X Tube/PornHub Dying?

[bbzh]

I have about 25 GB of porn on my hard drive. Usually when I found a clip that really pushed my buttons, I invested time in trying to figure out how to download it for "safekeeping". It seems like I need to go back to doing this again. I got burned when Tumblr sanitized everything. Now it's Pornhub and Xtube. These sites existed for years, peacefully, but now all of a sudden they're a blight on civilization? Get the fuck outta here with that.

Where are we headed as a society? A global pandemic with mutating viruses, questionable vaccines, the politicization of practically everything including porn, economies diminished, maybe universal basic income, and perhaps the eventual loss of being able to freely travel the world because the airlines are being crippled. I never thought I'd live to see this.  I hoped I never would. 

[VersAlwaysLooking]

If the ammeter porn site is truly dead it will be a sad remainder of the pandemic... I actually did try onlyfans and JFF early on.   I'd be will to pay but the platforms are garbage.   The model is pay the sated price for unknown content and too bad if you're ripped off.  Wont give either another dollar.   I subscribed to one that had sexy marketing, cost ~$15 and then when you go tot the videos, they were all 10 minutes of empty bed, waiting for top to arrive, at which  time camera was turned over and you only heard sound.   Total scam, no refund option, not even an option to leave bad review. 

Don't waste your money.   

[Guest]

8 hours ago, VersAlwaysLooking said:

If the ammeter porn site is truly dead it will be a sad remainder of the pandemic... I actually did try onlyfans and JFF early on.   I'd be will to pay but the platforms are garbage.   The model is pay the sated price for unknown content and too bad if you're ripped off.  Wont give either another dollar.   I subscribed to one that had sexy marketing, cost ~$15 and then when you go tot the videos, they were all 10 minutes of empty bed, waiting for top to arrive, at which  time camera was turned over and you only heard sound.   Total scam, no refund option, not even an option to leave bad review. 

Don't waste your money.   

Exactly why I wouldn’t pay for OF or JFF; if it’s just some guy dancing around in his underwear, it’s not interesting. I totally understand the why behind the sites - they allow the creator to be in greater control of their own content, but they’re a rip off. I’m sure there are some who make a lot of money off those sites and many times more who don’t. 

[cublad]

Pornhub has been going downhill for some time now, the new content is well quite dull, plus half the stuff they had on their was wiped out by some legal action in Canada?  X-Tube, not so bad, at least x-hamster is beginning to improve again after being rubbish or a while

[Bwccummer]

While websites still around noticed many websites  webpages taken down so seems terms of basically remove. Maybe needed to be removed,  but seems a better way is actually first review videos in question and then remove if need. Still just seems in interest of saving time mass delate.

Subscription pay platforms may work for some. I found when looked into one type of platform at first seemed promising,  but as set up an account that was as far as know no interest. 

I had put out inquiry of what people interested in and not remember any feedback. Now while still have account, not see much point in posting when zero interest. 

Then think of all the others that sign up accounts, that realistically if one to pay to see certain content that go with whoever may be most popular.  

To make a simple point if one pays 50 creators $10 each for one month that is $500 for just one month.  The variable is some may not have posted any new videos since 2018 or not post videos find interesting. While realize sites would have more than 50 creators not see as a practical method of sustainability. I can picture many deactivate accounts because whoever be top content creator pretty much be their own website. 

A better option is if charge a cost to see content of all the creators and if generate a certain amount of subscribers or interest to receive a bonus. Or pay a price to see website and option to send tips if like the content. 

As understand with the internet seems too much is hyped, too much of here today and deleted or hacked tomorrow. Then seems website benefits more than creators can create an imbalance. While website needs money,, along with creators think a way is needed to be fair so all sides receive money.. Otherwise if creator not receive any or little money will look to go to something else that get money for work.

Paywalls to me not seem to work if originally had for free and not ask people to pay. Or if started out paying and is now free. Seems needs to be paying from the start. Or make clear is a sample only and pay to see or view the rest.

I find some content not interesting, or content not see as worth paying for, but would want to learn first before plucking down a certain amount per month in addition to cost of internet or cellphone bill. Can add up very quickly the price. 

I find how just learned of a social media that closed same week would have considered joining. Later found a social media similar to what discontinued. In short seems as one website discontinued that a similar is ready to full void of similar set up. Not really practical to if a creator to post on different sites for time to make a photo or video to edit.

