yourself that this would never happen to you (because you wouldn't be so careless as to have a video of yourself like that in the first place) then I'd ask you to consider Catherine's* case. Catherine got in contact with me when she found that her ex had been secretly recording them having sex, and without her knowledge uploading these videos to Pornhub for glory -- and even a cash reward. When Catherine discovered his Pornhub page, she found videos of what appeared to be other unsuspecting victims too, all promoted under "secret recording" categories on the website. Secret recording categories can still be found on Pornhub. "Pornhub hide themselves behind freedom of expression and argue that all sexual fantasies on their site are just that: legitimate fantasies acted out by consenting adults. They have defended the "young teen" and "drunk stolen snapchat" categories as legitimate fantasy protected by freedom of speech," Isaac writes in closing.
"Let me be clear: this isn't about censorship or stifling kinks -- there are plenty of ethical porn companies who have strong systems in place to ensure everyone involved in production is a consenting adult. This is about a huge corporation profiting from non-consensual videos -- and an industry that publishes abusive content with no regulatory body or government holding them to account."
That title really needs to be reworded. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That title really needs to be reworded. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your favorite PorhHub video thread (Score:4, Informative)
I'll start with this one: Strapon Women Who F*** Better Than Men - 2 [pornhub.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
<!-- Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Creampies! You can't go wrong with proper baby-making sex!
Perfect date night idea! Pump me full of cum! [pornhub.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How often are the words "non-consensual" not immediately followed by the word "sex"?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how it could have been phrased differently, but it didn't strike me as weird at all.
Re: (Score:2)
PornHub has already answered this. They already ban "Non-Consensual Videos": consent is required from all models, per their terms of service (and the laws in many states).
Don't be deceived, this whole BS is just neo-Victorian sex-negative feminism. They just want to judge, control, and shame the sexuality of others. Just what we needed, more moral scolds.
Re:That title really needs to be reworded. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I may disagree? Revenge porn, where ex-lovers or malicious people blackmail each other for more sex is a _theme_ in a great deal of porn. Even though it may be acting, and usually very poor quality acting, without some caution there's a good chance an abuser will submit a fake consent form for their sex partner and submit clips. Having a good policy in hand to handle accusation makes sense for any content carrier, much as it makes sense for Github to have policies about copyright violations on its software repository.
Re: (Score:2)
"Even though it may be acting, and usually very poor quality acting, without some caution there's a good chance an abuser will submit a fake consent form for their sex partner and submit clips. "
So I guess you want everybody in every porn movie to travel to Luxembourg, show Mindgeek their Photo-ID and swear their consent before a notary?
Would that put your mind at rest?
I guess not, they could still send a lookalike to swear consent.
Re:That title really needs to be reworded. (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue is PornHub's response. It takes them weeks to process requests for material to be removed and they don't prevent it from being re-uploaded.
This is the part that always annoys me about web sites or mailing lists. If you give a site the exact URL, it should not take weeks to remove the link. It's essentially a database entry. With a human it might take 30 seconds to remove it. With a script 2 seconds.
The same happens when you get on someone's mailing list and they tell you after you unsubscribe you may still receive their emails for another week or two. Two weeks? Once that email is marked removal it should only take a few seconds to run through the list and scrub that email clean.
Instead, we're told it will take time to remove the link/email. Which is bullshit. With as fast they add the link or email, they can remove it just as fast.
P.S. This story is also the reason Tumblr went to a registration format. They weren't removing the rape videos from their site and figured it was just easier to hide them behind a registration than it was to remove them.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the part that always annoys me about web sites or mailing lists. If you give a site the exact URL, it should not take weeks to remove the link. It's essentially a database entry. With a human it might take 30 seconds to remove it. With a script 2 seconds.
Well, reality is a bit different than you seem to think it is. Asking to be removed from a mailing list absolutely should be a simple and quick thing, but you, asking to have a video someone else uploaded to be removed, absolutely should take some time; otherwise, it would be possible to remove every single video on a website in an instant. How would that be fair to the uploader of proper and innocent videos?
Or are we to assume that all claims of impropriety should be immediately assumed?
"Hey Slashdot, user
They have to determine if it should be removed (Score:3)
The difficulty, with an automated approach especially, is that the owner of milfs.com can click the "remove" button for all the videos promoting milf-sex.com, or anyone could just remove any video they choose for any reason.
