Porn site XTube is shutting down as parent MindGeek faces lawsuit

midian182

Posts: 7,150   +63
Staff member
In brief: XTube, one of the first adult site to allow users to upload and share pornographic videos, is shutting down on September 5, thirteen years after it was founded. While no reason for the closure has been given, it's speculated that the legal problems faced by parent MindGeek influenced the decision.

Pornhub and its parent MindGeek have been embroiled in controversy since a damning New York Times report last December alleged the site was profiting from non-consensual videos, including those showing rape and child abuse. It led to the site stopping unverified uploads, Mastercard and Visa cutting ties with MindGeek, and Pornhub later added new safety measures that include verification by a third-party company for uploads.

Last month saw thirty-four women sue MindGeek for allegedly being "one of the largest human trafficking ventures in the world," and "likely the largest non-regulatory repository of child pornography in North America." The civil complaint claims it is a classic criminal enterprise run "just like the Sopranos."

As reported by TNW, XTube's announcement that it will shutter on September 5 makes no reference as to why. A likely reason is that it is hosting illegal, user-uploaded content, and closing the site is easier than facing another lawsuit. Laila Mickelwait, founder of the #Traffickinghub anti-trafficking and sexual abuse movement, believes this to be the case.

MindGeek owns dozens of porn websites, including Pornhub, RedTube, Tube8, and YouPorn, along with adult production companies and brands. It brings in 3.5 billion views per month. A recent survey showed PornHub was one of the most popular ways people in the UK got through last year's lockdown.

Permalink to story.

 

ZedRM

Posts: 631   +395
I say good riddance. People need to find better things to do with their time and money. Buying into what amounts to organized crime is just not what anyone should want to be involved in...
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 5,286   +6,011
I say good riddance. People need to find better things to do with their time and money. Buying into what amounts to organized crime is just not what anyone should want to be involved in...


The entire history of porn has been wrought with crime - both organized and not.

Appreciate it for what it is.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 5,286   +6,011
Well thank Goodness we've all (men) dedicated at least one Hard Drive, SSD or flash drive to saving the "best of the best" just in case any of these sites run afoul of the law.

Some day, far into the future, that drive may become worth its weight in Gold.
 

ZedRM

Posts: 631   +395
The entire history of porn has been wrought with crime - both organized and not.

Appreciate it for what it is.
Wait, you're saying we all need to "appreciate" the criminal exploitation and victimization of women & children?!? What the hell is wrong with you?
 
Last edited:

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,104   +2,092
While I have no objection to stopping criminal behavior and even technically legal exploitation and there's plenty of that on the porn and sex work industry, the issue is that these efforts are usually thinly veiled cristian fundamentalist groups that just want a puritanical society.

Sex work is work: both pornography and prostitution needs to be not only decriminalized but fully legalized and without any stigma because that's the only way to properly work against the incursion of exploitation while accepting that mostly women but people in general have a right to do with their bodies as their please for any reason as long as they have not only consent but proper agency and that means control over when and where and for how long they sell their work if they choose to.
 

Xex360

Posts: 154   +220
While I have no objection to stopping criminal behavior and even technically legal exploitation and there's plenty of that on the porn and sex work industry, the issue is that these efforts are usually thinly veiled cristian fundamentalist groups that just want a puritanical society.

Sex work is work: both pornography and prostitution needs to be not only decriminalized but fully legalized and without any stigma because that's the only way to properly work against the incursion of exploitation while accepting that mostly women but people in general have a right to do with their bodies as their please for any reason as long as they have not only consent but proper agency and that means control over when and where and for how long they sell their work if they choose to.
Weirdly it is legal and acceptable to become a terrorist (join US, Russian... And most other countries militaries) and kill innocents but not sex work.
 

pelopidas

Posts: 35   +59
While I have no objection to stopping criminal behavior and even technically legal exploitation and there's plenty of that on the porn and sex work industry, the issue is that these efforts are usually thinly veiled cristian fundamentalist groups that just want a puritanical society.

Sex work is work: both pornography and prostitution needs to be not only decriminalized but fully legalized and without any stigma because that's the only way to properly work against the incursion of exploitation while accepting that mostly women but people in general have a right to do with their bodies as their please for any reason as long as they have not only consent but proper agency and that means control over when and where and for how long they sell their work if they choose to.
While you try to structure your argument as rational and appeal to the free market in order to eliminate corruption and exploitation, you at the same time malign people for wanting to do the same. But because they have moral arguments and you have market arguments, you belittle and stereotype them.
Do you spend much time considering the damage this industry does to those who are in it? Do you spend time with the psychological literature examining the statistics showing that overwhelming percentages of those poor girls who get sucked into this have a history of sexual abuse?
You want this to be stigma free? You’think that a society that is completely amoral is the solution to all problems?
It is for lack of moral outrage and indignation that this perverse generation tolerates and consumes the destruction of lives and souls for their own gratification.
To me this is no different than slavery of old. Sure you wave your choice and agency flag but I look at it from the perspective of the perpetrator and not the victim. Both the Master and the Pornographer makes his money off the dehumanization of others.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,104   +2,092
While you try to structure your argument as rational and appeal to the free market in order to eliminate corruption and exploitation, you at the same time malign people for wanting to do the same. But because they have moral arguments and you have market arguments, you belittle and stereotype them.
Do you spend much time considering the damage this industry does to those who are in it? Do you spend time with the psychological literature examining the statistics showing that overwhelming percentages of those poor girls who get sucked into this have a history of sexual abuse?
You want this to be stigma free? You’think that a society that is completely amoral is the solution to all problems?
It is for lack of moral outrage and indignation that this perverse generation tolerates and consumes the destruction of lives and souls for their own gratification.
To me this is no different than slavery of old. Sure you wave your choice and agency flag but I look at it from the perspective of the perpetrator and not the victim. Both the Master and the Pornographer makes his money off the dehumanization of others.
Actually you're not entirely incorrect, except about the angle: I don't make it an appeal to a "Free market" since all "free markets" are entirely exploitative in nature.

When I talk about "Sex work is work" it is from a Socialist point of view of work and labor and how sex workers should be entirely in control of the means of production and product of their labor which is basically impossible under Capitalism ultimately, but having no "Porn industry" would be an improvement, and not leaving vulnerable people up to the whims of criminal organizations that inevitably control prostitution would again be a set above what we currently have which is hypocritical: Sex work cannot just be eliminated and arbitrary restrictions are patriarchal in nature and definitively just create a structural problem that makes it extra easy to exploit sex worker as they don't even had the very limited protection other Capitalist workers have: they're basically a step above slavery and not surprisingly, literal slaves on many places still.
 

pelopidas

Posts: 35   +59
Actually you're not entirely incorrect, except about the angle: I don't make it an appeal to a "Free market" since all "free markets" are entirely exploitative in nature.

When I talk about "Sex work is work" it is from a Socialist point of view of work and labor and how sex workers should be entirely in control of the means of production and product of their labor which is basically impossible under Capitalism ultimately, but having no "Porn industry" would be an improvement, and not leaving vulnerable people up to the whims of criminal organizations that inevitably control prostitution would again be a set above what we currently have which is hypocritical: Sex work cannot just be eliminated and arbitrary restrictions are patriarchal in nature and definitively just create a structural problem that makes it extra easy to exploit sex worker as they don't even had the very limited protection other Capitalist workers have: they're basically a step above slavery and not surprisingly, literal slaves on many places still.
I am pleased that we agree on how awful this industry is. There are two points that I would challenge you on though (does not relate to this industry). The first is that socialism guarantees production and labor rights to the individual. Under socialism, the means of production belong to the state (or the oligarchy if properly understood).
the second is that patriarchy is not actually a valid criticism since it is just a label which CRTers like to attach to anything they don’t like. For instance “arbitrary restrictions” is the patriarchy. I’m sure puritanical banning would be the patriarchy. I’m sure the industrial exploitation of women is the patriarchy. So if everything is the patriarchy… we’ll.. then nothing is. If patriarchy would actually mean “rule by fathers” then the banning of the exploitation of vulnerable women would be the patriarchy. Those benefiting from that exploitation would be the Incel. So perhaps we should be pointing at the Incelarchy with their pants around their ankles as the root of many problems and not the patriarchy.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,104   +2,092
I am pleased that we agree on how awful this industry is. There are two points that I would challenge you on though (does not relate to this industry). The first is that socialism guarantees production and labor rights to the individual. Under socialism, the means of production belong to the state (or the oligarchy if properly understood).
the second is that patriarchy is not actually a valid criticism since it is just a label which CRTers like to attach to anything they don’t like. For instance “arbitrary restrictions” is the patriarchy. I’m sure puritanical banning would be the patriarchy. I’m sure the industrial exploitation of women is the patriarchy. So if everything is the patriarchy… we’ll.. then nothing is. If patriarchy would actually mean “rule by fathers” then the banning of the exploitation of vulnerable women would be the patriarchy. Those benefiting from that exploitation would be the Incel. So perhaps we should be pointing at the Incelarchy with their pants around their ankles as the root of many problems and not the patriarchy.
I am ok with discussing some of the finer points so to that

1) I don't disagree about what happens under a State. If I refer to Socialism I mean that in an ideological objective way as in, a true Stateless society. So do not take that as endorsement of Socialist States as I believe there's better ways to achieve a Stateless society than imposing a transitory State that well, never really goes away or justifies itself while becoming the new authority with little or nothing changed except the names of the people in charge (And even then just some of them)

2) Patriarchy can also be a contested concept in the modern world but I don't agree that it has no relevance here since I do mention things like cultural stigma and that can exist entirely without a State reinforcing patriarchal rule with just social norms and ostracizing people stepping out of that implied social authority of men over women as acceptable. Plus we should mention that organizing societies around just the mode of production is a relatively new invention and for the majority of history, the structure dictated by Kings and Religious leaders still was as rigid and functioned in the same way our modern States and their laws function: if Prostitution if the world's oldest profession is because men historically have always used many excuses to control women's sexuality: Religion, Feudal authority and now State authority that it's even to this day, informed by the religious institutions of the past.