Then the factor of deal with fake accounts, questionable business offers posted or sent to inbox. Lastly some can be rude or mean. Content creator is generally willing to listen to suggestions,  but some sadly not seem to help in provide improvements. Their main point is to be mean and rude. I get how individuals have different tastes and interests,  but creator would maybe work in an area that works for them. Also a clear description of what offer may eliminate confusion of content. However,  creator needs to review and update if post content not originally posted.

Sadly seems some fits the term troll in just want to stir things up without legitimate input, or suggestions for improvement.  All says to content creator is need to use block and delete buttons and develop a toughness. Also if person signs up, and makes too many demands that think creator has a right to remove. The opposite is true if creator starts making demands of who signs up. In short see as a two way street in respect goes both ways.

I would suggest one first review rules for if was to sign up as a creator and then know what requirements are rather join or not as creator. Then can decide if want to join as a fan, creator, or both. However, in one case I not join for website made so could only post or sell from website or business. Also a red flag if creator posts and in posting no longer owns the content. 

If posting adult content need to look at how verify adults viewing. Credit card or some other way to verify an adult to legally view adult content. 

 

[barefootboy]

Has anyone tried “HairyandRaw.com”?

[ErosWired]

On 12/17/2020 at 8:25 PM, BootmanLA said:

The fundamental difference is that PH made money selling memberships - which had to be paid for by credit card. Since FB is basically free to the user and paid for almost entirely via advertising, FB doesn't have to worry about whether Visa/MC is going to pull their merchant agreements, as it did with PornHub. That doesn't mean the FB or Twitter or other sites don't have a much bigger problem than the specifically porn sites, but it does mean that not all tools that can go after the latter will work on the former.

But don’t underestimate the power of bad press and boycotts to persuade advertisers to pull their ads from a platform. If the platform on which an advertiser is spending its money to make its sale starts to smell bad, that advertiser is going to pull back for fear of picking up the stink itself. It happens all the time, and activists leverage this to apply pressure.

On 12/17/2020 at 3:11 AM, hungandmean said:

FOSTA-SESTA laws are not new. These laws are absolutely meant to criminalize and marginalize sex work, and queer communities - all wrapped up in a pretty ribbon that says they're protecting the vulnerable when the reality is that pushing sex work into darker spaces makes sex workers more vulnerable. 

And now... (drum roll) the SISEA legislation that would prohibit video downloads, place onerous limitations and requirements on uploaders, create a right to sue uploaders for uploading content of a person without his written consent, and creating a system of financial penalties on platforms for not policing and removing objected content on demand within two hours as well as requiring platforms to maintain 24/7 staff to man hotlines to field complaints.

This is Prohibition again, plain and simple. History repeats. Call your Senators and insist that this draconian bill be quashed.

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

But don’t underestimate the power of bad press and boycotts to persuade advertisers to pull their ads from a platform. If the platform on which an advertiser is spending its money to make its sale starts to smell bad, that advertiser is going to pull back for fear of picking up the stink itself. It happens all the time, and activists leverage this to apply pressure.

It happens, but it's not always successful. Any number of large, popular companies drop advertising on, say, Hannity or Carlson but keep right on spending a fortune on other Fox timeslots. And most of the companies that advertise on porn sites are other adult businesses - toy shops, other porn sites, adult events, etc. - not nearly as likely to be scared off by sex controversy.

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

And now... (drum roll) the SISEA legislation that would prohibit video downloads, place onerous limitations and requirements on uploaders, create a right to sue uploaders for uploading content of a person without his written consent, and creating a system of financial penalties on platforms for not policing and removing objected content on demand within two hours as well as requiring platforms to maintain 24/7 staff to man hotlines to field complaints.

This is Prohibition again, plain and simple. History repeats. Call your Senators and insist that this draconian bill be quashed.

I have absolutely no problem with allowing lawsuits against uploaders who don't have express permission from everyone in the video clip. Legitimate amateur self-porn shouldn't have any problem with that, and if other people are spreading one's works far and wide, you'd think the copyright owners would prefer to maintain control. If you're uploading a video, you know damned well whether you shot it or not, and whether you have permission from everyone in the video to share it. And if you don't, you ought to be liable for damages.

As for the speed of takedown and 24/7 customer service staffing requirements, that could well be too onerous. But those are details that can be negotiated, whereas the principles underlying them (that people who own an interest in the video, either as a performer or videographer, can force its removal until it's sorted out; that there needs to be *someone* who can handle take-down issues, etc. before a revenge porn video gets spread across the globe, etc.) are in themselves reasonable.

