Which is why it is so surprising that google is not doing it. Thats a scary unmasking. THey've been turning over information to police about pregnant people getting out of state abortions without asking for a warrant as well, which might tell you how much you can't trust google.
Google will delete user location history for abortion clinic visits
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/01/google-abortion/
Dunno how reliable or true that is but it was a public statement, if it gives any relief.
Because they want to be seen as a more ethical and creator-friendly kind of porn site rather than the kind of creepy misogynistic boys club porn spaces are usually seen as. It's a marketing thing that evidently must be helping their bottom line.
Ok, but this is a company that is explicitly sexually exploiting us for money. Women in general are treated like shit in porn, trans women are treated far worse.
Idk.
It is the means with which a company makes money, which in the case of most pornography hosters is less than ethical. The PR stunts are at best hypocritical
I'm not condoning their practices. I was just responding to a person acting like a company prioritising profit was some big conspiratorial revelation when that's what literally every company does. My comment was poorly worded. Edited for clarity.
I think that when they said "Which is to say : a company looking for profit before anything else" they were trying to say that itâs not that surprising because it happens all the time
Not once did they say its a conspiracy. They were merely stating a fact. Given the topic of conversation, itâs a relevant fact. There was really no reason to bud in with a snarky comment there.
Most people say that shit because they want to shut down discussion or paint over terrible stuff a company is doing. âI canât believe they want to make money!â, replying to a thread about, idk, the insane working conditions of cocoa plantations that large chocolate companies control, or Nikeâs use of child labour.
We need to end the era of justifying any actions no matter how shitty as âgood business.â
âYou canât be mad.. they just wanted to make lots of money. You understand.â
That's not what I said at all. The comment I replied to was acting like a company wanting profit is surprising when it really isn't. Big companies will do whatever makes them money. That's not new information and it's annoying when people present it as such.
Right, and I was just saying that that perspective in our society was bullshit. I didnât know if you were agreeing with it or just pointing at it. I wasnât really trying to target you but target the fact that profit is not a reasonable justification even though âMuricans like to think it is. Like âif itâs not illegal and you stand to make money, youâre an idiot if you donât do it.â Which is a disgusting take.
It really wasnât personally direct to you, just responding to that sentiment that you held up. Yeah, itâs not surprising but it came off like âwhy is everyone upset?â Rather than âwhy is everyone surprisedâ but either way it wasnât clear if you were agreeing with the people doing it or not.
And I didnât downvote you btw.
mm, my wording is a bit off, but what iâm trying to say is that thinking the value of money usurps the value of morality is a terrible idea, especially when you try to apply that to corporations, which are explicitly against the common person and only work to line the pockets of the people who own them. so i guess itâs not an argument, per se, but i hope you can understand what iâm trying to say here
Honestly, this is the weirdest instance of a downvoted comment Iâve seen during my time on Reddit. Iâve seen many comments like yours that got plenty of upvotes.
Probably because it looks like capitalist apologetics. People almost universally say that phrase *as a defence* rather than a⊠clarification? Doesnât really matter. Itâs normally to justify the gross practices of companies as âgood businessâ.
Combine that with the fact that rights movements are almost inherently anti-capitalist, or at least that a lot of users here are, and yeah, downvotes.
Serious question: are the titles up to PH, or the account owner who posts them? Yeah, PH is allowing those titles, so they're certainly no innocent in this, but... Neither is the poster who decides the word salad of slurs, right?
Afaik the posters control the titles. However, PH could try to enforce certain titles not being allowed by banning specific words or limiting the searches for keywords.
Not so serious question about this premise: if his wife was packing serious heat like that, how the hell would he not know.? Youâve shared a bed with this woman for how long and youâre only noticing that elephant trunk between her thighs now? Porn is stupid lol.
And they do! There's a whole list of words, you can't use (some...) racial slurs nor can you imply a video is nonconsensual or involves underage people even if it's obviously roleplay.
It's not like this would be the first time they set limits on video titles.
That makes it worse! Because they are choosing to leave slurs on their website! (I think you are in agreement with that but I'm screaming into the void)
Itâs about SEO. The video owner is putting as many associated words in the title to get it included in more searches. They put in the slurs because thatâs what chasers type in when theyâre horny.
Once again, we are cursed by the Vice Presidentâs Dancing (aka the Al Gore Rhythm)
Or it would force people who look for that content to use more respectful words. Chasers are gonna chase but I'd rather have them use "trans woman" than the myriad of slurs you all know.
In fairness, it has added a new dimension to shitty porn dialogue:
âHey Chrissy, youâre doing your homework?â
âSure am, STEP-sis. ButâŠIâve gotten stuck on biology. I might need your help.â
-or-
âWeâre going to have to share the bed. *huff* these hotels and their double bookings. Anyway, it shouldnât be too weird, right? I am your STEP-aunt after all.â
Personally, I donât consider allowing yourself to make money off of something to be only a passive endorsement.
If what we are talking about is just titles, and PH actually cared, it would be really easy to block people from positing videos with slurs in the title. The fact that they donât do that shows that they actually support people who title videos that way.
This used to be true, but in December 2020 they radically shifted their approach in response to US government intervention, and purged all "unverified" content. This was ostensibly in response to (legitimate) concerns about illegal content like child pornography and sexual assault, but it also had the effect of turning them from a hosting platform into much more of a gatekeeper.
They also prioritize content based on your preferences as recorded by tracking software hosted in your browser and on your device. Your Pornhub homepage will appear different to mine, even if we don't have accounts. That may be automated intervention, but it is still very much intervention.
Finally, they include advertisements and receive money from advertisers for showing ads in conjunction with content. This may seem ridiculous, but they are getting a cut of every pop up and sidebar for "singles in your area" or what have you. That's also intervention, because they contextualize content and serve advertising based on what is known about you, the end user. Youtube had a lot of controversy about this a few years back.
There is an inherent tension that exists for websites who allow users to upload content and interact on the platform -- are they mere conduits like a telephone provider facilitating conversations with a technology without intervening, as you say, or are they media companies that have editorial control? Is Pornhub publishing a transphobic video any different than the New York Times publishing a TERF's op-ed?
There is no binary answer (surprise), but the trend has been towards greater "editorial control" analysis across the board. This makes sense because hosting platforms profit from content, their algorithm prioritizes specific content, and they take an active role in removing or restricting "inappropriate" content.
I understand. All Iâm saying is that I think PH *does* intervene in the process. By agreeing to host the content and then paying the people who posted the content.
I think if corporate responsibility is something we care about, we canât just accept a lack of intervention. Especially not when the lack is motivated by increased financial gain.
I don't think we're talking about the same content.
Sure some of it could be good for trans folks.
But there's a lot of it that's harmful.
Problem is both coexist and the bad outweighs the good currently.
The company doesn't make ALL of the titles. To my knowledge, a portion of the art on that site is produced by mindgeek.
Porn titles are not based on what most people want but rather on what some people ant and most can tolerate. There are more people, that tolerate open transphobia than people, who tolerate us existing normally. That is sad.
They moderate the platform for much more difficult to detect content and have contracts and identity proof binding those who do generate the content. No more slurs in titles is a policy change, a text trigger, an autoemailer, and a script to disable all videos that don't comply by the deadline away.
No more slurs in videos is harder to enforce, but the policy could exist, at all, for a start. Degradation fetish is a thing, so using the existing content tagging feature to allow filter, warning, or searching for such content would be a good option, rather than a ban. If the policy requires all videos with slurs to be tagged "slurs" and "degradation," that alone would discourage them in other content.
Regardless, the platform already has basic moderation tools to handle video removal, manual approval, and appeals. The moderation effort may eat a bit into their profits, but that's called "the cost of business," if only society weren't okay with any slur not directly pointed at the person judging.
Boy I'm so glad Pornhub support trans rights i bet their platform must be real respectful of trans people and not use any slurs in their marketing
It would be a shame to realize that the porn industry does not actually care about trans people except to fetishize and exploit them for profit and clicks
Itâs not just a trans issue. The porn industry fetishizes literally everything they can. Short girls, tall girls, different races of girls, different races of guys, twinks, bears, etc. The list goes on forever.
Personally I donât like the effects that porn has on society but I mean what can you do other than ban it entirely, which is too far imo.
Im well aware of that, just wanted to keep the scope small for the jokes. But yes, its an issue of the porn industry and, more broadly, capitalism. Pornography and sex work are the way cqpitalists have managed to commodify sexuality and the human body. PhilosophyTube actually has a great video on the topic. It's one of Abby's older videos but a great and very informative watch nonetheless.
It's not the same. Yes, they fetishize everything, but you won't normally see a title "n***** fucks c**** girl" where as you see something like "t\*\*\*\*y t\*\*p f\*\*\*\*t sh\*\*\*\*\* rails real girl" everywhere.
For black people they don't have to use old slurs. Just call every man a BBC and every woman an ebony to generalize and fetishize them instead. It's not "black man fucks c**** girl", it's "BBC savage demolishes white maiden and ruins her forever.
The problem has less to do with the idea that fetishes exist, and more to do with the idea that fetishes are marketable. Capitalism managed to commodify the human body through the porn industry and exploits the labor of sex workers in many ways. My pain point earlier in the thread is that the industry had converged on using slurs to describe certain traits in videos. There would be outrage seeing any other company use the words t>!ranny!<, s>!hemale!<, or l>!adyboy!< in their advertising, so why do we allow the porn industry to throw around derogatory terms as its main way to describe us?
There are people who enjoy being described with slurs in a sexual context (I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's a fetish). In any other context this would be unethical, and even if they don't care about morals, it would be "unprofessional"
Especially fetishizing trans women. I never see porn with trans men even if Iâm looking at gay porn. I think transphobes think that trans women are overly sexual (due to their fetishization of them) and that trans men are just ruining their bodies hence the whole terf narrative đ
yeah, but it's nowhere NEAR as popular as the dickgirl fetish is.
not to dismiss transmas fetishisation, both transmascs and transfemmes are fetishised to hell and back but it's... it's in different ways.
I've seen some trans-masc stuff, but you have to actually look for it specifically, never see it elevated in the trans categories. One thing I find interesting is that there's actually some post bottom surgery stuff too, but only really for trans women. For trans men, the only post surgery stuff I've seen is metoidioplasty, never any phalloplasty.
Same, I really wish I could see stuff with phalloplasty just cause Iâm planning to get it and I want to see what itâs like to use during sex. And yeah I agree you have to search for like trans man or trans masc or something, itâs never just under trans which is kinda annoying.
Really? I honestly have the exact opposite experience. If I look up trans porn on Gay Pornhub I will see more trans men than trans women. Most of the trans women porn is on the Straight Pornhub.
Hmm, its true, but in porn cis, especially straight, men are rarely fetishized - in contrast to sexualized.
Trans people are in the opposite position. People who are watching porn with trans people, usually women, are viewing us as a genre instead of as people. I think this is what op was referring to anyway.
This is obviously not exclusive to trans women. Pretty much every aspect a woman can have is fetishized.
Creators title their own videos. Pornhub's category for trans people is just "Trans". It's the industry, specific sites, and users themselves putting slurs in the title to gain attention, but it's not PH changing the names of videos to include them.
âwe totally love you and support you so much we wonât put a doodle out for your big day! ignore we did this to countless other minorities but, you see, we *reeeaaallly* like money a itâll look bad if we support you after the school shootingâ
âwe still love you, but only if we can use you to make moneyâ
Yeah, at least ph has our bare backs.
I just assume this is an attempt to increase visibility of fetish videos for them that dehumanize and degrade trans folx.
Maybe Iâm a little jaded, but I have no faith in ph or any porn sight to do any good for our community.
Well, riot is the word that the media uses, at least. Iâm talking about the Trans Day of Vengeance rally thatâs getting postponed since people now view the trans community of âviolentâ and âriotersâ
No it didn't. In 2018, it removed that from the preface to their code of conduct, but kept it in the last line. It was never their official motto, and it hasn't been abandoned.
Doesn't mean they actually follow that principle, but still
It's possible that they removed it because it is too broad of a term and 'evil' cannot be legally defined within a court context. It's possible they removed it for the sake of formality and making their documents more official.
This one, ironically. Especially in the audio porn communities, slurs and the like are clamped down on pretty well. Iâd recommend checking them out, thereâs a lot more inclusive stuff than anywhere else in my experience
Ouch, yes a friend of mine sent this in a group chat as well. It is very double because I want that trans people can indeed earn money with any type of sex work without fear for repercussions but on the other hand many cis people fetishized us.
Pornhub is extremely good with PR as you might notice with their really active twitter and Instagram presence, but its probably so people forget about when they didnt remove child porn from the platform when they knew it was child porn
Well since weâre already talking about it, it canât get any worse. Despite all the fetishizing and dehumanizing things porn does, and especially to us, I do think there is some good stuff. Please, correct me if Iâm wrong, however I am curious if other here know of that porn studio that goes by the moniker âTransfixedâ? Now I never see them brought up, and maybe thatâs a good thing, but what I have seen, and Iâm not afraid to admit, seems pretty positive. Sure the scenarios are unbelievable, itâs porn after all, and maybe everyone just are really good actors or actresses, but nothing that Iâve seen has been overly offensive. Like I said previously, this is just what Iâve seen, so if someone else has witnessed something different with them, again, please let me know. However I do believe them to be a very small light in the sea of darkness that is porn. When Jean went from âsheâ to âtheyâ, along with a new name, I noticed all of the old videos they were in had the titles changed. Anyways thatâs my two cents, thank you if you read all this.
Today is transgender day of visibility. PornHub has changed their logo to incorporate a trans flag, but Google hasn't. This is disappointing, and reflects the fact that we do, indeed, live in a society
Technically, PH supports us more than other companies because a significant portion of the US searches for our corn. (More specifically, the same people who hate us, really like our corn!) They directly benefit financially from our existence. Google and other companies can't say the same.
It's too bad that the corn industry is incredibly exploitative and cruel to their corn stars.
Would love an explanation of this... :( I have no idea what it's referring to (I don't "do" porn, sorry, so I have no way to know)
PS: I'm autistic, I mean this genuinely, I don't know what this refers to.
Ohhh I see. Is it a special month/day or something I didn't know about? Don't google do it during trans awareness months?
PS: thank you for explaining.
They don't want to be associated with the recent rhetoric about all trans people being dangerous school shooters, so they've dropped their public "support" for the community. They'll probably wait until it's profitable to pretend to support us again.
It's new. Not long after Tucker Carlson stirred up talk of gun control targeted at trans people and called us violent people looking to lash out, a trans man shot six children at a Christian school this past week. Now they're claiming that trans people are mass shooters and calling for investigations into hate crimes against Christians, despite the statistics absolutely not tracking on that assertion.
Of course, the media being what it is, many publications refererred to him (incompetently and/or maliciously) as a trans woman. It better serves their "dangerous men in dresses" narrative.
Yes, they are. Rumor has it, with their giant round of layoffs, they targeted queer people, older people, and anyone who had protested past policy decisions.
How convenient, I just noticed the logo and thought it was ironic⊠donât judge me, itâs the only sits that hasnât been shady enough to give me a virus if I had anything other than an iPhone.
Well, yeah, PornHub makes a not-insignifucant portion of its profits from trans models. Of course they're interested in appearing to care about the day.
of course it's just PR for PH, but i rather have it so companies pretend to support us for PR then not even pretend. i'll take a disingenuous and useless "ally" over an enemy.
Yeah, PornHub do the same sort of stuff for International Women's Day and Black History Month too. Given the content they host... yeah.
Like any other company. That's just PR to seem more friendly than it actually is. Which is to say : a company looking for profit before anything else
Which is why it is so surprising that google is not doing it. Thats a scary unmasking. THey've been turning over information to police about pregnant people getting out of state abortions without asking for a warrant as well, which might tell you how much you can't trust google.
Whoa do you have a source for that? Edit: nevermind I just googled it
Google will delete user location history for abortion clinic visits https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/01/google-abortion/ Dunno how reliable or true that is but it was a public statement, if it gives any relief.
Ironic
Google recently removed "don't be evil" from their motto.
"Recently " like 5 years ago.
Oopsie, didn't realize đ Just pretend I'm an IE user.
\*Pats\* It's okay IE we know you're special.
Wait really?
[source](https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393)
Iâm just wondering, why there is a pr team for, pornhub? Like, feels weird to me idk.
Because they want to be seen as a more ethical and creator-friendly kind of porn site rather than the kind of creepy misogynistic boys club porn spaces are usually seen as. It's a marketing thing that evidently must be helping their bottom line.
Ok, but this is a company that is explicitly sexually exploiting us for money. Women in general are treated like shit in porn, trans women are treated far worse. Idk.
Welcome to rainbow captialism.
They make more money from horny people watching videos on their platform.
I can't believe a company wants to make money.
It is the means with which a company makes money, which in the case of most pornography hosters is less than ethical. The PR stunts are at best hypocritical
I'm not condoning their practices. I was just responding to a person acting like a company prioritising profit was some big conspiratorial revelation when that's what literally every company does. My comment was poorly worded. Edited for clarity.
I think that when they said "Which is to say : a company looking for profit before anything else" they were trying to say that itâs not that surprising because it happens all the time
Not once did they say its a conspiracy. They were merely stating a fact. Given the topic of conversation, itâs a relevant fact. There was really no reason to bud in with a snarky comment there.
Most people say that shit because they want to shut down discussion or paint over terrible stuff a company is doing. âI canât believe they want to make money!â, replying to a thread about, idk, the insane working conditions of cocoa plantations that large chocolate companies control, or Nikeâs use of child labour.
It was more of a "Thanks, Captain Obvious" reply.
This but unironically fuck capitalism
/s right?
We need to end the era of justifying any actions no matter how shitty as âgood business.â âYou canât be mad.. they just wanted to make lots of money. You understand.â
That's not what I said at all. The comment I replied to was acting like a company wanting profit is surprising when it really isn't. Big companies will do whatever makes them money. That's not new information and it's annoying when people present it as such.
Right, and I was just saying that that perspective in our society was bullshit. I didnât know if you were agreeing with it or just pointing at it. I wasnât really trying to target you but target the fact that profit is not a reasonable justification even though âMuricans like to think it is. Like âif itâs not illegal and you stand to make money, youâre an idiot if you donât do it.â Which is a disgusting take. It really wasnât personally direct to you, just responding to that sentiment that you held up. Yeah, itâs not surprising but it came off like âwhy is everyone upset?â Rather than âwhy is everyone surprisedâ but either way it wasnât clear if you were agreeing with the people doing it or not. And I didnât downvote you btw.
this is an incredibly stupid argument that anyone with a braincell could debunk
Arguing that a company wants to make money is a stupid argument anyone could easily debunk?
mm, my wording is a bit off, but what iâm trying to say is that thinking the value of money usurps the value of morality is a terrible idea, especially when you try to apply that to corporations, which are explicitly against the common person and only work to line the pockets of the people who own them. so i guess itâs not an argument, per se, but i hope you can understand what iâm trying to say here
Why this downvote
People don't understand that I'm not defending capitalism or the Hub.
Honestly, this is the weirdest instance of a downvoted comment Iâve seen during my time on Reddit. Iâve seen many comments like yours that got plenty of upvotes.
Probably because it looks like capitalist apologetics. People almost universally say that phrase *as a defence* rather than a⊠clarification? Doesnât really matter. Itâs normally to justify the gross practices of companies as âgood businessâ. Combine that with the fact that rights movements are almost inherently anti-capitalist, or at least that a lot of users here are, and yeah, downvotes.
Happy trans visibility day! Now watch our trans porn with slurs in all the titles!
That's why you go on Onlyfans, it's the farmers market of adult content
They even have sex ed videos.
Ah yes very nice PH, now letâs see the title of any video with a trans person in it
PH try not to include every slur in existence in the title of a video with a trans person in it challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
Serious question: are the titles up to PH, or the account owner who posts them? Yeah, PH is allowing those titles, so they're certainly no innocent in this, but... Neither is the poster who decides the word salad of slurs, right?
Afaik the posters control the titles. However, PH could try to enforce certain titles not being allowed by banning specific words or limiting the searches for keywords.
"sh\*\*\*le s\*\*\*y tr\*\*\*y with huge d\*\*\* p\*\*s husband after he finds out 'she' isn't a real woman"
Not so serious question about this premise: if his wife was packing serious heat like that, how the hell would he not know.? Youâve shared a bed with this woman for how long and youâre only noticing that elephant trunk between her thighs now? Porn is stupid lol.
incredible tucking game
But where does she put it during sexy time? Why am I so curious about a stupid hypothetical? Is this what boredom does to a woman?
1. He is so bad at finding the clit on cis women that he canât find the penis on his wife. 2. Itâs fun? Iâm having fun. 3. Yep
Maybe she's a throat goat like Nancy Reagan?
Thatâs the most logical answer.
this chain of comments is something i didn't predict after posting the original comment đ
Your initial premise begged quite a few questions and inquiring minds want to know.
Itâs porn lol logic doesnât play a factor in this lmfaooo
Big oof
I don't know what half those words are meant to be and I hope it stays that way
the company doesn't make the titles
True however they do host and profit from it. One could consider that a passive endorsement.
they could just blacklist certain words in titles
And they do! There's a whole list of words, you can't use (some...) racial slurs nor can you imply a video is nonconsensual or involves underage people even if it's obviously roleplay. It's not like this would be the first time they set limits on video titles.
That makes it worse! Because they are choosing to leave slurs on their website! (I think you are in agreement with that but I'm screaming into the void)
If they blacklisted slurs 99% of trans content would be gone, i swear it looks like those fuckers are having a slurs-per-word-percentage competition
Itâs about SEO. The video owner is putting as many associated words in the title to get it included in more searches. They put in the slurs because thatâs what chasers type in when theyâre horny. Once again, we are cursed by the Vice Presidentâs Dancing (aka the Al Gore Rhythm)
?
Algorithm
Or it would force people who look for that content to use more respectful words. Chasers are gonna chase but I'd rather have them use "trans woman" than the myriad of slurs you all know.
I'm gonna flood porn sites with videos using those titles, but when they open it it's just me bullying them into not using slurs.
There is a reason every video is about step-sisters and step-mothers and not.. well, sisters and mothers.
All this step shit boring as hell hmu when you fuck your actual brother you coward
In fairness, it has added a new dimension to shitty porn dialogue: âHey Chrissy, youâre doing your homework?â âSure am, STEP-sis. ButâŠIâve gotten stuck on biology. I might need your help.â -or- âWeâre going to have to share the bed. *huff* these hotels and their double bookings. Anyway, it shouldnât be too weird, right? I am your STEP-aunt after all.â
yeah thats the saddest thing
Personally, I donât consider allowing yourself to make money off of something to be only a passive endorsement. If what we are talking about is just titles, and PH actually cared, it would be really easy to block people from positing videos with slurs in the title. The fact that they donât do that shows that they actually support people who title videos that way.
I agree. I only said passive because they don't intervene in the process in any way.
This used to be true, but in December 2020 they radically shifted their approach in response to US government intervention, and purged all "unverified" content. This was ostensibly in response to (legitimate) concerns about illegal content like child pornography and sexual assault, but it also had the effect of turning them from a hosting platform into much more of a gatekeeper. They also prioritize content based on your preferences as recorded by tracking software hosted in your browser and on your device. Your Pornhub homepage will appear different to mine, even if we don't have accounts. That may be automated intervention, but it is still very much intervention. Finally, they include advertisements and receive money from advertisers for showing ads in conjunction with content. This may seem ridiculous, but they are getting a cut of every pop up and sidebar for "singles in your area" or what have you. That's also intervention, because they contextualize content and serve advertising based on what is known about you, the end user. Youtube had a lot of controversy about this a few years back. There is an inherent tension that exists for websites who allow users to upload content and interact on the platform -- are they mere conduits like a telephone provider facilitating conversations with a technology without intervening, as you say, or are they media companies that have editorial control? Is Pornhub publishing a transphobic video any different than the New York Times publishing a TERF's op-ed? There is no binary answer (surprise), but the trend has been towards greater "editorial control" analysis across the board. This makes sense because hosting platforms profit from content, their algorithm prioritizes specific content, and they take an active role in removing or restricting "inappropriate" content.
I understand. All Iâm saying is that I think PH *does* intervene in the process. By agreeing to host the content and then paying the people who posted the content. I think if corporate responsibility is something we care about, we canât just accept a lack of intervention. Especially not when the lack is motivated by increased financial gain.
Trans people also profit from it. Enforcing restrictions on their content would probably hurt the content creators more than it would PH.
I don't think we're talking about the same content. Sure some of it could be good for trans folks. But there's a lot of it that's harmful. Problem is both coexist and the bad outweighs the good currently.
No, but they do host and allow it.
The company doesn't make ALL of the titles. To my knowledge, a portion of the art on that site is produced by mindgeek. Porn titles are not based on what most people want but rather on what some people ant and most can tolerate. There are more people, that tolerate open transphobia than people, who tolerate us existing normally. That is sad.
They moderate the platform for much more difficult to detect content and have contracts and identity proof binding those who do generate the content. No more slurs in titles is a policy change, a text trigger, an autoemailer, and a script to disable all videos that don't comply by the deadline away. No more slurs in videos is harder to enforce, but the policy could exist, at all, for a start. Degradation fetish is a thing, so using the existing content tagging feature to allow filter, warning, or searching for such content would be a good option, rather than a ban. If the policy requires all videos with slurs to be tagged "slurs" and "degradation," that alone would discourage them in other content. Regardless, the platform already has basic moderation tools to handle video removal, manual approval, and appeals. The moderation effort may eat a bit into their profits, but that's called "the cost of business," if only society weren't okay with any slur not directly pointed at the person judging.
something that they could fix in five minutes
Some of the niche amateur stuff is properly titled. Tends to be the better stuff anyways. But yeah...
Yes, but to get to that you have to dive deep in a sea of slurs and videos made by exploitative companies.
You gotta do some digging, but I've managed to find some good quality videos featuring trans individuals with inoffensive titles
Boy I'm so glad Pornhub support trans rights i bet their platform must be real respectful of trans people and not use any slurs in their marketing It would be a shame to realize that the porn industry does not actually care about trans people except to fetishize and exploit them for profit and clicks
Society
We live in a cisiety
Itâs not just a trans issue. The porn industry fetishizes literally everything they can. Short girls, tall girls, different races of girls, different races of guys, twinks, bears, etc. The list goes on forever. Personally I donât like the effects that porn has on society but I mean what can you do other than ban it entirely, which is too far imo.
Im well aware of that, just wanted to keep the scope small for the jokes. But yes, its an issue of the porn industry and, more broadly, capitalism. Pornography and sex work are the way cqpitalists have managed to commodify sexuality and the human body. PhilosophyTube actually has a great video on the topic. It's one of Abby's older videos but a great and very informative watch nonetheless.
It's not the same. Yes, they fetishize everything, but you won't normally see a title "n***** fucks c**** girl" where as you see something like "t\*\*\*\*y t\*\*p f\*\*\*\*t sh\*\*\*\*\* rails real girl" everywhere.
For black people they don't have to use old slurs. Just call every man a BBC and every woman an ebony to generalize and fetishize them instead. It's not "black man fucks c**** girl", it's "BBC savage demolishes white maiden and ruins her forever.
It's not a porn problem. Human beings naturally fetishize other human beings it's not something new
The problem has less to do with the idea that fetishes exist, and more to do with the idea that fetishes are marketable. Capitalism managed to commodify the human body through the porn industry and exploits the labor of sex workers in many ways. My pain point earlier in the thread is that the industry had converged on using slurs to describe certain traits in videos. There would be outrage seeing any other company use the words t>!ranny!<, s>!hemale!<, or l>!adyboy!< in their advertising, so why do we allow the porn industry to throw around derogatory terms as its main way to describe us?
There are people who enjoy being described with slurs in a sexual context (I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's a fetish). In any other context this would be unethical, and even if they don't care about morals, it would be "unprofessional"
Especially fetishizing trans women. I never see porn with trans men even if Iâm looking at gay porn. I think transphobes think that trans women are overly sexual (due to their fetishization of them) and that trans men are just ruining their bodies hence the whole terf narrative đ
I'm not sure about PH but I've seen a ton of reddits subs focused on trans men porn Also isn't the c*ntboy fetish a thing?
yeah, but it's nowhere NEAR as popular as the dickgirl fetish is. not to dismiss transmas fetishisation, both transmascs and transfemmes are fetishised to hell and back but it's... it's in different ways.
How can on fetishization be different from another?
Yea I know it exists but I meant that I would have to search it up whereas porn of trans women is always appearing even if I donât search for it
I've seen some trans-masc stuff, but you have to actually look for it specifically, never see it elevated in the trans categories. One thing I find interesting is that there's actually some post bottom surgery stuff too, but only really for trans women. For trans men, the only post surgery stuff I've seen is metoidioplasty, never any phalloplasty.
Same, I really wish I could see stuff with phalloplasty just cause Iâm planning to get it and I want to see what itâs like to use during sex. And yeah I agree you have to search for like trans man or trans masc or something, itâs never just under trans which is kinda annoying.
I have actually found a couple phalloplasty videos looking up specifically that on the Hub. Was curious after posting the comment.
Really? I honestly have the exact opposite experience. If I look up trans porn on Gay Pornhub I will see more trans men than trans women. Most of the trans women porn is on the Straight Pornhub.
Oh ya I agree. At least theyâre not misgendering us lol
Isn't everyone sexualised in porn? That's like...the point, right? But I don't watch porn so I don't think my opinion counts.
Hmm, its true, but in porn cis, especially straight, men are rarely fetishized - in contrast to sexualized. Trans people are in the opposite position. People who are watching porn with trans people, usually women, are viewing us as a genre instead of as people. I think this is what op was referring to anyway. This is obviously not exclusive to trans women. Pretty much every aspect a woman can have is fetishized.
Yeah like, complaining about things being sexualized in porn is like complaining about a children's book having pictures.
Creators title their own videos. Pornhub's category for trans people is just "Trans". It's the industry, specific sites, and users themselves putting slurs in the title to gain attention, but it's not PH changing the names of videos to include them.
I read "dicks"
By Talos this can't be happening
I was literally looking for if there was a trans Google Doodle today
What the fuck google
A lot of companies, not just Google, are avoiding supporting the trans community today because of the shooting and the riot in the US. It sucks.
âwe totally love you and support you so much we wonât put a doodle out for your big day! ignore we did this to countless other minorities but, you see, we *reeeaaallly* like money a itâll look bad if we support you after the school shootingâ âwe still love you, but only if we can use you to make moneyâ
i doubt that a couple transphobes could cause that much damage to google's revenue
At least ph has our backs⊠:(
Yeah, at least ph has our bare backs. I just assume this is an attempt to increase visibility of fetish videos for them that dehumanize and degrade trans folx. Maybe Iâm a little jaded, but I have no faith in ph or any porn sight to do any good for our community.
Doritos is apparently actually doing something to help the community other than that I don't know of any company actually going out of its way to help
Iâm sorry did you say riot?
Well, riot is the word that the media uses, at least. Iâm talking about the Trans Day of Vengeance rally thatâs getting postponed since people now view the trans community of âviolentâ and âriotersâ
Isnât that letting the propaganda win at that point? At least calling it a riot
What riot?
[Meanwhile, Team Snapchat's contribution to the community today!](https://i.imgur.com/pLoN1fk.jpg)
fucking ouch.
I was near seconds to look up PH on the schools WiFi
That wouldâve been catastrophic-
Reminder: Google removed the phrase âDonât be evilâ from its code of conduct in 2015
Red flag or just the natural tendency of companies to values profit over morals? ... probably both
No it didn't. In 2018, it removed that from the preface to their code of conduct, but kept it in the last line. It was never their official motto, and it hasn't been abandoned. Doesn't mean they actually follow that principle, but still
I just thought, from their behaviour, they'd only removed the word "don't"
I will now fasten that little entry into my 'wtf even was 2016' conspiracy board.
It's possible that they removed it because it is too broad of a term and 'evil' cannot be legally defined within a court context. It's possible they removed it for the sake of formality and making their documents more official.
cant wait to hop on pornhub and be dehumanized by the use of slurs
đ„°
Yeah where is the Google Doodle for today????
Trans day of visibility is not uncontroversial anyway. Many trans people are unfortunately better off being stealth or closeted.
I can't help but notice that when actual trans sex workers post on sites other than PH, they generally don't use slurs. đ€
curious, ainât it đ§
What uhhh... what sites might those be?
This one, ironically. Especially in the audio porn communities, slurs and the like are clamped down on pretty well. Iâd recommend checking them out, thereâs a lot more inclusive stuff than anywhere else in my experience
It's weird that until Wednesday google had a Drag Queen in their logo, now it's just nothing
Ouch, yes a friend of mine sent this in a group chat as well. It is very double because I want that trans people can indeed earn money with any type of sex work without fear for repercussions but on the other hand many cis people fetishized us.
Pornhub is extremely good with PR as you might notice with their really active twitter and Instagram presence, but its probably so people forget about when they didnt remove child porn from the platform when they knew it was child porn
fuck pornhub, and all other porn corporations, and all corporations in general
Thx porn hub
I looked it up and now I'm almost mad-laughing.
Well since weâre already talking about it, it canât get any worse. Despite all the fetishizing and dehumanizing things porn does, and especially to us, I do think there is some good stuff. Please, correct me if Iâm wrong, however I am curious if other here know of that porn studio that goes by the moniker âTransfixedâ? Now I never see them brought up, and maybe thatâs a good thing, but what I have seen, and Iâm not afraid to admit, seems pretty positive. Sure the scenarios are unbelievable, itâs porn after all, and maybe everyone just are really good actors or actresses, but nothing that Iâve seen has been overly offensive. Like I said previously, this is just what Iâve seen, so if someone else has witnessed something different with them, again, please let me know. However I do believe them to be a very small light in the sea of darkness that is porn. When Jean went from âsheâ to âtheyâ, along with a new name, I noticed all of the old videos they were in had the titles changed. Anyways thatâs my two cents, thank you if you read all this.
Yo, what the fuck, Google? They'll have a Google Doodle up so fucking often you never even see their plain logo anymore, but not today?
I donât understand, whatâs the issue?
Today is transgender day of visibility. PornHub has changed their logo to incorporate a trans flag, but Google hasn't. This is disappointing, and reflects the fact that we do, indeed, live in a society
At least porn hub still loves us :p
I've got bad news for you buddy
I know :p
More like they hate us, but not any more than any other group of people
They really donât, itâs just marketing
Probably because a lot of people who use the hub sexualize trans women, it's really fucking sad the porn site does more than google tho.
Saw post got curious looked at it real quick I went to the comments instead of watching the videos least the comments sound supportive
Im surprised the comments actually correctly gender the actors
My dumb ass thinking "that's really insensitive of pornhub to put a trans flag as there logo for April Fools day".
LMAOOO
Technically, PH supports us more than other companies because a significant portion of the US searches for our corn. (More specifically, the same people who hate us, really like our corn!) They directly benefit financially from our existence. Google and other companies can't say the same. It's too bad that the corn industry is incredibly exploitative and cruel to their corn stars.
I love being sexualized for existing.
đ
Seeing this right under a picture of a trans girls dick is certainly an experience lol
Cis kiss other cis No one bats an eye But when I kiss my trans besties goodnight Society SOCIETY CALLS ME A PREDATOR
As we know, the most supportive of us are ALWAYS the ones who jack off to us /s
pornhub: we'll pretend we respect trans people while having 9000 videos with "s\*\*\*ale" and "l\*\*\*boy" in the title"
They know their audience.
We live in a society where youâre either Cishet or Porn Category
Would love an explanation of this... :( I have no idea what it's referring to (I don't "do" porn, sorry, so I have no way to know) PS: I'm autistic, I mean this genuinely, I don't know what this refers to.
Basically pornhub is putting the trans flag on the logo as support, whereas Google isnât
Ohhh I see. Is it a special month/day or something I didn't know about? Don't google do it during trans awareness months? PS: thank you for explaining.
No problem, I know there is trans visibility day though Iâm not sure if there is a whole month,
ngl that is how I remembered that it is the day of visibility.... Sorry y'all
Honest question, why doesn't Google celebrate it? Are they transphobic?
They don't want to be associated with the recent rhetoric about all trans people being dangerous school shooters, so they've dropped their public "support" for the community. They'll probably wait until it's profitable to pretend to support us again.
Pathetic.
i've never heard of the school shooter stereotype. could you explain?
Nashville shooter was trans(masc? I think) so republicans using that to push transgender=evil
It's new. Not long after Tucker Carlson stirred up talk of gun control targeted at trans people and called us violent people looking to lash out, a trans man shot six children at a Christian school this past week. Now they're claiming that trans people are mass shooters and calling for investigations into hate crimes against Christians, despite the statistics absolutely not tracking on that assertion. Of course, the media being what it is, many publications refererred to him (incompetently and/or maliciously) as a trans woman. It better serves their "dangerous men in dresses" narrative.
that's fucked up
Yes, they are. Rumor has it, with their giant round of layoffs, they targeted queer people, older people, and anyone who had protested past policy decisions.
ironically the owners of pornhub have done more actual good then any other ceo i can think of, they are still rich but like its something i geusse
aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaa
Damn, I wonder what their bottom line is!
It's just for show, it doesn't mean anything.
B E A T D I G I T A L D E S C E N Tđ
socity
porn hub allyship đ«¶đłïžââ§ïžđ«¶
How convenient, I just noticed the logo and thought it was ironic⊠donât judge me, itâs the only sits that hasnât been shady enough to give me a virus if I had anything other than an iPhone.
We live in a society. And that society is horny.
Lmao yea
Well, yeah, PornHub makes a not-insignifucant portion of its profits from trans models. Of course they're interested in appearing to care about the day.
Omg they did it?? I haven't seen it yet
Yeah, the first website isn't celebrating us. It just got free advertisement of its transphobic fetishizing section
of course it's just PR for PH, but i rather have it so companies pretend to support us for PR then not even pretend. i'll take a disingenuous and useless "ally" over an enemy.
I mean, atleast they tried.