A lawsuit filed by more victims of the sex trafficking operation claims that Pornhub’s moderation staff ignored reports of their abuse videos.
Sixty-one additional women are suing Pornhub’s parent company, claiming that the company failed to take down videos of their abuse as part of the sex trafficking operation Girls Do Porn. They’re suing the company and its sites for sex trafficking, racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, and human trafficking.
The complaint, filed on Tuesday, includes what it claims are internal emails obtained by the plaintiffs, represented by Holm Law Group, between Pornhub moderation staff. The emails allegedly show that Pornhub had only one moderator to review 700,000 potentially abusive videos, and that the company intentionally ignored repeated reports from victims in those videos.
The damages and restitution they seek amounts to more than $311,100,000. They demand a jury trial, and seek damages of $5 million per plaintiff, as well as restitution for all the money Aylo, the new name for Pornhub’s parent company, earned “marketing, selling and exploiting Plaintiffs’ videos in an amount that exceeds one hundred thousand dollars for each plaintiff.”
The plaintiffs are 61 more unnamed “Jane Doe” victims of Girls Do Porn, adding to the 60 that sued Pornhub in 2020 for similar claims.
Girls Do Porn was a federally-convicted sex trafficking ring that coerced young women into filming pornographic videos under the pretense of “modeling” gigs. In some cases, the women were violently abused. The operators told them that the videos would never appear online, so that their home communities wouldn’t find out, but they uploaded the footage to sites like Pornhub, where the videos went viral—and in many instances, destroyed their lives. Girls Do Porn was an official Pornhub content partner, with its videos frequently appearing on the front page, where they gathered millions of views.
read more: https://www.404media.co/girls-do-porn-victims-sue-pornhub-for-300-million/
Cool, so we agree on that.
Let's go a step further.
Is watching a video of a guy being beheaded the same as beheading a guy?
I never said masturbating to women being raped was equivalent to raping a woman. I said they're both bad and inexcusable actions that I, and many others, are perfectly capable of entirely avoiding.
Sure sure. Now add in a layer of deception. Let's say PurePorn (fictional, as far as I know) has always been very good looking they sound like they pay well, are responsive to the needs and desires of all models, etc etc. From what you can tell, they're completely ethical. The girls always seem to be enjoying themselves, it's produced by a woman, whatever other green flags you wanna give it.
That's about as ethical as you can be consuming porn, right?
Now, a few years go by, and some models come out about some truly gross stuff happening. The company gets sued, the women get recompense, yadda yadda.
From what you, as a consumer, could have possibly known, everything was fine. Now it's not. You immediately stop watching their videos, report them any time you see them come up, inform fellow consumers, etc
Are you the monster here? Did you actually do anything wrong? Or were you deceived as well?
No you're not just as bad as the producers, but I wouldn't watch it in the first place as masturbating to someone being sexually abused is not an acceptable consequence of watching porn for me.
Got it, so you do take the kinda extreme view that all porn is inherently bad, as is the natural conclusion of what you're saying. Either the consumer is omniscient or there's a slight chance they may be perpetuating the evils present in the industry.
Won't argue with that stance, not on here. The level of nuance required is clearly beyond this venue. Enjoy your day.
And you are okay with the chance that you're masturbating to a woman being sexually abused. You see that as acceptable so that you may continue to consume pornography.
And you're ok with children dying for fancy phones and cars. You see that as acceptable so that you may continue to consume however you want.
Dunno where you got cars, but yes I need a phone to survive. Do you need to watch women being raped to survive? Come on, you can answer the question without deflecting. Admit that you're gonna watch porn even knowing some of what you watch is being raped, and that alone isn't enough to make you stop.
You've shifted the goal posts so hard, and you're accusing me of deflecting? First it's "you can vet your sources" and now it's "you must inherently be watching women get raped, regardless of how hard you vet your sources." Go on, say it.
All porn is evil. Stop deflecting it and tell us what you actually think.
I'll go ahead and say it - all consumption is evil, full stop, and it's perpetuated by the people making it in the eternal pursuit of profit.
I think that choosing to watch porn, knowing that part of what you're consuming is women being sexually abused could be described as evil yes.
I also agree that capitalism makes truly ethical consumption nearly or totally impossible. But its not comparable to busting a nut to women being sexually abused. I'm sorry, it isn't. No matter what way you frame that I will never agree that its even related to the topic of capital. You do not, again, DO NOT have to watch porn.
And you do not have to consume most things.
Right. Like porn.
I've answered the question many times. Without going down the "all porn is bad" rabbit hole, no, I don't need to watch women being raped to survive, and I make an active effort not to.
But you still will watch porn, knowing that you're almoat definitely watching women being sexually abused at some point?
But you still consume non-essential items, knowing a child died at some point?
Do you really not see how fruitless this is?
No, I don't. Because getting off to rape is different from having a cell phone.