Again - details may need to be hammered out - what sort of documentation is required that you have permission to upload a particular clip, for instance, or how you prove that person A, who appears in this video, actually gave permission for THIS video and not (as he/she might claim) some other, less explicit one. And perhaps those details will make it unworkable and the bill should be killed on that basis.

But the principles - that nobody's adult video/pictures should be shared without his/her explicit, documented permission - does not seem like "prohibition" to me. 

[ErosWired]

28 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

But the principles - that nobody's adult video/pictures should be shared without his/her explicit, documented permission - does not seem like "prohibition" to me.

If that’s what the legislation was actually about, but it’s not. It’s a blatant attempt to accomplish through financial pressure and draconian regulation what could not be accomplished through normal laws that would be declared unconstitutional - the abolition of pornography. Just as Prohibition attempted to cure certain social ills by catering to the calls of temperance zealots to ban Demon Drink, this attempts to solve a specific set of problems by catering to the anti-porn crusaders to ban porn from the internet. And the same thing will happen now as then - access to porn will simply go underground and become a vector for greater criminal exploitation. I’m going to be very interested to see what the porn equivalent of a speakeasy turns out to be.

Already these forced have successfully infringed on our rights to speak freely, to share ideas freely, and to access legal forms of media content, simply by manipulating the information systems in such a way that they financially work against our rights. Thus, they need not face a challenge against their assault as an assault against liberty. That is what SISEA represents, and that is why it should fail. The operation to cure uploading of video without consent needs to be done with a scalpel, not a backhoe.

[Fprefect570]

I’m most pissed at all the hot videos I had saved from people that hadn’t posted in years got wiped. I had some great “I need to leave for work in 5 minutes but need to jerk off once more” scenes that would make me cum almost instantly. 

[BootmanLA]

21 hours ago, ErosWired said:

If that’s what the legislation was actually about, but it’s not. It’s a blatant attempt to accomplish through financial pressure and draconian regulation what could not be accomplished through normal laws that would be declared unconstitutional - the abolition of pornography. Just as Prohibition attempted to cure certain social ills by catering to the calls of temperance zealots to ban Demon Drink, this attempts to solve a specific set of problems by catering to the anti-porn crusaders to ban porn from the internet. And the same thing will happen now as then - access to porn will simply go underground and become a vector for greater criminal exploitation. I’m going to be very interested to see what the porn equivalent of a speakeasy turns out to be.

Already these forced have successfully infringed on our rights to speak freely, to share ideas freely, and to access legal forms of media content, simply by manipulating the information systems in such a way that they financially work against our rights. Thus, they need not face a challenge against their assault as an assault against liberty. That is what SISEA represents, and that is why it should fail. The operation to cure uploading of video without consent needs to be done with a scalpel, not a backhoe.

So as I take your post (and please correct me if I'm wrong), as long as the supporters of a piece of legislation have bad motivations, the legislation itself, no matter how it's written, has to be bad?

I'm not suggesting that motivations don't matter. In the late 19th century, in one of Louisiana's many rewrites to our state constitution, the drafters explicitly denied the need for a unanimous jury in state criminal matters. It was one of many, many Jim Crow era changes designed to make sure that even if a small number of black people managed to register to vote, get called for jury duty, and were accepted to a jury, the white majority would always be able to outvote one or two black jurors. It was later argued that this was really about judicial efficiency, so that one person couldn't derail a trial, force a mistrial, and start the process all over again for a defendant. But everyone at the time knew, and we know now through prosecutorial attempts to block minorities on juries, that it's really all about race and the perception that black jurors might not be willing to railroad through a conviction, being more skeptical of prosecutors. So yeah, of course real motivations matter.

But unlike those cases, where we didn't have a record of jury missteps that caused excessive mistrials, we DO have a (very solid and lengthy) record of revenge porn cases, people whose careers (or lives) were derailed or destroyed because someone made a recording of the person having sex and then shared it, without permission, to the world. These are real people, being harmed by real actions, and I'm not going to automatically denounce efforts that might help those people "just because" some of the supporters actually hate all porn.

By all means, tighten up the language as needed. Make sure that legitimate businesses can operate and offer porn for viewing.  Make sure that if you record something for your own use and you never show it to anyone else without the permission of anyone who's also in the video, that you're not guilty of any crime. But I have ZERO problem with requirements that guarantee that the people in the videos consented to having it recorded and shared - and requiring that documentation to be preserved. I'm not willing to have the Tyler Clementis of this world counted as unavoidable collateral damage of some mythical right to get oneself off to online porn with no restrictions. 

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

So as I take your post (and please correct me if I'm wrong), as long as the supporters of a piece of legislation have bad motivations, the legislation itself, no matter how it's written, has to be bad?

