Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media The Internet

Pornhub Ends Unverified Uploads and Bans Downloads (engadget.com) 123

Posted by BeauHD from the major-changes dept.
Pornhub is making major changes to its service following a New York Times article that highlighted how the site's lax enforcement of its policies has enabled child exploitation. Engadget reports: Among the changes: Pornhub is ending uploads from unverified users and banning the ability of users' to download much of the site's content. The company is also implementing new moderation policies and will release a transparency report in 2021. The changes come a day after Visa and Mastercard pledged to "investigate" their relationship with Pornhub parent company MindGeek. Developing...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pornhub Ends Unverified Uploads and Bans Downloads More

Pornhub Ends Unverified Uploads and Bans Downloads

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @06:33PM (#60809580)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Maximize profit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @06:44PM (#60809620)

      <insert literally anything here> will do the bare minimum required to appease those with power over them, nothing more. To do more would mean leaving money on the table.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by poptix ( 78287 )

      The NYT article is garbage. Pornhub spends a ridiculous amount of effort maintaining their public image and keeping that content off their site.

      It's impossible to respond to that kind of article with facts though, so this is what we get -- less features because someone hate porn.

      • Not sure if your sig could be any more perfect for your comments.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Like I said, they are doing the bare minimum.

          Only if you're into micropenis porn.

      • Re:Maximize profit (Score:5, Insightful)

        by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @10:03PM (#60810276)

        And if they've really killed the ability to download for later consumption at your leisure, what's the point of having a massive pr0n site any more?

        Mind you it's the typical tall-poppy issue, the puritans will go for the most visible lightning-rod site and completely ignore the huge(?) number of sites distributing real child porn rather than roleplay amateur stuff. Problem solved, world saved from smut, we can move on to the next thing to turn our outrage to.

        • I expect the download tool to be available at github within the week, if not within the day.

        • And if they've really killed the ability to download for later consumption at your leisure, what's the point of having a massive pr0n site any more?

          Well, you could go to the website anytime and still consume that "massive" content at your leisure.

          I'm assuming you have internet at home, too.

      • Re:Maximize profit (Score:5, Informative)

        by LenKagetsu ( 6196102 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @02:43AM (#60810844)

        Pornhub is just one of the many porn sites owned by Mindgeek who have, somehow, monopolized internet porn. Pornhub? Mindgeek. Reality Kings? Mindgeek. RedTube, YouPorn, Xtube? Mindgeek. Playboy TV, Spice Networks, Nutaku, Fake Taxi, Playboy Enterprises? Mindgeek. Men.com, Mofos, Sean Cody, and Brazzers? Mindgeek.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Restricting uploads to verified (aka blue-checkmarked) users is not doing the bare minimum. In fact, it's extremely heavy-handed for a site that started out as the "YouTube for adult content" (and I am talking pre-Content ID YouTube here). Did you even bother to read the story? You see, PornHub has made a big bet on "premium" content, and since their ability to take payments for "premium" content has been threatened because of the user content, they decided to go 100% "premium" and ban user content outright
      • First they started going aggressive with the takedowns, now they don't allow user uploads at all (blue-checkmarked accounts are not users but partners). These guys will force me to get a girlfriend again :-(
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • It is the bare minimum that will placate the payment processors.

          The payment processors may be OK watching the bare minimum but when I go to Pornhub I want to see stripper tits and horse cocks, not the bare minimum.

      • After watching these *free* content models for years, I have learned one thing: nothing is free.

        What needs to happen is people need to destigmatize people being sexual and people watching, get rid of the sexual shame regarding consenting activity, separate that from stuff that really is shameful:
        https://www.yahoo.com/entertai... [yahoo.com]

        Build a sex positive culture, then, we throw down $1 for a sex movie just like we all throw down the same for a music mp3. To get there, though, we have to know we're not funding coe

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by poptix ( 78287 )

          The hottest things are always taboo. If nothing is taboo, nothing is sexy.

          We need taboo.

      • Restricting uploads to verified (aka blue-checkmarked) users is not doing the bare minimum. In fact, it's extremely heavy-handed

        I read the featured article. Model verification on PornHub [pornhub.com] involves scanning a government-issued photo ID including a date of birth. The steps are similar to what you have to do to reinstate access to Facebook if you get hit with a "roadblock" for "suspicious activity" and don't subscribe to a supported mobile carrier. It isn't the same as Twitter's blue checkmark or Amazon's "the", meaning the platform believes this user is famous enough to be impersonated.

