Pornhub removed all playlists referring to poppers and trans

[pervinmt]

I just noticed this purge tonight as literally dozens and dozens of vids have disappeared from my favourites. And a lot of them weren't even edgy like the poppers or the gangbangs. A lot were just regular fuck scenes. I hope XVideos doesn't follow suit. 

[breedboy]

5 hours ago, pervinmt said:

I just noticed this purge tonight as literally dozens and dozens of vids have disappeared from my favourites. And a lot of them weren't even edgy like the poppers or the gangbangs. A lot were just regular fuck scenes. I hope XVideos doesn't follow suit. 

98% of the videos on my playlist are gone, what's left are those uploaded from verified user. So sad.

[ErosWired]

According to CNN, Pornhub slashed the number of videos on its site from 13.8 million... to 3 million. For them to have jettisoned just over 78% of the content that is their bread and butter in one fell swoop, they must have been fairly certain that they were facing a potentially business-ending, bank-account-emptying, jail-time-making threat.

All content must now come from verified providers, which basically means that if you’re not a professional pornographer working in the trade, you can still upload video, but only if they’re holding a picture of your ID and have a record of all your personal information. And even then the footage can only be of you solo or with another person who has given them verification info.

I mean, you can do it. I registered myself with XTube a few years ago when I was thinking about camwhoring - didn’t end up doing it, but I did send them photos of my ID.

But I don’t see Pornhub recovering to what it was like this. They must have been desperate.

[pervinmt]

Looks like Xvideos is doing the same thing. Tons of videos have vanished from my lists. What's odd, they still have lots of stuff like popper training vids, but they've made it impossible to search easily for them.

[BBtmslutsg]

Xhamster seems unaffected... for the moment 

[sigsleep]

I like my amateur porn to have that seedy whatever vibe. Like "look at me be a whore and if you want some all you have to do is hit me up". Once a site loses that, it loses it's flavor imo

[sigsleep]

On 12/7/2020 at 7:22 AM, 11bi11guy said:

I am kind of livid right now. It seems Pornhub has removed all playlists referring to poppers, and I just saw that they deleted my trans playlist too. I had dozens of videos saved to each playlist, and the poppers one was definitely one of my go-tos. I’d like some fucking answers. This is some Puritan Tumblr bullshit.

Tumblr did that because it was having trouble removing a certain type of porn.

[gwmxyz]

On 12/10/2020 at 4:50 AM, 11bi11guy said:

as he clearly has no niche sexual interests that have been over-regulated by Puritan moralists: he is a prude, and an ignorant one at that.

I think your are being too kind.  What's his problem with numbers?  I think we can probably agree that "most" videos on PornHub don't show any rape/child porn/age of consent issues. To say "probably" seems at best over-cautious and at worst downright deceptive.  Try it. Search "fuck" and see how many of each you see.

Secondly, I'm sorry but suggesting that Weinstein, Epstein and Cosby are relevant because the issue is consent is the most absurd straw man (or 3 ever).  Consent is not the issue.  Nobody is saying rape is ok - and if the guy thinks we need those three bogeymen to tell us rape is bad, then he thinks we are very stupid indeed.  It looks to me like bring in the bad guys and blame it on Pornhub.

Back to the numbers - so the guy tells how many responses one gets to a text search.  980million why?  I bet a search on Is the New York Times turning into the Daily Mail in competition for the daftest scare story? It would get quite a few answers too.

Why doesn't he actually tell us the number he clearly knows?  He has spoken to one of their review people.  Isn't the first question - ok, so how big a problem is this?  How many videos a day?   And in which category?  I don't buy the "the issue is consent" stuff at all. If anyone can't tell the difference between (a) the actual rape of an eight year old child and (b) consensual age of consent issues as they relate to 17 to 22 year olds they are on a different planet from me.  

The guy is happy to tell us that most fall into the latter category - but unless he tells us whether that's most of 3 or most of 3000, it's all pretty meaningless.

The issue, incidentally, at least to me isn't whether you're allowed to rape people or whether you need the three bad guys names to help you with that.   It is whether the sex lives of hundreds of law abiding, grown ups, many of whose sex-turn-ons may not be super mainstream should be curtailed significantly at the behest of a guy who can tell us that most of it isn't child rape but refuses point blank to say how big a problem these bad rape type videos are.  Call me cynical but I don't think it's because it's so enormous.  

Or, more accurately, the three numbers.  (1) rape (2) serious underage - eight year olds and (3) willing consensual sex with women between 17 and 22.    The article doesn't tell us any of them but I think we can work out which crops up the most.  

Then we get the octopus porn concern.   I'm not going to waste much time on this.  Point is simple.  If you were really worried eight years olds were being raped for PornHub you would not make a silly point about a definitions section in a rulebook.  It looks like there may not actually be any octopus porn at all.  But we know if anyone's tempted it's not allowed.   Ditto insect sex - sorry guys.

Although actually maybe the insects and the octopus should be feeling sorry for us.  Guess what three letter word isn't mentioned once (unless you count half of a name of one website given in a list).

Having some familiarity with lawyers' BS I could see that all the old favourites were there.  So much so that  I "contemplated suicide".  Decided not to as it happens.   It was a life changing decision too....

Sorry I could rant about this for a very long time.  I'm afraid the one that sinks most in my estimation is the NYT. I thought it was one the few really top-notch papers left.  Turns out it the Daily Mail with octopus porn.  Bit sad about that.

 

[Alias]

On 1/25/2021 at 10:28 AM, gwmxyz said:

I think your are being too kind.  What's his problem with numbers?  I think we can probably agree that "most" videos on PornHub don't show any rape/child porn/age of consent issues. To say "probably" seems at best over-cautious and at worst downright deceptive.  Try it. Search "fuck" and see how many of each you see.

Secondly, I'm sorry but suggesting that Weinstein, Epstein and Cosby are relevant because the issue is consent is the most absurd straw man (or 3 ever).  Consent is not the issue.  Nobody is saying rape is ok - and if the guy thinks we need those three bogeymen to tell us rape is bad, then he thinks we are very stupid indeed.  It looks to me like bring in the bad guys and blame it on Pornhub.

Back to the numbers - so the guy tells how many responses one gets to a text search.  980million why?  I bet a search on Is the New York Times turning into the Daily Mail in competition for the daftest scare story? It would get quite a few answers too.

Why doesn't he actually tell us the number he clearly knows?  He has spoken to one of their review people.  Isn't the first question - ok, so how big a problem is this?  How many videos a day?   And in which category?  I don't buy the "the issue is consent" stuff at all. If anyone can't tell the difference between (a) the actual rape of an eight year old child and (b) consensual age of consent issues as they relate to 17 to 22 year olds they are on a different planet from me.  

The guy is happy to tell us that most fall into the latter category - but unless he tells us whether that's most of 3 or most of 3000, it's all pretty meaningless.

The issue, incidentally, at least to me isn't whether you're allowed to rape people or whether you need the three bad guys names to help you with that.   It is whether the sex lives of hundreds of law abiding, grown ups, many of whose sex-turn-ons may not be super mainstream should be curtailed significantly at the behest of a guy who can tell us that most of it isn't child rape but refuses point blank to say how big a problem these bad rape type videos are.  Call me cynical but I don't think it's because it's so enormous.  

Or, more accurately, the three numbers.  (1) rape (2) serious underage - eight year olds and (3) willing consensual sex with women between 17 and 22.    The article doesn't tell us any of them but I think we can work out which crops up the most.  

Then we get the octopus porn concern.   I'm not going to waste much time on this.  Point is simple.  If you were really worried eight years olds were being raped for PornHub you would not make a silly point about a definitions section in a rulebook.  It looks like there may not actually be any octopus porn at all.  But we know if anyone's tempted it's not allowed.   Ditto insect sex - sorry guys.

Although actually maybe the insects and the octopus should be feeling sorry for us.  Guess what three letter word isn't mentioned once (unless you count half of a name of one website given in a list).

Having some familiarity with lawyers' BS I could see that all the old favourites were there.  So much so that  I "contemplated suicide".  Decided not to as it happens.   It was a life changing decision too....

Sorry I could rant about this for a very long time.  I'm afraid the one that sinks most in my estimation is the NYT. I thought it was one the few really top-notch papers left.  Turns out it the Daily Mail with octopus porn.  Bit sad about that.

 

The major problem is probably teens uploading content followed by revenge porn. The child pornography sought out by criminals is almost always peer to peer, and not posted online for easy access,  but the material that teenagers make, and material uploaded without consent, is the bigger issue.  That's why age verification makes sense and in the US was, I.thought, legally required. 

There's no good answer unfortunately. It's always an arms race with technology and the moral panics re: children are a constant. Don't get me started on the way sex trafficking statistics are inflated by evangelical and feminist groups to secure funding and make it look like they are addressing a major problem. Entire field is full of charlatans promoting sensationalism that makes things like Q believable to some people.

Other content that you mentioned often exists in a gray area. Pretty sure PH and others exclude and always have excluded a lot of "icky" content. But I think the more salient piece of the article is that PH is a giant revenue stream and they should be doing more voluntarily which is frankly preferable to legislative solutions. Now at least they know to invest in employing enough people to monitor content. I was somewhat surprised to learn they only recently began sharing CP they take down with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. That should have been done from inception to ensure compliance and to help law enforcement look at them as partners instead of potential enablers of prohibited material. 

 

If you're working in porn you need to realize that age restrictions in particular are going to be policed. Compliance helps keep the lawman out of the picture, which is good for content creators and consumers.

Also, insects and octopus porn? Guess I'm more sheltered than I thought!

[gwmxyz]

4 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

 

Also, insects and octopus porn? Guess I'm more sheltered than I thought!

I think it was just that the Pornhub rulebook was a little overenthusiastic in its definitions - and so made sure it defined "bestiality" to include fish and insects (not just what you might think of as "beasts").  So the NYT journalist tried to suggest it was a den of depravity for that reason. Not because anyone actually had.