Why attempt to make an absurdly generalized statement out of my very specifically targeted critique? It would probably be better if you didn’t try to talk out of my mouth; a Kentucky drawl is hard to emulate. 😉

Rather, my comment is intended to draw a parallel between the machinations of those behind this particular piece of legislation and the machinations of the Anti-Saloon League and others who pushed the Constitutional amendments that saddled America with the corrupting, destructive consequences of Prohibition for a decade.

The reason legislation is difficult to pass in this country is that it must be difficult - laws have consequences, and unless legislation is very, very carefully considered, debated, and examined from every perspective, it runs the risk of creating laws that cause unintended harms. When vested interests either strong-arm or sneak legislation past public scrutiny, only their interest is considered, and the resulting law - whether it serves their singular ‘good’ or not - stands a much higher likelihood of negative impacts, especially on those whose interests oppose the interests who pushed the legislation. Case in point: FOSTA/SESTA.

Legislation, and the resulting laws, in our society are expected to be the consensus agreement that we as a society accept as the basis on which we order our lives in a peaceful society. When laws are created that do not reflect the actual consensus if the body politic, they become points of discord. So I suppose in that light, I would have to answer you that, yes, any legislation that attempts to become law without full and balanced consideration of all its potential effects, no matter how it’s worded, is unsuitable for passage into law.

But one need not dig so deeply into the philosophy of governance to get a sense of what’s going on with SISEA - it’s not even subtle. Of course the harms it claims are egregious, an no one would argue that revenge porn and child porn must be stopped. Indeed, that’s the core of their strategy; they’re counting on good people to rally to them because they claim to seek to right grievous wrongs. But it’s not a typographical error that platforms will have only two hours to respond to any and all demands for removal, nor that they will have to employ staff to operate 24/7 hotlines to field such demands, lest they be hit with crippling financial penalties. This is a brazen, cynical thrust to make it problematic for large porn platforms to continue operation, and to make it practically infeasible for independent operators.

Pornography, whether one approves of it or not, is legal in America. With certain limitations, trade in it is legal, and that includes trade of and via electronic media. The forces behind this legislation seek to use the claim of curing specific harms as a pretext for restraining legal trade in a commodity they do not like.

Would the legislation actually cure the harm if it becomes law? Dubious. Criminals be criminals. Not only did Prohibition not stop people from drinking, it generated vibrant criminal enterprises to supply what the law denied. Among the main lessons Prohibition taught is that when a government bans something, that means it can no longer a) regulate its use, or b) tax it. It does not appear that the lessons are much remembered.

Do we want to stop revenge porn? Fine. Make a law specifically to create a right to bring charges against a person for such an offense - don’t shut down an entire legal industry. Do we want to stop child pornography and trafficking? (Of course we do.) Tailor a law that establishes per-instance penalties on an increasing scale so that platforms become scrupulously vigilant against such content, and mandate that they report any such content to authorities. But don’t make it impossible for them to run a business.

 I was a Federal civil servant for 30 years. They say the wheels if government grind slowly, but they grind very fine. It’s when you try to use wheels like SISEA that grind things fast and coarse, that things go wrong.

[BootmanLA]

On 12/30/2020 at 7:13 PM, ErosWired said:

The reason legislation is difficult to pass in this country is that it must be difficult - laws have consequences, and unless legislation is very, very carefully considered, debated, and examined from every perspective, it runs the risk of creating laws that cause unintended harms. When vested interests either strong-arm or sneak legislation past public scrutiny, only their interest is considered, and the resulting law - whether it serves their singular ‘good’ or not - stands a much higher likelihood of negative impacts, especially on those whose interests oppose the interests who pushed the legislation. Case in point: FOSTA/SESTA.

As someone who works closely monitoring the passage of thousands of new laws every year, just in one state, I would reject the notion that legislation is "difficult to pass in this country", unless you *only* mean in Congress. And while it's true that very little makes it out of Congress, it's not because "legislation is very, very carefully considered, debated, and examined". It's because partisan divides ensure that only the few things that the majority party in power wants to see passed and are willing to expend what limited political capital they may have, at that point, will make it through. See, for instance, the passage of the 2017 tax bill (something the GOP was willing to go to the mat for) and the failure of the repeal effort for the ACA (where three GOP senators chose not to throw away what they had left on that dog of a bill.

