74
Senate bill would require age verification for Canadians accessing porn sites (www.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A Senate bill that would require Canadians to verify their age online before accessing porn is moving through the House of Commons without the support of the Liberal government.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

You're really using a Breitbart article as a source? Also this just points to an overloaded review system, which seems to have been fixed since then. Did you even read the article or did you just glance at the inflammatory headline?

I can guarantee that most other porn sites don't have a review system at all, and they're chugging along business as usual.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Shit got fixed once it got revealed in medias that's what was going on, not before.

    As I already mentioned, it's being investigated by the FBI, so I guess they do in fact believe something was happening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Ok, but my point is that doesn't prove that they were knowingly hosting that material

    Also, it's better to use up to date sources

    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/pornhub-parent-company-reportedly-centre-155802719.html

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They admit in the leaked emails that they don't review all flagged videos, they means they knew some content was left online even if some of it was CSAM or revenge porn.

    Did you even read your own link? They entered a deferred prosecution agreement so they wouldn't have to go to court, they didn't plead guilty but they acknowledged their responsibility, the charges are still valid for three years.

    They're still being sued by 62 victims that filled reports of content of them being hosted without their consent to which Pornhub didn't react or replied by telling them to fuck off.

    Unless you work for them I honestly have no idea why you're defending them like that, it's a huge corporation in a field full of abuse victims, there are actual ethical porn, don't pretend like Pornhub has anything to do with ethics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Ignoring flagged videos could also mean there were a lot of incorrect flags and so it was in their interest to only react once a certain threshold was reached. I'm defending them because they get far too much heat for the amount of work they put in to make the site ethical, especially considering the rest of the industry, if your biases stop you from seeing that idk what to tell you.

    Also, sites that knowingly host CSAM typically aren't granted deferred prosecution. Are you trying to say you know better than the FBI?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    You can't just ignore flagged videos when we're talking about them potentially being videos of children being raped, are you fucking serious right now? That's how you're defending them? "Oh it would have cost money to do their job correctly so it was in their interest to not do it."

    The FBI got a bunch of people in prison, the charges against Pornhub still stand for three years, they just haven't went to court because they agreed to change their practices.

    Having one person doing verifications working 9-5 means that a child porn video uploaded on Friday evening could stay online all weekend without anything being done about it, once it was removed Pornhub knew exactly when it was uploaded and how much time it was on their servers, so yes, they were knowingly leaving illegal content on their website, they wouldn't have had to change the way they process flagged videos if it wasn't the case. Maybe they work hard now, they didn't at the time so stop it with the "I'm defending them because they get far too much heat for the amount of work they put in to make the site ethical" bullshit, they proved its not about ethics, it's about money and they didn't care until it was made public.

    Heck, if it didn't happen the civil suit would have been dismissed, it hasn't been.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent