Thread by @mikestabile

A lot of people are going to be watching "Money Shot" tonight. Many of the claims in the doc — especially those from the evangelical #traffickinghub campaign — are confusing or deceitful. If you're not familiar with the industry, here's what you need to know: 1/

The #traffickinghub campaign is not neutral. It is the byproduct of an evangelical ministry, International House of Prayer (IHOP!)) of Kansas City. Exodus Cry, the org behind the hashtag, emerged from an IHOP prayer session. 2/
thedailybeast.com/inside-exodus-…

#Traffickinghub is not IHOP’s first foray into morality politics.

The 2013 doc ‘God Loves Uganda' follows IHOP missionaries in Africa fueling the rhetoric that ultimately leads to Uganda's controversial ‘Kill the Gays’ law. hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-n…

Lately, Exodus Cry has tried to distance itself from IHOP, but that seems largely for optics. The founder and CEO, Benjamin Nolot, ties his work —largely antiporn, anti-sex worker — explicitly to Biblical values. movieguide.org/news-articles/…

This alone shouldn’t discount their claims. Unfortunately, they and other faith-based groups — like NCOSE, formerly Morality in Media, also heavily featured in Money Shot — have a nasty habit of conflating sex work and sex trafficking.

So in the doc when you hear Exodus Cry's Laila Mickelwait or NCOSE’s Dani Pinter making pitched claims about women being “trafficked” or the rape videos on PH, they are sometimes using these terms ... broadly. Because to them all porn is abuse and exploitation.

This blurring was central to Kristof’s “bombshell” column in @nytimes, in part because Mickelwait and Pinter were two of his main sources. Kristof declared PH “infested” with rape videos, but the evidence was often ... curious, like a link to what appears to be a BDSM video.

He claimed that “a search for “r*pe,” turns up 1,901 videos” — as if algorithmic search results are actual violence. Does this mean that illegal content never got past moderators? Of course not. But on a site with *millions* of videos, it was a lot of smoke.

(After it came out, Pinter and Mickelwait did a press tour, presenting the opinion piece, largely fed to Kristof by them, as an exposé — an actual piece of reportage. In Kristof's piece the were never identified as faith-based antiporn advocates, but concerned activists.)

This is not Kristof’s first foray into “sex trafficking” hysteria. In 2008, he breathlessly reported on Cambodian anti-trafficking advocate Somaly Mam who, it turned out, had made up large parts of her story, including lurid tales of teen brothels.
reason.com/2014/06/03/why…

But what to make of the *actual* claims? NCOSE's Pinter and former Trump lawyer Mike Bowe (the one with the hole in his shoe and all the Diet Cokes) claim that PH was not just negligent, but knowingly encouraged, distributed and profited from abuse material.

All of which are *serious* crimes, even with Section 230. If it were that clear cut, if Pinter/Mickelwait/Bowe have the evidence they claim, executives would have been charged.

But they haven’t. Bowe’s cases is a *civil* lawsuit for damages, claims yet unproven.

(No matter the veracity, the claims have been a moneymaker. Donations to NCOSE surged because of the #traffickinghub campaign, and their General Counsel told “Lawyers for Jesus” podcast he’s spreading the gospel … about of money in civil suits.)

Despite Bowe’s "Sopranos" filing, he presents no real evidence that anyone at PH tolerated, let alone encouraged or knowingly profited from CSAM. You can argue that moderation should have been stronger— as it should on Twitter or Facebook — but that’s quite different.

The lawsuit falls apart on close inspection. According to *his own filing* in the case of 30+ Jane Does — theoretically, his strongest cases — PH removed the content as soon as it was alerted to it. That’s quite different from what #Traffickinghub claims.

Moderation of user generated content is incredibly difficult. Bad actors constantly try to get around even the best systems. And they use not only adult sites but Skype and Dropbox and Snapchat and Facebook. As NCMEC rep points out, this is an internet problem, not a porn problem

I wish there had been more context for this in the doc. Because Pornhub — which verifies all uploaders and uses AI and human moderators to catch content before upload — does it better than almost any other site on the internet. But for #traffickinghub, it's never enough

So why the singular focus on one company and one industry? Why isn’t Mark Zuckerberg being accused of profiting from CSAM, when his site is responsible for over 20 million reports a year? thedailybeast.com/facebook-a-hot…

(Pornhub reports less than .005% of that — thanks to pre-moderation — with many caught before they ever appear on the site.) But again, why let facts get in the way of a religiously inspired moral panic.

The answer is because #traffickinghub campaigns are disingenuous. They are an effort by faith-based groups to criminalize adult content. We should all fight to end CSAM and stop revenge porn. But demonizing an industry — and the workers in it — isn’t the solution.

If you’re in the adult industry and want to help fight back, become a dues-paying member of @FSCArmy today. It’s not a lot of money, and your involvement is crucial in battling censorship, banking discrimination and dangerous legislation. freespeechcoalition.com

And just in case it wasn't clear — see @hillingers Money Shot. As someone not only in the fight but in the film, it does a great job of exposing these groups. But it doesn't have the space to do everything, or to combat every claim they made, so that's why I did it here.

The part where NCOSE lawyer Dani Pinter claims she's fighting @Pornhub because ... models were too reliant on the money they were making on the site is ... 🤌

(just to be clear, I absolutely think it's worth watching. While there are antiporners speaking in the doc, and making claims, it's balanced and quite pro-performer.)

The antis are BUZZING mad today. I expected them to react like I did: there are voices in the doc I agree with, and voices I don't, but overall I respect the decisions that @hillingers made.

But the slightest bit of criticism, the allowance of another voice has them OUTRAGED.

Which explains why Exodus Cry and Laila Mickelwait refused to sit for it—they only want to go where they can control the narrative. It's why they went with @NickKristof, and why they avoid spaces where they actually have to debate people who know (about) the business. Oof.

The faith-based "anti-trafficking" (read: antiporn) movement is only comfortable in binaries. Nuance is propaganda. Anyone who speaks out against them is "controlled" or "broken." The entire industry "must be destroyed." It's apocalpytic and dangerous. vice.com/en/article/n7b…