Earlier in December the internet pornography site Pornhub announced that it would be purging its site of certain material and deleting users and uploads from non-verified accounts, along with restricting downloads.
This announcement came after the New York Times published a column detailing the sexual abuse, specifically of children, that was being filmed and distributed on the, unfortunately, extremely popular website. The details of the stories reported by the New York Times are beyond disturbing and tragic, and I won't detail them here, you can read the full story yourself.
The Canada-based pornography site responded to public pressure after this article and has, at least publicly, made moves that show they are going to reform their policies to prevent the distribution of that kind of content. Some are skeptical about trusting Pornhub, given their willingness to exploit and profit from sexual assault for years.
Salon, however, has a different take on the entire story. The story that this lefty publication wants to focus on is the terrible plight of the poor pornographers who are suddenly out of work.
Yes. This is a real headline. From a real publication.
And I have one word:
First off, the premise of the article is ridiculous. Salon is blaming the reforms on "The anti-porn religious lobby."
Oh yes, the infamous bastion of religious puritanism known as the New York Times.
To be sure, there are plenty of religious groups who are fighting against the proliferation of pornography and exposing the tremendous abuse of women and children, but it wasn't because of their efforts that Pornhub caved. It was the New York Times column. A column which, by the way, still defended the use and proliferation of "good" porn. Pornhub was content to ignore the cries of various other organizations for years. It was only the shaming by their secular allies that caused them to finally address the problem
I read the Salon article. I can't recommend you do the same, but let me pull a specific quote that really struck me.
Indeed, Pornhub's new policies will have the most devastating effects on marginalized pornographers. People of color and trans performers, for example, have found spaces for individual entrepreneurship online, in an industry that historically would rarely hire them. We must recognize that Pornhub's censorship and the move to restrict payment processing for all sex workers will have the most devastating effects on the most marginalized.
Not only does this new policy from Pornhub hurt "hundreds of thousands of pornographers," Salon has to make sure you know how woke they are, claiming that those most affected by the policy are "people of color and trans performers." That's right, not only is this policy anti-porn, and pro-religion, it's also anti-woke! The policy is obviously meant to target these marginalized pornographers.
The entire article is spent downplaying the prevalence of sexual abuse, sex trafficking, and Pornhub's profiting from it, and instead wants you to consider that the new restrictions have gone too far. Why? Because the policy, if it accomplishes its goal, would also affect people who aren't "abusers" but are the "good kind" of pornographers. It would do this by making the entire site more secure, and requiring proof that people uploading videos to the site are legally allowed to do so.
Oh! the horror!
Sorry Salon, but putting more hurdles in the way of distributing dangerous and abusive pornography is not exactly my idea of a travesty of justice. It seems like a small step towards a solution to a huge problem that goes beyond the trafficking and abuse of women and children.
Also if there is an anti-porn religious lobby, I guess you can sign me up.
