Thread by @dscnode

Siege thread, overview and analysis regarding the recent @mindgeek kerfuffle.
1/50

A crippling blow has just been dealt to the porn industry, and the long-term viability of the Web as a whole, and we have @LailaMickelwait to thank. Credit to her for achieving what I did not think likely - decimation of a huge portion of MindGeek's 'user-generated' content.
2/50

While I've been having a hearty laugh reading the impotent coomer rage that we are currently abound with (cc: @CoomersPostingL), further exploration of the situation, as well as what it entails outside of its immediate context, is warranted.

3/50

A quick timeline: it is the build up of the prior year of effort mainly from @Traffickinghub1 that has come to a head in the events of the last fortnight. Following @NickKristof's Dec 4 NY Times article, the movement was given a critical mass by which they reined down on PH.
4/50

The article covered the lax moderation of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) on the larger tube sites in general (and social media), with a particular focus to MindGeek's network. It also covered several cases of those personally victimised.
nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opi…
5/50

Kristof proposed 3 solutions for the problem: 1. Uploaders must be verified. 2. Downloads of videos is prohibited. 3. No more skimping on flagged content. The article soon hit the waves, and so began the reckoning of @Pornhub.
6/50

The armageddon didn't take long. Just 5 days after the article was published, ICE reported that Mastercard and Visa had suspended cardholders from making payments to Pornhub, in conjunction with the 'new' allegations.
reuters.com/article/us-por…

https://twitter.com/ICEgov/status/1337540168966922241

7/50

Deciding the most prudent option in the face of this investigation was going full 'shut it down' mode, Pornhub quickly deleted 80% of their content - or to put it another way, destroyed 10 million potential pieces of sex trafficking evidence.
pornhub.com/blog/11422
8/50

The next day (Dec 15), a complaint was filed in the Southern District of California on behalf of 40 Jane Does seeking $80m in damages as a result of Pornhub's partnership with GirlsDoPorn, which I briefly wrote about in June.

https://archive.today/2019.12.10-222220/https://twitter.com/dscnode/status/1204526624861020160

courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
9/50

In short, they allege the full complicity of MindGeek in GDP's sex trafficking operations, that they had tried to acquire GDP around 2018 when their State Court Action was pending, and that they had designed their internal policies to keep such illicit cases under wraps.
10/50

Dec 17, and the fallout continues to spiral. @FT's @patricianilsson releases an investigation into the network, uncovering Bernard Bergemar as the executive obscured by a complex corporate structure, plus financiers (@Cornell, $JPM & others) of MG.
archive.today/2020.12.17-053…
11/50

And if you're familiar with the infocalypse, this next progression won't surprise you: legislation. In the US, Merkley (D-OR) and Sasse (R-NE) propose S.5054 - a veritable nuclear option for the flourishing of Web pornography.
congress.gov/bill/116th-con…
merkley.senate.gov/news/press-rel…
12/50

The bill is effectively the logical output of the GDP case, evident in items like 3(a)(1)(B)(iii), which demands the intended geographical region for distribution of every *instance* of pornographic media to be explicitly consented to by everyone who appears in the media.
13/50

The significance here is that GDP usually told their victims their footage was only going to be distributed abroad (in e.g. Australia), without revealing their actual brand or their distribution partnership with Pornhub.
14/50

Otherwise, it sticks tightly to the recommendations brought by Kristof; demands for uploader verification, prohibitions on allowing downloads (seriously), and a combination of 'software', claimant hotlines, and deadlines to deter the uploading of non-consenting depictions.
15/50

Hassan (D-NH), Hawley (R-MO) & Tillis (R-NC) also introduced S.4994, criminalising the non-consenting distribution of "intimate" media (or, 'revenge porn').
congress.gov/bill/116th-con…
hassan.senate.gov/news/press-rel…
16/50

Hawley too introduced S.4983, imparting similar penalties upon platforms failing to expedite content removal. Key distinction with S.5054 is the obligation of a national database for non-consenting individuals in the latter.
congress.gov/bill/116th-con…
hassan.senate.gov/news/press-rel…
17/50

NYT (Dec 4) cites the EU's "ePrivacy Regulation" (ePR), highlighting the contention between the EU, leaning more towards 'user privacy' than 'totalist hellscape' on the censorship scale, and advocacy groups like @IWFhotline
nytimes.com/2020/12/04/tec…

https://twitter.com/LailaMickelwait/status/1338295386188914688

18/50

ePR repeals the ePrivacy Directive (ePD) of 2002, requiring member states to apply the regulations verbatim over the broader guidelines of the ePD - ostensibly bringing a 'modernisation' to the ePD, to align with GDPR rules.
ec.europa.eu/digital-single…
i-scoop.eu/gdpr/eu-epriva…
19/50

Proposed in 2017, the ePR (covering cookie notices, metadata etc.), is yet stalled by negotiation deadlocks. The new EECC (Dec 21) has thus pushed tighter ePD applications, and $FB suspended certain functionality as a result.
about.fb.com/news/2020/12/c… archive.is/HGKRY
20/50

In the UK, the extant Online Harms bill covers similar provisions. The current proposition expands the degree of content covered (e.g. 'extremist' material), and excludes punishments for the executives of platforms.
gov.uk/government/con…
theguardian.com/technology/202…
21/50

Also in the UK (and Ireland), MG were just dropped by their accounting firm, @GrantThorntonUK.
archive.today/2020.12.20-212…
22/50

Meanwhile in Canada, @EndSlaveryCA are pushing victims to come forward with further legal pressure, MG execs have been called to testify before a parliamentary committee, and further legislation is declared.
defenddignity.ca/wp-content/upl…

https://twitter.com/beynate/status/1337497552493666306

23/50

3 days after Kristof's article (Dec 7), @CandiceBergenMP raises the issue in Question Period to @MinJusticeEn @DavidLametti, who responded citing the government's "efforts to advance Canada's digital charter", and intent to examine 'gaps in the law'.

24/50

@mivillej's S-203, introduced in September, penalises the astoundingly-loosely-defined 'making explicit content available' to minors, mandates age ID tech, and compels the 'Internet service provider' to comply with restricting access to services.
parl.ca/DocumentViewer…
25/50

At least MindGeek aren't the only ones having an unlucky month. /hc/ anons now claim that, following the NYT article, @xhamstercom have not only taken Pornhub's lead in pulling the ability to download videos, but that they are also prohibiting uploads from unverified users.
26/50

Not to mention, @clips4sale has begun reforming their content categories to exclude certain themes, and Xvideos (WGCZ, a.s.) have started wiping their site of their GirlsDoPorn content. Seems like the tube sites are really beginning to feel the burn.

https://twitter.com/LailaMickelwait/status/1340166893030666241

27/50

But to pull it back, despite the apparent impetus for change Kristof & co. have created, plenty of us have been bringing light to these cases for years. It so bears asking, why has this change taken so long to come about?

https://twitter.com/dscnode/status/1064276900250599424

28/50

MindGeek and their affiliates have allegedly been coercing, deceiving and threatening both their own workers as well as whistleblowers for several years at least.

https://twitter.com/LailaMickelwait/status/1339298910989271041

29/50

And let's not forget when a former Reality Kings worker claimed a colleague (likely @LilithShayton and / or @VanessaPhoenix) had been recruited into the industry by a scout who sought her out from "a party" prior to her turning 18.

30/50

All that said, the sudden change of heart of parliament et al. should be considered from multiple angles. An anon on /pol/ offers a practical explanation: Pornhub is being wilfully sacrificed to aid in the transmutation of the market.
31/50

Taken superficially, citizen privacy erosion carries its own political benefits, assuming you're the one enacting it. Leaving aside the potential corruption element, which is certainly possible (ask @nickshaxson, these people all run in close circles), what is to be gained?
32/50

Addressing the proposals, as the word 'bipartisan' should always give you worry upon hearing it, these laws heighten the [financial] barriers to distribution, centralising platforms and so, points of possible surveillance. Applications for blackmail and control are clear.
33/50

The public reaction in Canada has been of note (indicating all the above motives), and the backlash even provoked a response from Trudeau. Kristof recently reflected upon the situation on @TheTakeaway.

https://twitter.com/cindygallop/status/1341760460014628866

34/50

Hilariously, @JPTasker of @CBC, in citing @mivillej's case for regulation, uses in his article the example of @ageidofficial, a service being operated by MindGeek, as an alternative to the evils of Pornhub.
ageid.com/why-ageid
cbc.ca/news/politics/…
35/50

If this arrangement sounds like some 'fox guarding the hen house' shit, it's because it is. This was understood by @OpenRightsGroup when they confronted the UK's 'AV' proposal of 2017, before they pivoted to Online Harms.
archive.is/eGCXU
openrightsgroup.org/blog/the-gover…
36/50

While it would be understandable for Facebook to kvetch at the prospect of restricted monitoring of private correspondence on their site, for MindGeek, it would not. FB's revenue depends on a more holistic view of user activity, and dampening any of that would harm them.
37/50

MindGeek however, merely need to correlate the jumps between identical (from a CMS perspective) pages of content, and extras like channel follows or bookmarked videos / playlists. But MG are still a major analytics company, no doubt cognizant of potential market gains here.
38/50

The persistent browser sessions (most likely via cookies) that AV would inevitably require for this are the perfect excuse for that. A legal mandate for this is kind of like parliament demanding that all future clothing and fashion items must contain at least three stripes.
39/50

To MindGeek, sacrificing some potential traffic for the far greater breadth of data points to then model consumer trends is worth it. Further, if their major competitors decide to follow the same route (can someone say 'anti-competitive'?), they shan't even lose much of it.
40/50

Following of course is the ever-expanding justification for eroding all traces of privacy on the Web. Considering the powerful political and corporate parties effecting this case from all ends, the gains on the CFR etc. side should be clear to see (*cough* copyright suits).
41/50

However, whether Kristof's report and the resultant fallout was as 'organic' as presented (and there would be historical precedent to support the case it wasn't), the wheels have nonetheless already been set in motion for anonymity and publishing on the Web.
42/50

But the actual purpose of this thread is to view this December madness through the lens of the Web Siege I described in July, contending that the death of the WWW must be accelerated in order to force changes in distribution technologies.
twitter.com/i/events/12805…
43/50

As MindGeek's Hannukah celebrations were being tragically cut short, Kristof turned his attention towards Xvideos, confident as I that they will be just as susceptible to the pressure to implement the same measures.

https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1336417224022757381

44/50

From the Siege perspective, this means the porn 'tubes' are likely to axe a major portion of their uploaded content, and restrict any further uploads of it. This will reflect as massive opportunity cost for tube sites in general, which make up a huge portion of WWW traffic.
45/50

Practically, this means an untapped market advantage for distributed video services. For the libertarian-minded concerned about the technical censorship of Web platforms, these events come as a blessing in disguise. So it goes for all Web services.
46/50

To this end, anti-Web legislative pushes are a large net benefit for us. Even at the most draconian extent, which in this case would be @mivillej's bill, where platforms would be held as individually liable for content as an average peer currently would under a UIDX system.
47/50

§ 230 repeal would cement this in the US, hiking costs for Web publishing startups. And luckily, Biden wants to revoke it, Trump wants it to be a stipulation of the 'relief' bill, and Sanders will filibuster to get it through.

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1343928530435002368

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1343998076084748288

48/50

@senatemajldr has even just tied it to the $2k cheques in a new addendum to the bill. I hope that Web administrators are ready to be crushed under DMCA and COPPA rulings just as we have been.
beta.documentcloud.org/documents/2043…
theverge.com/2020/12/29/222…
49/50

And for us who can't afford or don't desire that, migration to UIDX solutions, wherein there is far too much redundancy to ever be presented with a realistic threat of censorship. Behind us, the search engines, multimedia and 'social' platforms of old, begin their collapse.
50/50