        • The difference is that, on Facebook, you have to do it only if you get hit with a "roadblock" for "suspicious activity". Most users don't have to do it, and you can always create a secondary account and upload anything you want from there. On PornHub, you don't get to upload anything at all before giving them your ID first. For a "tube" site (aka a user-content site) which is not even a social network (and hence has no legitimate ask for real names), this is extremely heavy-handed. My point is: From now on,

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      Don't complain, these are the rules that are coming to Youtube when the MPAA and RIAA bite harder.

  • Preventing downloads, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nicolaiplum ( 169077 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @06:37PM (#60809598)

    Preventing downloads hasn't worked well for every other video site on the Internet so I'm not sure what magic technology Pornhub has.

    From a governance perspective, preventing the anonymous upload of revenge porn (or anything else) will probably help Pornhub a lot more.

    Meanwhile, consider how well it will go for other companies to have large American payment companies policing their morals and business models - especially if another authoritarian becomes President in future. I'm sure someone will say this one was totally justified but even if it was, you're just saying the ends justify the means - which you won't enjoy so much when it's turned against you. Try using specific laws with due process, not arbitrary actions of large inescapable service corporations acting in oligopoly, if you want your ideas enforced against others.

    • I'm not sure what magic technology Pornhub has.

      Not much, apparently. Pornub says:

      The site will also block all downloading of content “effective immediately,” except for “paid downloads within the verified Model Program.”

      I guess “effective immediately" doesn't mean what it used to, because I was able to select random videos from random unverified users and had no problem downloading them.

    • Preventing downloads hasn't worked well for every other video site on the Internet so I'm not sure what magic technology Pornhub has.

      DRM is one option. Even youtube-dl can't deal with that. For example, some TV show episodes on Channel 7 (Australia) can be downloaded with youtube-dl, but others cannot - as those episodes are DRMd. Capturing part of the screen might be the last resort.

    • that ship sailed when V/MC started allowing Adult Entertainment companies (which fun fact, had less to do with morals and more to do with high levels of fraud and chargeback, TL;DR; they couldn't care less about morals).

      Pornhub does seem to have a problem. Unlike YouTube that can have algorithms to detect inappropriate content because a stray boob is "inappropriate" PH has a much, much tougher job. That means the credit card companies have to worry about "Think Of The Children" politicians looking for a

      • That means the credit card companies have to worry about "Think Of The Children" politicians looking for a quick boost to their careers. That's what they're worried about. Not your morals, but bringing down the thunder that is some Evangelical type running for an AG position or even a Senate seat in a red state.

        That's the moral policing I'm talking about. Of course most corporations don't care, but they end up being bullied into promoting the ideas of the Moralising Minority because it's easier than having equal access policies, and then the Moralising Minority turn them into an extension of the Police.

        • [C]onsider how well it will go for other companies to have large American payment companies policing their morals and business models

          /. doesn't allow editing so you can't go back and correct it, but I guess the point is that the threat isn't from mega corps (who couldn't care less about morality one way or the other and are plenty big enough to ignore public opinion) but a handful of politicians who have way, way more political power than they should have.

      • Re: This wasn't a matter of policing morals (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jarwulf ( 530523 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @08:49PM (#60810048)
        I like how this is an article from the NYT and Slashdotters apparently trapped in an 80s time warp are knee-jerk blaming those rotten red state evangelicals.
        • V/MC isn't coming down on Pornhub because they give a rat's boner about morality. They're afraid of government regulation. And that regulation will likely come from red state evangelicals. The blue state liberals mostly leave porn alone as either a sex positive thing, a free speech thing or because their constituency couldn't care less about it and would get put off by a politician railing against porn when there are so many more pressing matters.

          • One more point (Score:2, Interesting)

            by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
            the right wing uses the same tactics they developed in the 80s (petty moralizing, using the Southern strategy to divide the working class, buying off the televangelists with cheap air time, etc, etc). They use them because they work. "Think of the Children" was coined by a Simpson's episode from '96 making fun of those tactics. None of these improve your life or mine. They make them much, much worse because they're distractions from solving the very real problems in your life and mine.

