Popular porn site must delete all amateur videos posted without consent

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/popular-porn-site-must-delete-all-amateur-videos-posted-without-consent/

by rbanffy • 3 years ago

48 43 3 years ago

arstechnica.com

olliej3• 3 years ago

I feel they should also be required to provide all details on the people who uploaded them

2h3• 3 years ago

some sites like Reddit have highly aggressive rules against doxing, where they will hand out permanent subreddit bans, or even site-wide bans. For good reason. People think they are "doing justice", but all they are doing is vigilante justice. No different than the pillory of long ago.

Stop it.

Dylan168072• 3 years ago

In terms of criminal punishments, is a pillory so bad?

Spastche3• 3 years ago

reddit admins have banned popular users for posting public WHOIS information. it's ridiculous.

olliej3• 3 years ago

If someone publishes intimate films of some else then why should they expect their own details to be private?

Why should the victim not have access to the information about their abuser? Why not the police?

I did not say anything about doxxing anyone. I said that the information a porn site has about someone abusing someone else should be made available.

olliej3• 3 years ago

Huh, I guess downvoters think that publishing intimate footage of people without consent should not have consequences. We must protect the privacy of abusers.

im3w1l2• 3 years ago

From what I heard this has been quite counterproductive for privacy because many people that wanted to post their amateur porn anonymously felt really uneasy about verifying their identities and attaching them their pornographic productions.

flangola7• 3 years ago

So how do you protect the privacy of willing actors without violating the privacy of those whose bodies were uploaded without any consent at all?

true_religion• 3 years ago

Anytime pornography is uploaded without the consent of the actor the uploader should be held criminally liable.

That’s it. Hit the source. I’m sure we only have to put 2 or 3 disgruntle boyfriends in jail before revenge porn stops completely. It’s not as if it’s not easy to identify the primary person who shared the content. It’s simply that in most cases it’s not actually illegal for them to do what they have done.

tomjen3• 3 years ago

You take it down, and give what info you have to the police.

The main problem has been that mindgeek didn't take it down, because they were idiots.

decremental2• 3 years ago

How small is this segment of the population that desires to post anonymous porn of themselves to the internet and why should society need to cater to that?

salawat• 3 years ago

How small is this population of negroes desiring to share public space with whites, and why should society need to cater to that?

Are we really going to go with an argument of that form? 'Cause I can sed s///g tha argument structure into all sorts of atrocity all the live long day. Nevermind the 10th Amendment being specifically designed to short-circuit arguments of that form into "It's allowed".

im3w1l2• 3 years ago

I think society should seriously consider catering to that because amateur porn is to professional porn what lovemaking is to prostitution. It is different in kind, motivated differently. More genuine, perhaps you could even say healthier.

porkbeer• 3 years ago

Tell me you dont like minorities without saying it.

Xunxi• 3 years ago

Good start but typical whac-a-mole implementing! Similar thing happened with girlsdoporn.

Most websites blocked search queries for the term or deleted it. Most got re-uploaded under more cryptic titles shortly afterwards.

It the video is popular, it'll resurface in multiple copies for redundancy.

It's not going to stop until there's a stringent requirement to upload videos.

jstarfish• 3 years ago

230 and 2257 always seemed at odds with each other. Sites aren't responsible for user content, but uploaders aren't compelled to attest to performers' ages and identities.

Generated content will throw a curveball at this. Claimants are not technically in the production.

ehutch79• 3 years ago

Nah, 230 doesn't mean other laws disappear.

filoleg2• 3 years ago

If I read it correctly, the article says "[...] amateur footage of recognizable people posted without consent" (emphasis mine), which changes the situation significantly.

This seems like a reasonable compromise that would allow those who want to stay anonymous while uploading their content to do just that. Most of them blur out their faces and keep face out of the frame for that exact reason anyway.

Grustaf• 3 years ago

So you are still able to upload nude video of others, without their consent, as long as they are not recognizable? I don't find that reasonable at all.

hulitu• 3 years ago

With cameras (or Android tablets) in every public toilet, i would not say they are not "recognizable". /s

jwestbury• 3 years ago

Generally speaking -- no, in many jurisdictions. It sounds like this is about whether the site itself has confirmed consent, though?

filoleg2• 3 years ago

Legally you aren't allowed to upload it, it's just the website won't have to request identity verification from you and won't get in trouble for it (as long as the people in the video are non-recognizable).

So if law enforcement pings the website with "hey, this video was reported as being uploaded without consent by the person in it, you gotta remove it", they still gotta take it down, regardless. And the website will still get in trouble if they refuse.

rngname22• 3 years ago

It's somewhat fascinating - in the past we took it for granted that anyone could upload video to a video hosting site like Google Videos (back when it was a distinct competitor to YouTube) or a site like that mentioned in the article. Now you can only do so if you verify identities.

When will the same freedoms to upload text or enter text without identity verification be lost?

Will it be possible to post to a website like Hacker News without proving authorship and consent?

cool_dude85• 3 years ago

Nudes and sex videos are quite a different beast than "he copied those comments from my blog without asking." For obvious reasons.

Buttons840• 3 years ago

Utah passed a law that social media sites have to verify the age of users using drivers license or passport, etc. Check boxes aren't good enough. The end effect is adults will have to upload their government papers to continue participating in online speech. Other states have similar laws in the works; it remains to be seen if they will stand up to legal scrutiny.

rektide• 3 years ago

The variety of states/nations/areas just keeps me hoping we see a return to a JP Barlow Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace.

Fuck this. Don't obey. Having 9000 various powers that be that give themselves the sovereign right to tell each & every company/site what they have to do is untenable & disobedience is the only clear course.

This is the internet. It's a network of humanity. If your users in your location are connecting to me over here, it's not on me to respect each & every stupid law you make. If you want that power, the only enforcement you actually have over that is disconnecting your users from my site: you need to get yourself & your population off the internet. That's the actual domain of power you have control over & that's your only real respectable bargaining chip, the rest is not respectable horseshit of low nature.

There's no path where this stays at all even possible to do. Right now most nations/areas tend to copy paste policy & there's little real inspired initiative & that has made this tragic frelling emperors have no clothes farce maintainable & plausible.

But this situation will only going to descend ever deeper into madness. There are no practical checks on lawmaking, & every single spot on earth thinks they have the right to define how the internet has to work.

Right now everyone is sort of trying to obey & play nice, but I beg for the breakdown. Utah is a fine example of Go Fuck Yourselves You Ninnies. Germany claiming Twitter may face more fines than the company was worth at sale price is another Go Fuck Yourself Come Get Us point. There's just ever diminishing ability to believe in the legitimacy of law when it keeps happening, keeps building up, when constraints restrictions and rules are the only unchecked thing on the planet.

rk06• 3 years ago

Perhaps when it turns out to be harmful for others. Revenge porn is a thing and known to destroy lives. And people who suffer from it, do not want to file a lawsuit and bring it more attention.

And HN is also heavily moderated. For eg, If you submit a link to dev.to, it will be flagged

stuaxo• 3 years ago

Writing about someone is very different to making a video including the person.

badrabbit• 3 years ago

I wonder how long it will be before they overlay deepfake faces over these videos. The quirks and imperfections of the "activity" would still feel real enough and ML can learn faces they make from other similar videos.

barking_biscuit• 3 years ago

I suspect with the next generation or two of hardware that all debate or legislation or rules surrounding any of this will become kind of moot when you can take any porn video and deepfake it to portray whoever you want in real-time on your local machine.

melagonster• 3 years ago

I trust a important part of this debate is revenge porn. the uploader just want to destroy the life of their ex-partner

midoridensha• 3 years ago

Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie "The Running Man" predicted exactly this back in 1986. Most of its other predictions have also come true already, or are getting very close.

Havoc• 3 years ago

Is it just hamster? I get the impression that many of these things are all owned by same crowd behind the scenes with similar content etc. so bit surprised one gets singled out