Thread by @mikestabile

Just spent my Saturday morning going through the suit against Mindgeek (what fun!)

Went through all 33 Jane Does, and in almost every account, Pornhub removed the revenge or CSAM content as soon as they were made aware. They didn't wait for verification, they took it down.

When they didn't remove It immediately, it was because the person didn't have a link, or there was a model release. In one case, they even took down a video after the person lied and said she was a minor at the time of filming.

This is in such stark contrast to the rest of the complaint, which — without citing any evidence — says that Pornhub absolutely ignores reports and actively uploads illegal content on its own.

But when they actually have to show their cards, it's a bluff.

It's the same when they invoke stories of non-consensual videos on the site. Their disclaimer is one for the ages.

"These videos are definitely or likely not consensual, and even if they are, who's to say?! Most probably aren't, anyway."

Editor's note: In a lot of cases, you can actually look up and see the videos and find out that they're studio productions with model releases and 2257 records.

But why bother, when you can use weasel descriptors like "apparently or obviously underage"

There's lots more in this suit, of course — wild allegations of sex trafficking, fraud, pimps, money laundering, secret servers — which I assume they throw in because the central complaint is so weak.

Just like this QAnon teaser!

Worth pointing out that some of these incidents date back to 2010 — and they STILL can't find one where the can show Pornhub acted particularly irresponsibly. Not saying nothing bad ever happened, but this is a real "Where's the beef?" moment.

Remember, these Jane Does are accusing Pornhub of "participating in a venture" with their sex traffickers. That Pornhub knew they were trafficked and ignored it so they could benefit financially.

Unless they can prove that, Pornhub is protected by Section 230.