          • Re: I'm blaming them because they're to blame (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Jarwulf ( 530523 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @10:31PM (#60810368)
            Damn red state conservative gaming journalists pushing to censor boobs in video games and rightwingers leading the charge against revealing female attire in comics. Evil right-wing women's activists and professors campaigning against the ills of sexualized advertising. They all must have voted for trump. Lol seriously its right in black and white in the summary who is pushing this and you are still gaslighting.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Preventing downloads hasn't worked well for every other video site on the Internet so I'm not sure what magic technology Pornhub has.

      Well, that's easy really. In the server settings, keep the checkbox for "Allow streaming" but uncheck the one for "Allow downloads".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )
        And just how does that block the client from downloading the content?

        • And just how does that block the client from downloading the content?

          The honor system, obviously. Because there's no download button, the user knows they're not allowed to save the content locally. Not everything requires a technical solution!

    • I'm sure the folks over at yt-download will figure out a way around it. This has been usable for some time for downloading porn from pornhub.
    • You don't have to prevent downloading, you just have to say you're acting to prevent downloading. This is a response to a moral panic, not a technical issue.

    • They don't mean preventing it from continuing to work with youtube-dl, they mean taking away the "download" button.

    • STREAMING *IS* DOWNLOADING!!

      Jesus, did I fall into some parallel universe where Slashdot is populated by *utter* luddites??

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarenN ( 411219 )

        Colloquially, streaming is watching an ephemeral copy, and downloading is watching a long-term copy. Being overly picky about it doesn't really make sense.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          Furthermore, playback mechanisms whose operation creates only an ephemeral copy of a seconds-long sliding window of a work get special treatment in the U.S. copyright statute.

  • /. will be busyier ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @06:47PM (#60809632) Homepage

    as many will have less to keep themselves amused ...

  • Larger problem then Porn Hub (Score:4, Insightful)

    by deepthought90 ( 937992 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @07:10PM (#60809686)
    It's becoming increasingly difficult to use cash, and payment processors and banks can decide to not do business with you because they don't like your attitude or politics. This has to be fixed so that banks and payment processors have to do business with you unless you've been found guilty of a crime in a court of law. Or we have to move back to cash out maybe even barter.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by quonset ( 4839537 )

      This has to be fixed so that banks and payment processors have to do business with you unless you've been found guilty of a crime in a court of law.

      If a baker can refuse service to someone because of some belief in an invisible being in the sky, banks and payment processors have the right to do business with whom they want.

      • One baker out of thousands not baking you a cake is a bit different then you basically being stripped of the ability to get money online because a global oligopoly that almost completely controls a particular type of service decided to ban you. Which would you prefer to happen to you if you had to choose?

        • Re: Larger problem then Porn Hub (Score:5, Interesting)

          by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @09:29PM (#60810164)

          Except it's not one baker, there are others [bbc.com]. Pharmacists are also using their beliefs as an excuse not to do their job and dispense birth control [go.com] or morning after pills [go.com]. And guess what, we make exceptions for them because, religion.

          So what's it going to be? Either we allow exceptions based on one's beliefs, or people have to do their job. If you say people have to do their job, then that applies to everyone. You don't get to pick and choose.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            Try buying/selling guns and/or ammunition on Craigslist or eBay. It's not religion that insisted on these bans.

          • And guess what, we make exceptions for them because, religion.

            Well the Holy Shit Look at the Size of That Thing Bible of the Church of Swarfega, Viagra, and Toilet Tissue tells us "Thou shalt download the porn at thy leisure, and what thy do with it is thine own business" (Book of (Ron) Jeremy, 14:23), so it's impinging on my religious freedom for Pornhub to not allow downloads any more.

          • Bs. Show me one example of a location in the US where you absolutely could not visit another another baker or another birth control pill vendor in a hypothetical denial and you were absolutely cut off from these services in the same way as you would be cut off permanently from the ability to process online payments. Where are these oligarchies of anti ssm cake bakers and antibc druggists that control supplies for entire states let alone the entire country To the anywhere near the same degree as the global

            • Show me one example of a location in the US where you absolutely could not visit another another baker or another birth control pill vendor

              Thank you for proving my point. No one should have to go to another baker or vendor because the seller is batshit crazy that their religion overrides their job duties. You were hired to do a job. Do it. If you went into business to bake cakes, that's what you do. Someone wants medicine, so long as the doctor approves it, you sell them the medicine.

              Let's turn it arou

              • Re: Larger problem then Porn Hub (Score:4, Interesting)

                by nagora ( 177841 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @07:37AM (#60811256)

                Show me one example of a location in the US where you absolutely could not visit another another baker or another birth control pill vendor

                Thank you for proving my point. No one should have to go to another baker or vendor because the seller is batshit crazy that their religion overrides their job duties. You were hired to do a job.

