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/
It's not about piling your sins on a scapegoat, it's about being realistic. One CANNOT live ethically if you consider the sins of whatever company they're buying from the sins of the consumer.
The broader goal of saying there's no ethical consumption under capitalism is saying, "hey this system is flawed, and we're all perpetuating it. Let's acknowledge that so we can work together better it."
I have seen this argument a few times lately but I'm not sure i understand it completely.
Is the argument that person 1 trades with company 1 which is seemingly run ethically. Company 1 trades with company 2, 2 with 3 etc.
And then eventually company x trades with x+1 which is some human rights breaking company. And then all seemingly ethical companies have this link or trail of trade partners which eventually end up at some unethical company?
Pretty much. The idea is that capitalism forces companies to create goods at the cheapest possible price. Eventually, this means the company will rely on outsourcing labor to a country with less-than-stellar human rights conditions. For instance, we all know how shit most Chinese factory labor conditions are. Now think of just how many things you find are "made in China" stamped.
At the most undeniable level there's that. You can also take the approach that any kind of profit that a company is making, they're only making off the labor of their workers. That profit, thus, should belong to them, not the capital owners. This position is a bit tougher to argue, but it's also valid.
Alright, that makes sense, thanks for the info :)
No problem, friend. I'm not an expert by any stretch, but any further questions, I'll do my best to answer them.