They need to figure out if the video *should* be removed. No automated script can figure out if the person who complained is actually in the video. If they ARE in the video, did they sign a release and get $2,500 for making that video? No script can answer those questions.
Here is one
Re: (Score:3)
If a lot of this is about money, then all videos should be entitled to pornhub's money, if someone who does not have the legit authority to upload and gets paid, then that should be pornhub's problem - if the real owner is entitled to all the money, pornhub should still be made to pay them, even if they've already paid out to a scammer.
Once you make pornhub liable for paying out double for dodgy uploads, they'll suddenly take an interest in fixing the problem. And this would also apply to all those youtube
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
PornHub is 90% stolen content uploaded by people with no right to do so. If they started rewarding them with money it would just open them up to lawsuits. It's one thing to host content, it's another to encourage uploads with monetary rewards.
Pornhub has an interesting relationship with the porn industry. On the face of it the site is 90% piracy, but the porn industry has seen the writing on the wall and that streaming is the future, same as music and TV. So they tolerate it and work with PornHub to keep ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
PornHub is 90% stolen content uploaded by people with no right to do so.
Do you have actual numbers to back this up? Everything I've ever seen on Pornhub (not that I'm an expert) was uploaded by the creator himself/herself.
Re: (Score:3)
If they've already answered this then why does the problem persist?
Having a policy that bans videos unless all participants have agreed publication is good. Enforcing that policy is difficult. This article suggests they aren't enforcing it as adequately as some people would hope.
this whole BS is just neo-Victorian sex-negative feminism
No, it's about preventing video of you getting fucked being published online without your permission.
They just want to judge, control, and shame the sexuality of others
No. They want videos of themselves removed from a porn site.
Your paranoia and fearful defence of your pornography addiction appears
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I not surprised to see you supporting non-consensual revenge porn, and whining about feminism? Nobody is scolding anyone for their sexuality. They are saying pornhub is hosting videos where not all models have consented. The issue is that pornhub is not taking down these illegal videos, and that people keep reposting them.
It's like you did not even read the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Well no because there is no non-consensual sex at issue and unlike the sex consent isn't the primary factor for the video. Other than freaking yourself out about it a video isn't harmful, unless it proves you've done something with consequences in which case there is no ethical basis for the sense of entitlement to dodge consequences..
Obligatory editorial video (Score:2)
What, pray tell, is supposed to be insightful in that comment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I don't have much to say on the topic, but Bill Maher did.
In terms of insight, I'd expect to see some mention of "pretend violence" or "fake consent" in the sense of people who enjoy the pretense. Apparently that's already too meta for today's Slashdot. Or maybe just too many cowards afraid to touch the topic with the 11-foot poll, even veiled as AC.
Me? I think there's probably too much porn on the Web and probabl
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops. Wrong video. I think this might be the right one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] However it doesn't seem as insightful now as my vague memories of it, so maybe he did the topic on another occasion in a more insightful way?
Re: (Score:2)
That is because the videos DID show sexual assault and/or rape.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. It's about revenge porn not being taken down, or being put back up after being taken down. The title was clear. The summary even more so, but you did not read the summary.
under 18 so they have CP on there? (Score:2)
under 18 so they have CP on there?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
the site and hosting becomes responsible once noti (Score:2)
the site and hosting becomes responsible once notified. its not hosted in the uk though so I guess UK coppers will not do anything because she isn't a celeb.
if anyone shames her by posting it back to her or sharing links to it anywhere, those become instant criminals though too due to it being cp.
however there's more complexity to it legally: both she and her boyfriend are guilty of producing the cp(fines, most probably given their age, but it's not like that it's legal to produce cp because you're underag
Re:the site and hosting becomes responsible once n (Score:4, Interesting)
The side has a "reasonable period of time" to remove illegal content. Which was one of the big attack points against 8chan for instance, which removed illegal content within 2hrs, while sites like facebook, twitter, et.al., could take upwards of 6 weeks.
Re: under 18 so they have CP on there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why aren't these individuals who are uploading the content in the first place being busted for the production of CP?
Re: (Score:2)
It can be difficult to trace. Various legal authorities for computer crime, such as the FBI Computer Crime lab, are simply not competent.
Re: (Score:3)
The person that uploaded it would be ones charged for uploading it not the site since they are just a platform.
CP laws are draconian.
It is illegal to create CP.
It is illegal to upload CP.
It is illegal to host CP.
It is illegal to download CP.
It is illegal to watch CP.