                The baker is not hired until s/he takes the job.

                Much as I dislike religion, I don't see any reason why a Jewish baker should be legally compelled to accept a commission to bake a cake in the form of a swastika and ice "Happy Hitler's Birthday" on it.

                • Pharmacists should not be allowed to not do their job (dispense birth control pills) because it conflicts with their personal beliefs. Those pharmacists should get a job that does not require them to do things they find objectionable. Like baking!

                  Bakers are able to reject jobs based on their personal beliefs so long as those personal beliefs do not discriminate against protected classes. Sexual orientation is a protected class. Being a piece of shit who loves Hitler is not. Ergo, the baker has to bake a cak

              • Let's turn it around. Let's say I'm a photographer and some Christian couple wants pictures. I say no, my beliefs don't allow me to do so. Is that legal,

                I believe it should be legal for your described situation too, yes.

                You should not be forced to do something if it goes against your firm beliefs.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Discrimination against protected characteristics should be banned, e.g. no discrimination against gay people or one gender. But things a person chooses, like political beliefs, should be an acceptable reason for not doing business with them. If someone refuses to wear a mask because they think it's a conspiracy theory, for example, you should be able to deny service.

            That would be the ideal world, but in practice it's not really possible because if someone is homophobic they will just claim they are discrimi

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by nagora ( 177841 )

              Discrimination against protected characteristics should be banned, e.g. no discrimination against gay people or one gender. But things a person chooses, like political beliefs, should be an acceptable reason for not doing business with them. If someone refuses to wear a mask because they think it's a conspiracy theory, for example, you should be able to deny service.

              That would be the ideal world, but in practice it's not really possible because if someone is homophobic they will just claim they are discriminating because they don't like that person's politics or some other excuse.

              My point is just that in principal people should be allowed to decide who they do business with based on their beliefs, just not if those beliefs discriminate against protected characteristics.

              And who decides what is "protected"?

              That is unworkable and unjust - "protecting" only those special interest groups that have effective lobbying.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                The same people who decide what is legal and illegal, i.e. lawmakers.

                The principal is not "people in special interest groups", it's characteristics that people do not choose such as their sexual identity or ethnicity.

                • The principal is not "people in special interest groups", it's characteristics that people do not choose such as their sexual identity or ethnicity.

                  I often see religion in protected classes. Parents' religious affiliation I can see being part of ethnicity. But do what extent do people choose their own religious affiliation?

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    I'd like to say none but they get it hammered into them from birth so it's not always that easy.

              • And who decides what is "protected"?

                Lawmakers typically define protected classes as groups of people identified by personal characteristics that are believed to be unchangeable and which have historically led to marginalization. The three categories of characteristic I've seen consistently in these definitions are ethnicity, gender, and disability. Ethnicity includes race, color, national origin, and religion. Gender includes birth sex, transgender or nonbinary identity, and homo- or bisexual orientation. Disability may be physical, mental, o

          • Either we allow exceptions based on one's beliefs, or people have to do their job. If you say people have to do their job, then that applies to everyone. You don't get to pick and choose.

            Not to defend that baker, but we can say "critical services (healthcare providers, payment processors) don't get to use personal beliefs to not serve people but luxury services (bakers) do." That wouldn't break anything.

            Keep in mind, the SC never ruled the baker didn't have to make a cake because he claimed religious reaso

      • This has to be fixed so that banks and payment processors have to do business with you unless you've been found guilty of a crime in a court of law.

        If a baker can refuse service to someone because of some belief in an invisible being in the sky, banks and payment processors have the right to do business with whom they want.

        Perhaps they can. Care to name some major US banks who, oh say, have refused to grant mortgages to same-sex partners? (I doubt you can.) And why? Because (a) banks are generally large organizations with public images; and (b) large companies turning away customers gets into the news, and is bad for business. That's not to say that I don't think many large companies, including banks, don't see that LGBTQ-friendly business practices is simply The Right Thing To Do (tm).

        Just for the record, I think that same-s

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by iamacat ( 583406 )

          It's not about invisible friends in the sky, it's about entire history of humanity and what happened whenever some group was not allowed to practice their religion in peace. You should read up on that and then decide if inconvenience of getting a cake is more important. While you are at it, you might want to compare your ideas of civil rights vs civil rights people actually fought for.

    • I still use cash for a lot of in person transactions at bars/restaurants. After having had my card skimmed a couple times and dealing with the inconvenience of the bank issuing a new card and waiting for the funds to be returned, I will no longer allow it out of my sight. I use credit cards a high risk spots like gas pumps, since now we live in a world of prepaying for gas and I always top up my gas tank. I dont feel like taking $40 into the station, pumping, and then going back in the station for my change

    • You morons bleet about Freedum, and then want to tell other people who they're required to do business with.

      Go Fuck Yourself!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      It is not just attitude or politics. Porn sites are a magnet for credit card fraud, which payment processors have to deal with. Most simply don't bother and just refuse to deal with porn, others do it but with ridiculously high fees. Forcing payment processors to have business with everyone is like forcing insurance companies to cover you. It can be done for essentials, like health care, but porn is usually not considered essential.

      I thought it would be a good use case for cryptocurrencies. Turned out that

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by k6mfw ( 1182893 )
      Yes, like Soviet Russia where you can be sent to Siberia. Here you might be free to say whatever you like but they can say no mortgage or loan for you.

  • Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jarwulf ( 530523 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @07:17PM (#60809712)
    Mainstream porn with women that actually look like real 18-early 20s isn't really a thing anymore. Everybody is so afraid with the growing hysteria over supposed sex slaves around every corner over the past couple decades that the unspoken rule is that models generally should appear well into their 20s -30s. Its difficult to find otherwise on big sites. This is just more nonsense with busy bodies running around looking to pick a fight like how YouTube pulled all comments on cartoons because supposedly this was a pedo tool to lure kids. Anyone who doesn't believe me can compare pictures of typical attractive college freshman-sophmores etc to typical porn actresses. Uh..not that I uh..use these disgusting sites...
    • I don't believe you. I'm going to do my own research just to prove you wrong . . . as soon as I close my door.
    • Unlike the gay porn with twinks in their 20's who look like they are in their teens.
      • Which is creepy since how do you know they're REALLY 20+? Hell a former friend of mine is gay (which is fine) and he was into twinks, him being 25, and some looked fucking under 17 he said, he noped right out of there.

    • Re:Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PPH ( 736903 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @09:58PM (#60810258)

      Mainstream porn with women that actually look like real 18-early 20s isn't really a thing anymore.

      It sort of is. It's just that Pornhub is increasingly where over-the-hill actors go to die. Take a look at the demographics of OnlyFans. And the finishing school that feeds it, TikTok.

      To their credit, I will have to give the young women of OnlyFans and similar pay-per-view sites kudos. They get a bigger cut of the proceeds. Some 20 year-olds are dragging in high six figure incomes and they maintain more control of their content. When someone retires, their stuff disappears from that site.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Not the case at all. Studios like Nubiles are still popular, for example. Incest porn is having a big resurgence at the moment too, with the women portrayed as being as young as possible.

      Try searching PornHub for "daddy".

    • Mainstream porn with women that actually look like real 18-early 20s isn't really a thing anymore.

      Or maybe it's just not your tastes, meanwhile there's whole large successful sites dedicated to precisely this "niche" (I doubt it's a niche), not the least of which being Pornhub which lists categories not alphabetically but rather by popularity.

      What do you get in "popular":
      1. Anal
      2. Teen
      3. Lesbian
      4. Mature

      What about in terms of total uploads:
      1. Amateur
      2. Pornstar
      3. Bigtits
      4. Teen

      And I remind you there's something like 50 categories. So yes, videos of people pretending or attempting to look like 18-20s ver

  • This is creepy (Score:3)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @07:26PM (#60809750)
    Who's pressuring the card companies?
  • Payment processors have too much power in the world. This reminds me of the wikileaks embargo. In the end, the decisions of your business are not yours, but lay in the hands of a few card processing companies.
  • Fightthenewdrug.org
  • Pornhub went to shit some about a month ago after they made "premium free" presumably by it being paid for by ads. If you have an adblocker installed pornhub has become extremely obnoxious to use the last month. Need not worry there are plenty of other pornhub like sites out there for choking the chicken.

    • Almost all those other sites are owned by the same parent company and will soon follow suit. Sad that even porn got relegated to the power of monopoly.

  • So no way to watch the videos anymore?

    Or are you really *that* freaking brainwashed by the Content Mafia, that you believe steaming is not downloading?

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close