News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Inside Pornhub. Parent comment

Re:Inside Pornhub by armchairhacker on Wednesday February 23, 2022 @07:33PM (#30448762)
YouTube has definitely been flagging more false positives over the years, as pirates have gotten smarter. When you broaden the algorithm to flag more bad content, you also end up flagging more good content unless you narrow it in some other way.

But the issue with YouTube etc. isn't flagging innocent people, it's flagging innocent people and then rejecting their appeals. It should be pretty easy for PornHub etc. to get videos "verified" by getting explicit consent from all parties filmed, so that they cannot be flagged and removed from the system.

In fact, I really don't see any reason against a law requiring all porn sites to require verification for all videos (w/ retroactive revoke on the hosts). Nobody's being censored, and if you agree to be in a porn video you kind of waive your right to anonymity.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Inside Pornhub by AnthonyMouse on Wednesday February 23, 2022 @10:50PM (#30450007)
> Nobody's being censored, and if you agree to be in a porn video you kind of waive your right to anonymity.

Then the host gets hacked and your government ID gets published as a creator of amateur pornography. The risk of that is de facto censorship by chilling effect.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Inside Pornhub by pjc50 on Thursday February 24, 2022 @05:11AM (#30453017)
The thing is, this was technically required in the US under USC 2257 for the past two decades: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257

Although I think that says "produces" rather than "publishes" or "distributes", so pornhub themselves aren't liable but the boyfriend "producing" the film has committed an offence. Not that there's any will to enforce this.

Closer to home, Scotland explicitly banned revenge porn, and has actually achieved some prosecutions.

[ Parent | on HN ]