Pornhub is only pulling out to punish the states for trying to stand up to them. In classic American monopoly fashion they go on the attack as soon as any legislation targets them.
Pornhub claims the reason is because they dont to collect government ID but Pornhub collects user data and understands who their customers are. Adding government ID to their data would hardly be anymore of a privacy invasion and it’s not like they are forced to store it.
Imo this law is actually in a way pushing for a porn monopoly, if you by law need to provide an id, are you gonna trust some random site with that info or the big one everyone uses
OP’s claim here is just BS. PornHub is in no way a monopoly or even close. It reads like someone who has literally never searched for porn on the internet. Astroturf.
PornHub is a monopoly. They own xnxx, redtube, xhamster, and several production companies such as brazzers. Their categorization system has also had some ranging impacts on actresses’ ability to get work after they turn 22. I highly recommend listening to The Butterfly Effect by Jon Ronson.
ALSO so we’re clear, I’m not a fan of this legislation because its dumb as fuck and doesn’t help anyone, least of all sex workers. When people lose easy access to porn it usually results in WORSE conditions for sex workers because suddenly there’s more demand in places without safety infrastructure.
Can you define what part of PornHub owning a lot of other porn sites makes them a monopoly? Part of being a monopoly is being anticompetitive. What has PornHub done in terms of lobbying or other anticompetitive practices which makes it more difficult for a new company sharing porn to take hold? Because there is a ton of porn online which is unrelated to PornHub.
I’m all for calling out monopolies, but I legit don’t see one here. I’m open to being wrong.
I don’t believe that the thing about actresses getting work after 22 is reliant on PornHub. Porn has worked that way for 50+ years my dude.
No it’s not. Being hit with antitrust laws requires first being a monopoly, but the monopoly state exists merely by virtue of size within the industry.
Edit: to be clear the only point I am making here is in relation to that definition you provided. Nothing more.
Law maker enacts legislation towards a company. The company is able to comply but instead the company pulls the service or severelyndegrades it. Then when users are pissed off the company will point to the law maker and say “they forced us to do this”. The law maker then suffers the blacklash of companies service withdrawal.
Apple tried this with the EU usb c but eventually backed down. John deer tried this with right to repair. There are many cases where companies use these tactics to try and bully law makers away from regulating them and I think i know it’s legal and their right to do so but I find it gross.
I don’t think the law makers should be solving the “problem” this way but I also don’t think pornhub should deny service from an entire state because they want an an ID check implemented.
Apple tried this with the EU usb c but eventually backed down
Umm, what? Apple was always going to move to USB-C. The EU regulations at most hastened that by a couple of years. Their tablets and even laptop computers were using USB-C before the EU even enacted that legislation. It was only a matter of time.
But back on the subject at hand, this is nothing like that sort of bullying. This is a company being asked to build more infrastructure at their own expense, and then use that infrastructure to place its own users at risk. They’ve made a simple calculation that it’s better for their bottom line and their reputation to choose not to comply, and instead pull out of a few small markets.
What about Uber Eats and Doordash and the others? Do they have to comply with the new minimum wage or shut down too? Hoping they can make a decent wage.
Uber was forbidden from setting up where I live but Uber Eats is a thing here.
I have real American problems, like the fact that Americans have abandoned the most patriotic beverages ever!
Tea and Cider!
George Washington would never have been general or president without cider! Tons of Cider! (NOT beer- that wouldn't get as popular until later!)
Johnny Appleseed was NOT planting eating apples, either.
And now, most cider is kinda crap, and is going to give you a hangover. Its so difficult to ensure that you get a good drinking experience for your friends when trying to share with them the wonders of America's first brew of patriots.
And What about the Boston Tea Party?
The South at least keeps the dream alive with iced tea that it doesn't oversteep. (that's how you can tell if somewhere is Southern, btw- if they both have iced tea and don't brew it to bitter hell) But its still not a proper American fixation on reasonably priced tea!
How do you know that deleting anything on Reddit actually deletes anything? It might just hide the content but soft delete it in the database, which means you may not be able to see it anymore but they can still use it for whatever.
The difference is: Reddit doesn’t own the content, they can’t stop anyone else from selling it, or giving it for free; only the users could (the actual owners).
There are Reddit content dumps out there, which Reddit can’t stop anyone from using… so not sure what they are selling, but if it’s just that, then they’re scamming people.
If you are posting on walled-garden big tech site like Reddit, Instagram, Twitter / X, the site and therefore the company certainly owns your content and all the metadata attributed to it. You’re the product. This is why most of us are here on the Fediverse where things are different. Maybe if it’s your personal photo you took than you can make a copyright claim to some degree and download your data tediously but once it’s on their network it’s generally theirs to do as they please, whether that be sell to Google or any other advertiser or use on in-house advertising. Often without proper informed consent and not always legally. It’s definitely a scam, I agree. Hopefully this exposes it more and brings more people to places on the Fediverse where there’s no owner/seller/buyer of your data or anything else you contributed.
Ownership comes with both rights and responsibilities.
Platforms want as many of the rights as possible, without the responsibilities… which is why they have a contract (TOS) where they explicitly renounce to ownership, leaving it for the user, and only license the rights.
If platforms took full ownership, like in a “work for hire” agreement, they would be responsible for any illegal content a user could upload, since it wouldn’t be the user’s content anymore. Obviously they don’t want that.
A side effect of wanting as much content as possible without owning it, is that… well, they don’t own it. 😎
Fediverse where there’s no owner/seller/buyer of your data or anything else you contributed.
Incorrect. You get ownership of anything that’s yours, then upload stuff under whatever TOS your instance has… what’s that? it has no TOS? Then they’re in for a rough awakening some day. 🤷
Whether there are sellers/buyers… is something we’ll learn in time. For now, user generated content on the Fediverse gets shared with little regard or protection of anyone’s rights, so anyone can make a compilation, bundle it up, slap a price tag on it, and try to sell it.
engadget.com
Top