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/
Sometimes people are incapable of doing what you have described, because of mental illness reasons, their depression is a literal roadblock to them.
That's the point you seem to be missing.
you're right, but if depression is an ailment, then it's the responsibility of each individual to seek treatment. A lot of people wear depression on their sleeve like a disability.
And if they're too mentally ill to seek that treatment?
You don't consider chronic depression as a disability? Even if it's a biological damage to the brain?
You can strawman the argument all you like. Depression is treatable. Maybe telling people who are depressed "I agree, life sucks" isn't as noble as you think it is. If depression is a hole, all you're doing is offering a shovel. But that's the problem with depression, anytime anyone brings up things that can treat depression, the response is "Well ACKSHUALLY". Maybe you would feel better if you took better care of what you eat, or exercised, or called your loved ones more often. Maybe not. The only way to know is to try. There isn't a bandaid fix for depression, but there are certainly things that can help. Trying nothing and then throwing your hands in the air frustrated doesn't accomplish anything.
Speaking as someone who's taken prescription meds for depression in the past. But if suggestions ruin your preconceived worldly constructs then you're welcome to call me a moron... if that gives you some slight pleasure, go for it.
Calling someone's comments a strawman does not make it so, and could be used as a defensive measure when you don't have a proper comeback to the point being made.
I truly believe it was not a strawman, it was me trying to get you to understand that sometimes people do not have the ability to seek help, which you assume is not the ever the case, based on what I've read from your comments.
I believe you're assuming that when somebody pushes back against your assertion that they're doing so 100%.
For the record I'm not, I actually agree with you in general, that you should try to fight depression by seeking help both medically and via therapy.
My point though is that people like you arrogantly think it's always just a 100% availability option, that all someone needs to do is pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when in reality it's not.
I've heard plenty of stories of people where they're incapable of seeking that help, and that's the only point I'm trying to put to you, that it's not an all or nothing thing, that it's a variance, some people can seek the help, and others cannot. Not everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Well, since we're measuring now, I'm speaking as someone who has a therapist in the family, and have had plenty of conversations around the dinner table about the issue. And who also has had to deal with depression.
Not sure where that is coming from, but thank you, appreciate you thinking about my pleasure.
You're a moron.
(Sorry, couldn't resist. :p )
What I was calling your strawman is the endless fallacy of "what if"... as I said, that's the bane of any kind of intelligent conversation online that's related to things like weight loss or depression. You could recommend something like good sleep and exercise and people will come out of the woodwork to say "well what about people who have thyroid issues or sleep disorders or etc". Obviously there are fringe cases in everything but everyone thinks they're the exception to accepting good advice. Yes, there are people who suffer from chronic depression that's caused by their brains inability to produce things like endorphins, but that's a minority. You're asking me to set aside my entire argument in favor of a small subset of "what ifs"
It's only perceived as an 'endless fallacy' of "what if" you don't want to acknowledge the point that's being pressed upon you over and over again.
I'm not trying to make you set aside your whole argument, just for you to understand that your argument is not 100% correct.
Your opinion expresses as like 100% of the time people can self correct, and that's what I'm arguing against with you, that is a fallacy, that some people cannot self correct, for various reasons, including debilitating depression. And that percentage of people who cannot self correct is not minimal, it's not huge, but it's not minimal.
You really spent all that time just to say "I agree with the application of what you're saying on most cases, however, there are some cases where that's not applicable"
What made you think I ever meant that my findings could be applied with 100% success rate?
Its pretty apparent based on all of the comments you've made so far in this conversation. If I'm wrong about that, then my apologies, but that's definately the impression you've left me based on our conversation. /shrug
And to be honest, I'm not going to go back and catalog them all to reply to your question. Not worth either of our time.