Re: (Score:3)
For a very broad definition, depending on your jurisdiction. Here in the UK that includes artificially manipulated images and even illustrations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That depends on your jurisdiction, but in many videos of sexual activity between even people that only appear to be 16 or 17 would be deemed illegal.
Keep your porn habits in the 20s and save the sexy catholic schoolgirl uniform for your boyfriend.
Re: under 18 so they have CP on there? (Score:4, Funny)
Keep your porn habits in the 20s and save the sexy catholic schoolgirl uniform for your boyfriend.
That's a good idea. Do you think I should shave my beard?
Re: (Score:2)
I happily leave this entirely to your discretion.
Re: under 18 so they have CP on there? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no? Anyone even hosting child porn is liable. Section 230 of the communications decency act simply states that an online service will not be considered the publisher of content posted by users. Well, child porn is illegal even if you aren't the publisher.
So sue them. (Score:2)
If it was your video in the first place then,
1. File for a copyright.
2. Serve a DMCA notice on pornhub.
3. Sue.
Pornhub has a very short window in which to remove content in response to a DMCA claim after which they become liable. With the copyright properly filed, you're eligible for statutory damages of $30k each time. Not only that, you're allowed discovery. Discovery means you can subpoena files from Pornhub and they have to give them to you.
Re: (Score:2)
What we're talking about here, which is clear if you just read the summary, is videos shot without permission. Is that your video? In most cases no.
'not an extremist (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm non-religious, liberal
as if that automatically excludes you from being an extremist.
Re: (Score:2)
"Liberal" in this context is contrasted to "radical feminist" (radfem), so it's supposed to be understood as liberal as in moderate, not as liberal as in leftist. Radfems oppose every kind of porn, when liberal feminists usually accepts consensual porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to understand that comment in context. The writer is not extremely against sexual expression. Not everything is about politics.
Notice the weasely words in the Guardian article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Notice the weasely words in the Guardian articl (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the same dude. The rest is just a-hagling over the price. Would you kill for one dollar? or for one Million? I would kill rapists at a drop of a hat for free. But would shed tears if killed a rat that i just wanted to scare. Sheesh, grow some humanity.
No matter the reason, the ladies or dudes deserve respect. Even if what they did was consensual at the time, people evolve and change. I used to smoke, now I don't. Would I prefer people not smoke beside me? Sure, but then again, I can just move down the road.
Do these people want her old shytte running loose around? Probably not. So, is their prerogative to say no. Would you consent for me to slap you until silly? Probably not (maybe you do, you just don't know with some people) But what if i just came after you and started slapping you, would you like it? would you like me posting photos or blogs testifying about the slapping you used to have and still get from time to time?
So in the end, for whatever reason, they get to say no. System should be, yes, guilty until proven guilty. In this case, I am all for adjudicating on the side of caution. I have a daughter, sister, mother, aunts, cousins, etc. anyone could become a victim. even you and me. Although, anyone who publishes me and my doings buttnaked is a deranged entity best fit for the crappier types of b-horror movies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
System should be, yes, guilty until proven guilty.
That's a great way of creating a system whereby you get to take down the perfectly legitimate content of people you don't like. The system should *absolutely NOT* be this.
You have made a decision and sided with one side. It basically sounds like you're an advocate for the DMCA, a shitshow which has lead to a world of headaches for legitimate content creators and has consolidated power over content within large corporations.
You should really think about the implications of your proposals.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, you are arguing with Jarwulf as if he/she is a proponent of having non-consensual videos posted... but that is just evidence of the article being artfully crafted. Don't let them use you as a "useful idiot".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed this very often with antiporn/'women are victims of everything' hysterical articles. They take the absolute worst cases and word them in such a way to mislead you into thinking this is the majority of their so called victims or give a misleading impression of the actual overall situation. For example take a look at the line in the header about Catherine. If you read carefully the hidden implication is that the majority of the so called victims are probably just silly people who voluntarily were recorded or recorded themselves and then for whatever reason objected to their videos ending up on Pornhub. But if you just go with the headline you'd conjure up visions of busloads of little girls in chains salacious victimized by hidden cameras.
Can I cite your post to promote my Jay McInerney Seminar and The-Persuasvie-Power-of-Second-Person Narration?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The headline reads;
"A petition is calling on the site to prevent non-consensual videos being posted – and highlights the lack of industry regulation"
And you're conjuring up visions of "busloads of little girls in chains salacious victimized by hidden cameras."
The headline seems proportionate and accurate - the only one being triggered here is you. And your characterization of people as 'so-called' victims, 'silly people' demonstrates your agenda rather clearly.
Let's be clear, if I want to tape myself
Re: (Score:2)
I'd just like to share my sympathy for your pot plant and ask for your address so that I can break in, rescue it, and leave you a cactus in its place.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this already illegal? (Score:2)
I thought posting explicit videos without permission was already a crime. Sure there are "hidden" videos but presumably virtually all are fakes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So... (Score:2)
...there's a Secret Recording category?
Streisand Effect, anyone?
Sounds like they're going after the wrong target (Score:5, Insightful)
The proper target is the bastard who took the video and uploaded it without her consent (which is already illegal). Sue him, fine him, bankrupt him, and if this really is child porn, lock him away in prison for a long, long time. Once word gets around that the authorities are cracking down hard on people who upload porn without consent [wikipedia.org], people will stop uploading porn without consent. Legitimate photographers and videographers already cover their butts against this type of case - they have all actors (and even people who show up incidentally in their productions) sign a model release [wikipedia.org].
It's too late for this woman - we can't put her genie back into the bottle. And attempting to put her genie back in the bottle will trample on the rights of millions of people and threaten billions of dollars of legitimate business. But strong action against people who upload unauthorized stuff (which is already illegal) will prevent future genies from getting out of the bottle. That's how you can protect women without destroying legitimate industries as collateral damage. When a plane crashes, we don't waste time and energy trying to resurrect the people who died. We investigate the accident, find out what went wrong, and take steps to prevent other people from dying in another similar crash in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
They're going after the wrong target - the porn site. Probably because it's easier (the people running it have to file business paperwork, so are traceable), more visible, and they probably have several hundreds of millions of dollars of liability insurance.
Not really. They are going after the "right" target. Once you realize Kate Isaacs is an anti-porn version of a Social Justice Warrior, attacking PornHub is absolutely the right target. Don't let her claims of "trying to help" confuse you. She has absolutely no interest at all in helping anyone. She is attacking, not defending.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't even read the summary. Sad.
A crime has been committed, certainly. (Score:2)
From the article:
"I started the #NotYourPorn campaign after a friend had her iCloud account hacked last year. Videos of her and an ex had been stolen from her phone and then uploaded to Pornhub. "
and
"We have tried to have my friend’s videos taken down: we told the company that she was underage, that she didn’t consent to being on their website and still it took several weeks to remove it."
Therefore, either:
A. The friend is underage, and the writer of the article is aware that her and her ex had
Re: (Score:3)
her ex had been involved in the production of video of a minor in sexual activity which they did not report to authorities, and that the Ex has sexual relations with a minor
Bear in mind that it's possible to legally have sex but still not legal to video it. E.g. in the UK when one of the participants is 16 or 17.
Call me crazy but... (Score:2)
If a woman of legal age signs a legal agreement, goes to a shoot, strips off in front of a camera and starts giving someone a blowjob, thatâ(TM)s most likely consensual!
But then Iâ(TM)m not a feminist lawyer.....
Re: (Score:2)
If you think this is what happened here: Yes, you are indeed crazy.
Confused story (Score:2)
It starts off talking about someone having dirty movies taken from iCloud, then it's from her phone. Then she becomes "underage" (which seems to be 18 in this story; I'm pretty sure 18 isn't the cut off everywhere) and then wanders off into a story about secret filming.
These are not all the same issue. I think the first couple are probably copyright infringement. The underage thing is interesting as the story doesn't make any condemnation about having sex with a minor (that would probably be "slut-shaming"
GOD DAMN IT (Score:3)
There is plenty of material on the site already!
The website should lower the threshold significantly if there is someone who complains of a specific piece of uploaded material from a non-verified/authorized producer, especially so if the complaint comes from the actual person or their guardian. The website needs to act responsibly, professionally and properly - in order to be good representative of the ones who want to be on the site.
Is video comparison technology there? (Score:2)
If PornHub knows (Score:2)
If PornHub knows that the video is non-consensual, it is removed. What is the problem here?
Do they honestly expect PornHub to know, without any further input, that a particular video is non-consensual? Is it even possible for PornHub to determine if a video is non-consensual?
Kate Isaacs says, " there are plenty of ethical porn companies who have strong systems in place to ensure everyone involved in production is a consenting adult."
Kate Isaacs is willfully stupid by conflating PornHub with a porn productio
Hold up! (Score:3)
>a friend had her iCloud account hacked last year.
>Videos of her and an ex had been stolen from her phone and then uploaded to Pornhub.
>we told the company that she was underage
So... her friend was uploading child pornography to iCloud?
Novel idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't record that shit to begin with. That, you can control.
What you can't control are people that break into devices and cloud services. That cat and mouse game is never going to end.
You are responsible for your own privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pornhub already has a system in place like that, so do most sites that offer user content. The problem seems to be the length of time, though going by previous court cases the removal is within the legally considered limit by case law(s). The other is reuploading of the same content, which likely means they have a very poor implementation of checking for duplicated content. The weasel words in the guardian article bother me more, but that's pretty much the norm for them. Especially since they've decided
pretty easy...be responsive (Score:2)
In what way would such a site implement such a system? No matter how you do it such a system would be easy to bypass.
It's not that hard. Just rank the reputation of the uploader. If it's a new account and a dispute is raised, instantly take the video down until it is resolved. Keep the current system in place for top uploaders. You can never STOP abuse on any site, but you can be responsive when it is pointed out to you. You can also categorize amateur submissions and scrutinize them more closely. Many sites handle abuse well, particularly with reputation-based systems. It's not perfect, but better than a free-for
Re:pretty easy...be responsive (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just rank the reputation of the uploader. If it's a new account and a dispute is raised, instantly take the video down until it is resolved.
Guilty until proven innocent?
Re: (Score:2)
Just rank the reputation of the uploader. If it's a new account and a dispute is raised, instantly take the video down until it is resolved.
Guilty until proven innocent?
I agree with others that "ranking" uploaders will be subverted as "instantly" as they propose yanking the content, but it's not a court of law and it's not a person being judged. It's content being evaluated.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way would such a site implement such a system?
I hate to say it, but "facial recognition". It could potentially identify people who claim they're in a non-consensual video and be enough proof to warrant the video being removed.
In other words, here's a photo of my face and I'm in video 1234567." If there's a match then the video is removed.
Could such a system be abused or gamed? Absolutely, but it could also be used with some serious checks and moderation to try and prevent that, so some jerk doesn't send in a photo claiming to be someone they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it goes back to the old adage of, "didn't bother to read the summary before posting".
Had you done so you'd know that videos of consensual sex being secretly non-consensual you filmed and posted is one of the issues here.
I will say that more slowly because this is slashdot. Videos of underage girls had sex. That sex was filmed entirely without their knowledge. Those videos were posted online by child molesting who secretly filmed videos.
Those videos are child pornography. Those videos were not taken with the knowledge of the child. Those videos were posted online by someone else, likely the child molestor.
Clear?
Hmm, the article summary said:
"I started the #NotYourPorn campaign after a friend had her iCloud account hacked last year. Videos of her and an ex had been stolen from her phone and then uploaded to Pornhub. "
Re: I guess it goes back to the old adage (Score:2)
Before you tell yourself that this would never happen to you (because you wouldn't be so careless as to have a video of yourself like that in the first place) then I'd ask you to consider Catherine's* case. Catherine got in contact with me when she found that her ex had been secretly recording them having sex, and without her knowledge uploading these videos to Pornhub for glory -- and even a cash reward. When Catherine discovered his Pornhub page, she found videos of what appeared to be other unsuspecting victims too, all promoted under "secret recording" categories on the website.
Re: (Score:2)
stolen from her phone
her ex had been secretly recording them having sex, and without her knowledge
It is off-topic, but I'll admit to being curious as to why Catherine* kept the videos around.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've conflated Kate's anonymous friend with Catherine.
They're two different women, two different situations.
Re: This is hidden ad of pornhub (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You really ought to get out of your parents' basement every now and then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really would like to know how exactly did you came to that peculiar logical conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...Taking responsibility for your own actions has been and always will be a real thing. You don't get to shift the blame to someone else because you made a bad decision.
You might want to say that a hell of a lot louder. I can barely hear you over the constant whining coming from the Victim Generation.
Rather hard to simply dismiss just how many feel it is their "responsibility" to shift blame to anyone and everyone else for every bad thing that ever happens to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't Pornhub based in Montreal? Hmm, according to Wiki, got bought out by MindGeek, also based in Montreal, registered in Luxembourg with additional offices in Dublin, London, Hamburg, Bucharest, Nicosia, Los Angeles, Miami, and San Diego, so DMCA might work.