A lawsuit filed by more victims of the sex trafficking operation claims that Pornhub’s moderation staff ignored reports of their abuse videos.


Sixty-one additional women are suing Pornhub’s parent company, claiming that the company failed to take down videos of their abuse as part of the sex trafficking operation Girls Do Porn. They’re suing the company and its sites for sex trafficking, racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, and human trafficking.

The complaint, filed on Tuesday, includes what it claims are internal emails obtained by the plaintiffs, represented by Holm Law Group, between Pornhub moderation staff. The emails allegedly show that Pornhub had only one moderator to review 700,000 potentially abusive videos, and that the company intentionally ignored repeated reports from victims in those videos.

The damages and restitution they seek amounts to more than $311,100,000. They demand a jury trial, and seek damages of $5 million per plaintiff, as well as restitution for all the money Aylo, the new name for Pornhub’s parent company, earned “marketing, selling and exploiting Plaintiffs’ videos in an amount that exceeds one hundred thousand dollars for each plaintiff.”

The plaintiffs are 61 more unnamed “Jane Doe” victims of Girls Do Porn, adding to the 60 that sued Pornhub in 2020 for similar claims.
Girls Do Porn was a federally-convicted sex trafficking ring that coerced young women into filming pornographic videos under the pretense of “modeling” gigs. In some cases, the women were violently abused. The operators told them that the videos would never appear online, so that their home communities wouldn’t find out, but they uploaded the footage to sites like Pornhub, where the videos went viral—and in many instances, destroyed their lives. Girls Do Porn was an official Pornhub content partner, with its videos frequently appearing on the front page, where they gathered millions of views.

read more: https://www.404media.co/girls-do-porn-victims-sue-pornhub-for-300-million/

archive: https://archive.ph/zQWt3#selection-593.0-609.599

  • Rengoku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Save your fucking houlier than thou attitude for yourself.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t understand, are you saying that not being okay with watching porn of a woman being raped is somehow a pretentious position? What are you on?

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for “you also”) is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke’s 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Note they’re not attacking your argument at all, merely calling out the fact that you’re being a pretentious twat. Completely valid, both can be true. No tu quoque. Also it’s quite sophomoric to call out logical fallacies as a gotcha in an argument.

      • Turun@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        You don’t actually have a “holier than thou” sentence in your comment, but

        one which a lot of people would rather deny, rather than admit their part in perpetuating it,

        Sure does come close. I think this is the reason why there are such negative reactions to your top level comment.

        • Hyperreality@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Meh. It’s cognitive dissonance and vanity. We’re all narcisstic to a certain degree.

          We all lie to ourselves that we’re good people doing our best. Tell someone they’re not, point out the specific ways that they’re horrible (because they’re human), and they’re forced to reconcile these two contradictory pieces of information. Invariably people act emotionally and lash out.

          You’ll get similar reactions if you criticise people for eating meat, for their role in pollution, buying crap rather than donating to a charity that saves lives, ignoring child labour, etc.

          I think we all need to lie to ourselves at least some of the time, or we’d kill ourselves. Lie to yourself too much, and you become president.

          Joking aside, we could all do with being a bit more honest with ourselves, so that we can become better people. If you’re never honest, you can’t grow as a person.

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            What if I told you you can gently lead people to conclusions rather than trying to bash them over the skull with them? You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you want to do any good with your words, a more gentle approach will get you further.