11 ms·

We don’t know enough about the Pornhub acquisition

diabolique_2 3y ago
[flagged]
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  I wonder why the people associated with running them don't want to be shouting from the rooftops
  - techaqua 3y ago
    PH's parent company is called MindGeek or something. It's nice that their employee's resume doesn't say "porn".
- cptcobalt 3y ago
  What would you want to see that would change your perception away from shady with a cloud of mystery?
  - diabolique_2 3y ago
    name of holders and investors, same as for any other company.
- basch 3y ago
  They are all the same company, and was raising eyebrows a decade ago. https://slate.com/technology/2014/10/mindgeek-porn-monopoly-its-dominance-is-a-cautionary-tale-for-other-industries.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/10/mindgeek-porn-monopoly-... It's financing has always been questionable. >MindGeek itself has something of a checkered past. In 2009, the Secret Service seized $6.4 million from bank accounts controlled by Mansef, a company founded by Stephane Manos and Ouissam Youssef, the assets of which Mansef later sold to German tech investor Fabian Thylmann, who made them part of a company he owned called Manwin. Manwin would later become MindGeek.* (Of the $6.4 million that was seized, $4.15 million was later released pursuant to a settlement with the federal government.)* In April 2011, Manwin quietly secured a $362 million loan from Wall Street firm Colbeck Capital, founded by former Goldman Sachs employees Jason Colodne and Jason Beckman. (Goldman Sachs distanced themselves from the two.) Colbeck’s funds were in turn secured from other firms including the troubled Fortress Capital, masking the Manwin association. Having used the loan to continue to acquire tube sites and content producers, Thylman was then extradited from Belgium to Germany in 2012 for tax evasion on Manwin’s profits. In late 2013, Thylman was bought out by current CEO Ferras Antoon and COO David Tassillo, longtime players within the company, who now control operations from Montreal. (Manwin’s name was changed to Mindgeek in 2013.) And their business model was basically pirating their own content, that they produced, so they didnt have to pay the people in production. >Even content producers that MindGeek owns have trouble getting their movies off MindGeek’s tube sites. The result has been a vampiric ecosystem: MindGeek’s producers make porn films mostly for the sake of being uploaded on to MindGeek’s free tube sites, with lower returns for the producers but higher returns for MindGeek, which makes money off of the tube ads that does not go to anyone involved in the production side.
herbst 3y ago
You can not upload to pornhub and associated sites without a constent form. Every video is checked before it goes live. I am not sure why so many journalists always miss this fact when they claim it's a bed for human trafficking and child pornography Or am I missing something?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  > I am not sure why so many journalists always miss this fact when they claim it's a bit bed for human trafficking and child pornography > Or am I missing something? Seems you're missing that they used past tense in the article? specifically not present tense?
  - ralfd 3y ago
    > But it matters when the asset you are buying is Pornhub because — as we’ve covered — its policies impact sex trafficking globally. That is equating Pornhub with sex trafficking.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      No, it says its policies affect sex trafficking. The recent move towards verifying consent has arguably helped combat sex trafficking for pornography. Their verification rules are the standard which sex traffickers must now try to work around. Saying that it has a position of responsibility against trafficking is not saying it's equal to trafficking.
      - slothtrop 3y ago
        > The recent move towards verifying consent has arguably helped combat sex trafficking for pornography. This is not the sort of effect that the article is likely alluding.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        What makes you say that?
yieldcrv 3y ago
> This sort of thing happens all the time in private transactions. But it has never happened in a case with one of the most important websites in the world! We should know more! Based on what? You're not going to if a private company doesn't want you to and is structured correctly. > The only reason to act against such strong incentives is if you have something to hide. Yes, like the natural persons involved, because that's the default state of private companies structured correctly. Just like they said in the interview quoted. > The victims harmed by Pornhub deserve assurances that the current owners will be better than the past abusers. lol. punt your thinly veiled voyeurism to a third party. that's... rich.
- pavlov 3y ago