Pretty much everything that does pass these days is has been sneaked "past public scrutiny" - most bills combine hundreds of objects, mostly unrelated to each other, and sometimes not even available in a final printed form before a vote is taken (see, e.g., the combined federal government funding bill for FY2021/Covid Relief bill that was just signed into law). I'm not saying that's a good thing - just noting that *nothing* generally makes it out of Congress unless it's loaded up like a Christmas tree with ornaments for everyone under the sun.

On 12/30/2020 at 7:13 PM, ErosWired said:

So I suppose in that light, I would have to answer you that, yes, any legislation that attempts to become law without full and balanced consideration of all its potential effects, no matter how it’s worded, is unsuitable for passage into law.

No dispute there, but that basically eliminates Congress passing anything on any subject whatsoever. 

On 12/30/2020 at 7:13 PM, ErosWired said:

But one need not dig so deeply into the philosophy of governance to get a sense of what’s going on with SISEA - it’s not even subtle. Of course the harms it claims are egregious, an no one would argue that revenge porn and child porn must be stopped. Indeed, that’s the core of their strategy; they’re counting on good people to rally to them because they claim to seek to right grievous wrongs. But it’s not a typographical error that platforms will have only two hours to respond to any and all demands for removal, nor that they will have to employ staff to operate 24/7 hotlines to field such demands, lest they be hit with crippling financial penalties. This is a brazen, cynical thrust to make it problematic for large porn platforms to continue operation, and to make it practically infeasible for independent operators.

Which is why I said, rather than dismissing the bill out of hand, we need to work on getting workable changes adopted.  If all we do is say "Vote against!!!!!", we look as though we are completely insensitive to the victims that (even if only nominally) the bill seeks to protect. If we are to operate in good faith, even if the other side prefers not, then it's on us to very publicly point out HOW to fix the bill, not simply assume no changes can be made.

Two hours too short a time? Make it 12 hours. Do you honestly think a company like Pornhub, which has 150 employees and could almost certainly hire a few dozen more, couldn't respond to a few hundred takedown requests each day, within a relatively short timeframe? 

On 12/30/2020 at 7:13 PM, ErosWired said:

Do we want to stop revenge porn? Fine. Make a law specifically to create a right to bring charges against a person for such an offense - don’t shut down an entire legal industry. Do we want to stop child pornography and trafficking? (Of course we do.) Tailor a law that establishes per-instance penalties on an increasing scale so that platforms become scrupulously vigilant against such content, and mandate that they report any such content to authorities. But don’t make it impossible for them to run a business.

Revenge porn is already illegal in a very large number of jurisdictions. Here's the problem. It's a criminal offense, so that means *each* element of the crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. So in a typical revenge porn law, you'd have the following elements:

--a recording was made that
--is covered, subject-wise, by the law
--that one or more participants therein did not consent to distribute but
--the person charged personally distributed the recording.

And that last is almost always impossible to prove. "It wasn't me. Five people in my household have access to my computer." "It wasn't me. The upload took place from somewhere other than my computer and I have no idea how they got it." "It wasn't me. I made a legal backup of my computer onto a thumb drive and I lost the drive at a library computer."

Any of those is potentially grounds to show reasonable doubt.

And the second problem is: you're unlikely to get judges to give serious sentences. Tyler Clementi's roommate and the roommate's friend got THIRTY DAYS for his actions that drove Clementi to suicide, of which he only served TWENTY - and he still appealed his sentence. The US Justice system still does not take sex crimes - of any sort - seriously and especially not ones involving adults and video - even, as in that case, completely non-consensual video voyeurism. Hell, Brock Turner got 6 months, with only 3 served, for drugging and raping a coed behind a dumpster at his frat house. The idea that criminal charges alone against the perpetrators, in this environment, is going to stop anything is spectacularly ill-informed.

And at bottom, here's my point: Pornhub isn't a charitable site operating out of the goodness of its heart delivering porn to the disenfranchised multitudes. It's a business. It's making money off all those videos being uploaded. It's not unreasonable to expect them to do some basic verification that the person who uploaded this supposedly amateur video has the legal right to do so and the consent of everyone depicted, as a cost of doing business. And if that cost is too high, maybe it's time to rethink the business model. What we should NOT do is shove those costs off on the person whose private sex life is being exploited by the person who uploaded it (for non-monetary personal gain) and by the site (as a money-maker). Why should THAT person have to bear the costs?

[Ozsluttybtm]

It would seem that a massive amount of videos have been removed from xtube. any ideas why?

[BootmanLA]

20 hours ago, Ozsluttybtm said:

It would seem that a massive amount of videos have been removed from xtube. any ideas why?

RawTop (the site owner) answered this in the pinned message/thread: