About Pornhub (and Facebook and Youtube).

Before I begin, I need to confess that I am too lazy to write this text, so I apologize if I do not go into all the details or if I repeat what I have said in past entries.

Selective campaign against Pornhub.

These days, Pornhub was exposed for allegedly hosting illegal content. It was a scandal. A hate campaign against Pornhub itself was launched, even tho it would be much better to just tell them to remove the illegal content, rather than making the entire site look bad. Even Visa and Mastercard decided to stop working with Pornhub, making it difficult to pay to content producers on that site. Then, on a Sunday afternoon, Pornhub removed all videos from unverified users, losing more than half of the content posted there. But not only that: Pornhub has announced a lot of measures to prevent more illegal content from being posted, although such measures are not very profitable for the site.

Now comes the interesting part: Pornhub, in a text posted in its blog, stated that the hate campaign, fueled by the cause for protection of children, has selectively hit the site, but not Facebook or Youtube, which also host illegal content, undetected by the administrators of these sites. Why the exclusive attack on Pornhub? Because the associations responsible for the campaign (National Center on Sexual Exploitation and Exodus Cry) against Pornhub for “allowing” this type of content are associations dedicated to the abolition of pornography. Pornhub implied that only its website was attacked because whoever coordinated the attack was not really interested in the safety of children and adolescents, but was interested in killing Pornhub off using the child welfare as an excuse.

The child welfare cause as an excuse for the advancement of conservatism.

To give broth to this text, I will recite a section of another text I wrote, Sexuality, Age of Consent and Brazilian Law.

In this section, we saw the case of the bill against free pornography. This bill aimed at protecting the sexuality of adolescents (encouraging their healthy relationship) could well be an attempt to Christianize adult sexuality. If this is true and if the protection of adolescence was used as an excuse to place impediments to adult sexuality, Robinson’s statement would be proven: the cause of child sexual welfare is a device used to cause fear of any position in order to capitalize on such fear for political gain. 615 This strategy is used when the way of thinking and acting of a given society is challenged by forces that are external to it (such as globalization) or interior (changes in politics). If the way a society exists is to be preserved, sometimes it is necessary to stimulate the fear of change and, with this, moralistic discourses and protectionist discourses find convergence: the transgender phenomenon is attacked for representing a risk to children, homosexuality is attacked for representing a risk to children, pornography is attacked for representing a risk to children, among others. 616 It is not a matter of protecting children, but of advancing a particular agenda that would not advance without such excuse.

I am referring to the conservative agenda, which aims to maintain the dominant way of thinking and acting, also called “good customs”. 617 Causing fear of the different is a tactic of social control. 618 Child protection is only an instrument, the “face” of movement, not its purpose. […] In addition, they distract adults from other serious problems affecting children: the same people who push a child protection agenda are the same people who favor cuts in education and health, which impact children more than sexuality. 620 The emphasis on the moral problem of youth distracts from the material needs of youth, which is immoral: to stimulate and allow social inequality, poverty, environmental degradation, poor schooling, poor health and violence, all things that negatively affect minors, all those things are child abuse, even though it is not sexual abuse. 621


It also shows that sexual regulation that affects adults can be passed if disguised as protection for the integrity of youth, because this justification makes it less likely to receive criticism. Thus, interfering with adult sexual freedom may be acceptable if we use the protection of minors as an excuse. Moreover, the fact that adolescents and perhaps children are consuming pornography is not enough to ensure that such a phenomenon should be fought, because, by itself, it does not guarantee that children and adolescents suffer because of exposure to pornography. After all, if they suffered, they would not look for this material or discuss it among themselves. 625


More than that, the discourse of child protection can be used as a cynical mask for the implementation of policies that promote censorship and other removals of freedoms. 625 We saw this in the discussion about the bill against pornography, but we also observed this phenomenon in the United Nations attempt to abandon the term “child pornography” in favor of the term “child sexual abuse material” and, moreover, include in this category drawings, which do not even represent real children. Again censorship, again no victim in sight. Let us remember that the presence of pornography does not increase the rates of sexual crimes, but is correlated with the reduction in the frequency of such crimes: at least in the case of Japan and the Czech Republic, the rates of sexual crimes fell following the legalization of several pornographic works previously considered too obscene to be distributed, including erotic drawings. 626

This example perfectly illustrates the three points dealt with in this section: the implementation of censorship, the cynical use of the child welfare cause, and the long-term damage that can derive from it. The worst part is that this tactic is employed by the UN itself.

But will they attack Facebook or Youtube?

Pornhub, still in its blog post, states that the site has taken a lot of steps to prevent more illegal content from being posted and implicitly challenged the organizations behind the campaign to demand the same measures from other sites (Tiktok, Instagram, Snapchat, among others) known to “allow” illegal content. But that’s not going to happen.

First because, as Pornhub lucidly said, the focus of the campaign was to kill one of the biggest porn sites in the world, not to defend children from abuse, as that was just an excuse to lead the campaign. Second because it would be irresponsible to. If this type of attitude becomes commonplace, the cause for the defense of children and adolescents will stand against the capital: small but well-meaning websites will be taken down, causing bankruptcies and perhaps unemployment; users who are aware that the child cause is being used as an excuse will be frustrated (Pornhub is among the fifty most accessed sites in the world) and will bet on alternatives abroad, where such attacks are less likely; companies who worry for their safety will have to spend more if such a campaign reaches them. This kind of situation will make the child welfare cause infamous. Any association that attacks a popular website in the name of child and adolescent protection will be viewed with suspicion, as a moralist in social service uniform. Incidentally, National Center on Sexual Exploitation is the new name of the old Morality in Media.

The biggest risk with new attacks.

But the biggest risk these associations would take when launching attacks in all directions is that people, frustrated by what’s happening with sites they use (again, Pornhub is among the 50 most accessed sites in the world), will begin to wonder if it is not possible to deal with such a problem in an alternative way. These are times when MAPs(minor-attracted people)are having their voices amplified. And some MAPs have many arguments favorable to the legalization of child pornography. Of course, most MAPs I see in public are interested in acceptance and tolerance, not legalization. But there is a small percentage that could use this “kill the cow to deal with it’s ticks” mentality that such associations have to question whether child pornography really a big problem. Of course, some people would agree, even if not most, especially under the pressure of losing access to a legal service used on a daily basis. In the long run, such opinion could take traction.

Thus, by firing attacks in all directions, including Facebook and Youtube, such associations take the risk of making palatable the smoothing (even if not abolishment) of laws against child pornography. It would be the opposite of what one would like to attain. But if you are MAP and are reading this, understand that this higher risk is also very unlikely. Don’t think that child porn will be legalized tomorrow just because Pornhub did a cleanup on their website.

What every guy should do.

If Visa and Mastercard no longer want to work with Pornhub, support it by other means (and stop using those cards). If Pornhub falls one day, look for alternatives. Whenever the child welfar cause is used in a cynical and selective manner, question it in public. It’s crazy to try to kill off a legal website because someone posted something illegal there. It would be wiser to delete illegal content, not kill the entire site as they tried to do. If we let these Neo-puritans trample us like that, we will soon lose other civil liberties if such freedoms prove to be a “risk to children.”

Publicado por Yure

Quando eu me formei, minha turma teve que fazer um juramento coletivo. Como minha religião não me permite jurar nem prometer, eu só mexi os lábios, mas resolvi viver com os objetivos do juramento em mente de qualquer forma.

3 comentários em “About Pornhub (and Facebook and Youtube).

Deixe um comentário

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logo do WordPress.com

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta WordPress.com. Sair /  Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair /  Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair /  Alterar )

Conectando a %s

Este site utiliza o Akismet para reduzir spam. Saiba como seus dados em comentários são processados.

%d blogueiros gostam disto: