Pornhub bought ads on /r/nofap, in violation of Reddit policy. Cruelly taunting addicts who were trying to quit. After a brief blackout, her account is active again. Of course Gawker Media punches down and ridicules the addicts, an act of bullying.

submitted by Chipit from internet.gawker.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TheKsist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Well, that takes Pornhub (and statistically, probably most other porn sites) out of the running.

[–]liberty_primer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It only takes some uploads out of the running.

What you’re asking is functionally equivalent to asking all social media sites to ban incitement to violence or be shut down. It’s actually more difficult because text analytics can at least filter that down. On videos, it’s almost impossible to analyze automatically using today’s tech.

Should a video site be shut down because someone from ISIS uploads something that flies under the radar.

Note: this doesn’t apply if they willfully and knowingly keep content up. If that happens, let a more judicious competitor take its place.

[–]TheKsist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, Pornhub claimed that their videos are manually approved, meaning someone manually approved, on multiple occasions, rape and child rape.

[–]liberty_primer 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd like to see more specifics on those cases. It's possible that someone thought the rape was simulated. As for the kids, there's no excuse if the child looks young enough that it's not plausible she's an adult. We can agree on that much.