  > "Yes, like the natural persons involved, because that's the default state of private companies structured correctly." Arguably it shouldn't be the default state, or even possible.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    > Arguably And what is that argument? Why are they not afforded privacy that you are afforded? Or does your argument apply to you too, in which case I'm even more interested in seeing this anti privacy argument.
    - jwestbury 3y ago
      Philosophically: The more impact you have on society, the less privacy you deserve. You're free to disagree with this, but not to claim it's an invalid view simply because it does not align with current law.
      - golergka 3y ago
        Impact they have on society is based on completely voluntary interactions by millions of users. Some choose to upload videos, some choose to watch them, and all of them are completely okay with Pornhub being private. You suggest that an unrelated third party (government) comes into these interactions, invents a "society", which isn't really a subject but an abstract category, insists that it acts on behalf of it, and unlike all previous actors, wants to force submission not with voluntary transactions, but with the use of force. I can't see how a reasonable human being would possibly advocate for something so amoral.
dotBen 3y ago
BenGPT summery: "Hyper rich individuals and/or foreign investment funds buy reasonably profitable 'sin' business and do so by forming a special purpose vehicle just for this transaction which hides their identity. Said owners elect not to register the business as an investment fund, which author notes is optional in Canada anyway. Occom's razor conclusion would be they do all of this because they don't want to be identified." Ethical discussions about the operation of a pornographic website aside, I'm not clear what the issue or surprise here is?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gray5 3y ago
[dead]
dingusdew 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ravenstine 3y ago
> Pornhub had over 2B visits last year and 100M+ daily active users Is it just me or does that seem remarkably low? I wonder if "active users" only includes users with accounts. I'm sure plenty of people lurk such sites but never sign in. > AI deepfakes and Generative AI means that anyone can create custom porn for themselves. Admittedly, and somewhat embarrassingly, this is something I looked into with all the AI hubub going on this year. While it's interesting what Stable Diffusion is capable of in terms of generating images of naked people, it's not that impressive what it comes to creating something that can actually compete with what humans can currently create. Every example of AI-generated pr0n I've seen looks erotically generic and uninteresting. On top of that, the AI seems to still not understand what a nipple or vagina is actually supposed to look like. It can't even do video yet outside of blurry "flipbooks" of multiple prompts in succession. Though I have no doubt that AI will eventually shake things up, we are a ways off from AI making human-made porn obsolete. > To put the nail in the coffin, Netflix made a documentary about how Pornhub was the worst. Well yeah, the problem with porn is it can't be (easily) used to push a narrative. Porn is hyper-reality. Porn doesn't pretend that people don't see race. Porn doesn't pretend that men and women aren't different, unless you're into that sort of thing. Porn isn't known for its intricate storytelling. Porn isn't pretentious. Porn doesn't pretend that penises are "gross." Porn doesn't pretend that human beings aren't animals that have irrational motivations. Porn is largely apolitical. No wonder the mainstream wants it gone, despite being guilty of many of the same transgressions as sites like Pornhub. Nobody's gonna stop giving their money to Hollywood despite all the sexual abuse and child molestation.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  > Is it just me or does that seem remarkably low? It seems high, after the fallout from the NYT piece. Last I had read, unverified (e.g. pirated) content was all removed, leaving mostly studios and community power users. Like YT, piracy is the reason it flourished. Most immediately flocked to rival streaming sites that as of yet have not received the same level of scrutiny.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    They lost literally billions of impressions by removing the non-consensual stuff? You're saying "e.g. pirated" but let's be real it's "e.g. Amateur porn where the women didn't know she'd be filmed/shared, upskirt videos, revenge porn, sleeping assault videos etc"
dr-detroit 3y ago
[dead]
rainworld 3y ago
This “industry“ is and for the most part always has been a front for organized crime. https://probablycancelledpod.libsyn.com/the-porno-mafia-monopoly-capitalism-organized-crime-w-jimmy-falun-gong https://probablycancelledpod.libsyn.com/the-porno-mafia-mono...
jannw 3y ago
"I had one source who insisted that the capital came from Hong Kong but when I asked for more details he mostly insulted me for not being able to figure it out myself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. " China can cross-identify Pornhub "customers" against other state owned tech asset's datasets (e.g. tictoc) ... valuable leverage against identified individuals?

[flagged]

monero-xmr 3y ago
I wonder why the people associated with running them don't want to be shouting from the rooftops
- techaqua 3y ago
  PH's parent company is called MindGeek or something. It's nice that their employee's resume doesn't say "porn".
cptcobalt 3y ago
What would you want to see that would change your perception away from shady with a cloud of mystery?
- diabolique_2 3y ago
  name of holders and investors, same as for any other company.
basch 3y ago
They are all the same company, and was raising eyebrows a decade ago. https://slate.com/technology/2014/10/mindgeek-porn-monopoly-its-dominance-is-a-cautionary-tale-for-other-industries.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/10/mindgeek-porn-monopoly-... It's financing has always been questionable. >MindGeek itself has something of a checkered past. In 2009, the Secret Service seized $6.4 million from bank accounts controlled by Mansef, a company founded by Stephane Manos and Ouissam Youssef, the assets of which Mansef later sold to German tech investor Fabian Thylmann, who made them part of a company he owned called Manwin. Manwin would later become MindGeek.* (Of the $6.4 million that was seized, $4.15 million was later released pursuant to a settlement with the federal government.)* In April 2011, Manwin quietly secured a $362 million loan from Wall Street firm Colbeck Capital, founded by former Goldman Sachs employees Jason Colodne and Jason Beckman. (Goldman Sachs distanced themselves from the two.) Colbeck’s funds were in turn secured from other firms including the troubled Fortress Capital, masking the Manwin association. Having used the loan to continue to acquire tube sites and content producers, Thylman was then extradited from Belgium to Germany in 2012 for tax evasion on Manwin’s profits. In late 2013, Thylman was bought out by current CEO Ferras Antoon and COO David Tassillo, longtime players within the company, who now control operations from Montreal. (Manwin’s name was changed to Mindgeek in 2013.) And their business model was basically pirating their own content, that they produced, so they didnt have to pay the people in production. >Even content producers that MindGeek owns have trouble getting their movies off MindGeek’s tube sites. The result has been a vampiric ecosystem: MindGeek’s producers make porn films mostly for the sake of being uploaded on to MindGeek’s free tube sites, with lower returns for the producers but higher returns for MindGeek, which makes money off of the tube ads that does not go to anyone involved in the production side.

You can not upload to pornhub and associated sites without a constent form. Every video is checked before it goes live. I am not sure why so many journalists always miss this fact when they claim it's a bed for human trafficking and child pornography Or am I missing something?

yieldcrv 3y ago
> I am not sure why so many journalists always miss this fact when they claim it's a bit bed for human trafficking and child pornography > Or am I missing something? Seems you're missing that they used past tense in the article? specifically not present tense?
- ralfd 3y ago
  > But it matters when the asset you are buying is Pornhub because — as we’ve covered — its policies impact sex trafficking globally. That is equating Pornhub with sex trafficking.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    No, it says its policies affect sex trafficking. The recent move towards verifying consent has arguably helped combat sex trafficking for pornography. Their verification rules are the standard which sex traffickers must now try to work around. Saying that it has a position of responsibility against trafficking is not saying it's equal to trafficking.
    - slothtrop 3y ago
      > The recent move towards verifying consent has arguably helped combat sex trafficking for pornography. This is not the sort of effect that the article is likely alluding.
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        What makes you say that?

yieldcrv 3y ago

> This sort of thing happens all the time in private transactions. But it has never happened in a case with one of the most important websites in the world! We should know more! Based on what? You're not going to if a private company doesn't want you to and is structured correctly. > The only reason to act against such strong incentives is if you have something to hide. Yes, like the natural persons involved, because that's the default state of private companies structured correctly. Just like they said in the interview quoted. > The victims harmed by Pornhub deserve assurances that the current owners will be better than the past abusers. lol. punt your thinly veiled voyeurism to a third party. that's... rich.

pavlov 3y ago
> "Yes, like the natural persons involved, because that's the default state of private companies structured correctly." Arguably it shouldn't be the default state, or even possible.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  > Arguably And what is that argument? Why are they not afforded privacy that you are afforded? Or does your argument apply to you too, in which case I'm even more interested in seeing this anti privacy argument.
  - jwestbury 3y ago
    Philosophically: The more impact you have on society, the less privacy you deserve. You're free to disagree with this, but not to claim it's an invalid view simply because it does not align with current law.
    - golergka 3y ago
      Impact they have on society is based on completely voluntary interactions by millions of users. Some choose to upload videos, some choose to watch them, and all of them are completely okay with Pornhub being private. You suggest that an unrelated third party (government) comes into these interactions, invents a "society", which isn't really a subject but an abstract category, insists that it acts on behalf of it, and unlike all previous actors, wants to force submission not with voluntary transactions, but with the use of force. I can't see how a reasonable human being would possibly advocate for something so amoral.

dotBen 3y ago

BenGPT summery: "Hyper rich individuals and/or foreign investment funds buy reasonably profitable 'sin' business and do so by forming a special purpose vehicle just for this transaction which hides their identity. Said owners elect not to register the business as an investment fund, which author notes is optional in Canada anyway. Occom's razor conclusion would be they do all of this because they don't want to be identified." Ethical discussions about the operation of a pornographic website aside, I'm not clear what the issue or surprise here is?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gray5 3y ago

[dead]

dingusdew 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ravenstine 3y ago

> Pornhub had over 2B visits last year and 100M+ daily active users Is it just me or does that seem remarkably low? I wonder if "active users" only includes users with accounts. I'm sure plenty of people lurk such sites but never sign in. > AI deepfakes and Generative AI means that anyone can create custom porn for themselves. Admittedly, and somewhat embarrassingly, this is something I looked into with all the AI hubub going on this year. While it's interesting what Stable Diffusion is capable of in terms of generating images of naked people, it's not that impressive what it comes to creating something that can actually compete with what humans can currently create. Every example of AI-generated pr0n I've seen looks erotically generic and uninteresting. On top of that, the AI seems to still not understand what a nipple or vagina is actually supposed to look like. It can't even do video yet outside of blurry "flipbooks" of multiple prompts in succession. Though I have no doubt that AI will eventually shake things up, we are a ways off from AI making human-made porn obsolete. > To put the nail in the coffin, Netflix made a documentary about how Pornhub was the worst. Well yeah, the problem with porn is it can't be (easily) used to push a narrative. Porn is hyper-reality. Porn doesn't pretend that people don't see race. Porn doesn't pretend that men and women aren't different, unless you're into that sort of thing. Porn isn't known for its intricate storytelling. Porn isn't pretentious. Porn doesn't pretend that penises are "gross." Porn doesn't pretend that human beings aren't animals that have irrational motivations. Porn is largely apolitical. No wonder the mainstream wants it gone, despite being guilty of many of the same transgressions as sites like Pornhub. Nobody's gonna stop giving their money to Hollywood despite all the sexual abuse and child molestation.

slothtrop 3y ago
> Is it just me or does that seem remarkably low? It seems high, after the fallout from the NYT piece. Last I had read, unverified (e.g. pirated) content was all removed, leaving mostly studios and community power users. Like YT, piracy is the reason it flourished. Most immediately flocked to rival streaming sites that as of yet have not received the same level of scrutiny.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  They lost literally billions of impressions by removing the non-consensual stuff? You're saying "e.g. pirated" but let's be real it's "e.g. Amateur porn where the women didn't know she'd be filmed/shared, upskirt videos, revenge porn, sleeping assault videos etc"

dr-detroit 3y ago

[dead]

rainworld 3y ago

This “industry“ is and for the most part always has been a front for organized crime. https://probablycancelledpod.libsyn.com/the-porno-mafia-monopoly-capitalism-organized-crime-w-jimmy-falun-gong https://probablycancelledpod.libsyn.com/the-porno-mafia-mono...

jannw 3y ago

"I had one source who insisted that the capital came from Hong Kong but when I asked for more details he mostly insulted me for not being able to figure it out myself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. " China can cross-identify Pornhub "customers" against other state owned tech asset's datasets (e.g. tictoc) ... valuable leverage against identified individuals?