YouTube is much stricter than what the law requires. I think the general consensus is that YouTube tries to stay on MPAA's and RIAA's good side to keep them from lobbying for stricter laws. As long as it's easier to talk to YouTube than to write a new law everyone profits (except the independent content creators).

Paid porn doesn't have a strong lobby, so there is no similar pressure on PornHub/MindGeek.

Less sympathetic plaintiffs?

I would hope that the courts would not be præjudiced against the plaintiff simply for being pornography producers.

I would, sadly, also not be entirely surprised to find out that the courts are.

I would not be at all surprised if the American jury system would be fairly against plaintiffs if they're in any way connected to pornography considering the American moral values.

Considering how hard it is for sex workers to press rape charges, that wouldn't surprise me neither.

Well at issue is why, hypothetically, YT or PH might find themselves before the bar.

YouTube would be afraid of being sued for copyright infringement. PornHub is legitimately afraid of being indicted in a criminal conspiracy to distribute child pornography.

With respect to just the copyright claim, I don't think there would necessarily be any bias, as it would be pitting pornography producers vs. pornography distributers. Both pretty slimy if you feel that way.

Google has more money, and it doesn't come from porn

Worse, it comes from advertising!

Hah! This comment made me think about how I personally started to both really hate advertising/advertising companies, and I also find it more morally questionable than I find porn, to the point that if someone told me they worked for google or some other advertising network, I would silently be judging them for their life choices, but if someone told me that they worked for a porn company I'd probably be like "oh, what's that like?". Right or wrong, advertisement is leaving a very sour taste behind, to the point where for me personally it seems to have overtaken other things, like porn.

Surely you must mean the targeted advertisements and data collection necessary for that. I don't see anything inherently wrong with an advertisement in and of itself, and it certainly isn't morally questionable. Companies need consumers to be aware of their products in order to sell them.

> if someone told me they worked for google or some other advertising network, I would silently be judging them for their life choices

Maybe try some introspection.

I strongly agree with Banksy's view on advertisement:

People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

– Banksy

While I think there are some forms of advertisement that are acceptable or even desirable, what we see on the internet is not that, mostly due to the tracking and targeting, which almost every advertisement company is doing, but also because adverts are inherently trying to trick, pressure or encourage you to spend money on something even if you don't really want or need it.

> Maybe try some introspection.

I have. I've come to the conclusion that I judge people who work in industries I find morally questionable.

You don't see any hint of irony in that statement from someone who leaves artwork in public spaces without asking the general public for permission first? The same artist who destroys his own art, which he left in public, when someone tries to "own" it?

Claiming that everyone who works at Google works on Ads is like saying everyone who works at Amazon moves boxes in a warehouse.

I’m not making a value judgement on Banksy, just that I agree with that particular statement of his.

Re: second paragraph, I didn’t claim that everyone at google works on ads, you made that up. You don’t have to work on an immoral thing just an immoral employer for me to question your morals.

YouTube made their deals with the various industries pretty early on IIRC. Not sure there was a decision as to who did or didn't have to make these deals as much as visibility and their own willingness to make these deals just resulted in earlier deals.