However if you find all to be too complex the economical view is sufficient up until the point conservative voices start introducing moral arguments about what should be allowed which is sadly, very often the case with sex work.
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,864   +797
You could make a law I suppose that any revenue limits all revenue to at 80% to the performer(s), 10%tax revenue and 10% to an agency if the performer seems it appropriate. It's a shot of splatter at the wall, but it may be worth a try to stem organized exploitation of performers. Capitalism and socialism are really mostly buzzwords for who's in charge. Corporations work well for some things, but the more the people can work for themselves, the better. Like little markets.
 

pelopidas

Posts: 35   +59
I am ok with discussing some of the finer points so to that

1) I don't disagree about what happens under a State. If I refer to Socialism I mean that in an ideological objective way as in, a true Stateless society. So do not take that as endorsement of Socialist States as I believe there's better ways to achieve a Stateless society than imposing a transitory State that well, never really goes away or justifies itself while becoming the new authority with little or nothing changed except the names of the people in charge (And even then just some of them)

2) Patriarchy can also be a contested concept in the modern world but I don't agree that it has no relevance here since I do mention things like cultural stigma and that can exist entirely without a State reinforcing patriarchal rule with just social norms and ostracizing people stepping out of that implied social authority of men over women as acceptable. Plus we should mention that organizing societies around just the mode of production is a relatively new invention and for the majority of history, the structure dictated by Kings and Religious leaders still was as rigid and functioned in the same way our modern States and their laws function: if Prostitution if the world's oldest profession is because men historically have always used many excuses to control women's sexuality: Religion, Feudal authority and now State authority that it's even to this day, informed by the religious institutions of the past.

However if you find all to be too complex the economical view is sufficient up until the point conservative voices start introducing moral arguments about what should be allowed which is sadly, very often the case with sex work.
Interesting.
I am not familiar with the new usage of socialism, since it has always meant that mythical transitional period between capitalism and communism. (Communism being that Shangri-La that you describe as a stateless society where people do not have any harmful impulses and are not ruled by lust and greed and stupidity). I call it mythical because for some reason states never seem to get beyond it, except in name only, like the Chi-coms. Even the Russians only called themselves socialists.
The libertarians are also seeking this end, just by another way. Regardless of definition, I am genuinely curious about how this would play out. With stateless, do you mean, no Mayor, no City council, no police, no courts, no DOT, no agencies overseeing welfare, no OSHA, no EPA etc.. Is this correct? Just everyone living happily in the state of nature? Or, do you mean the end of nation-states, and everyone subject to one all-encompassing global governance?

Concerning Patriarchy, I think that merely saying that prostitution has always been frowned upon by previous and ancient modes of governance equates to the nefarious hand of the patriarchy and that conservatives muddy the discussion by introducing "morals" misses the point. It seems to me that sexuality was regulated for the same reasons that murder, theft and perjury are regulated. It is not victim-less. Why not criticize the prohibition of murder as antiquated, moralistic, conservative, religious and puritanical? Why is the moral injunction against it not invalid? Why would a patriarchy that you describe as existing for the purpose of men dominating women not embrace dominating weaker men?
Obviously a King had no such compunctions. Caligula killed and humped whom he would. What kind of injunction can we place on him except a moral one? Hitler and the Nazis killed and stole. They stole all the art and valuables from everywhere. What argument can we make except a moral one? The Japanese and Russians raped those they conquered like it was going out of style and what can we say about that? If we do not have moral arguments then it is all just economics. The only constant is power. Those with power tend to abuse it if not governed by something transcendental to that power.
But you say that all previous forms of governance were informed by religion. I agree, and would add that atheism is a religion that informs the morality of states too. The soviets and the chi-coms consider themselves atheistic. (The nazis were indo-nordic pagans and the north-koreans worship the dear leader as god so these two socialist states are not included) and yet they operated from a morality formed by their ideology. They have their own right and wrong, obviously, otherwise they would not have killed so many transgressors of their morality.
Every state is ultimately a theocracy, the question is merely, which Theo is worshiped.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,104   +2,092
Interesting.
I am not familiar with the new usage of socialism, since it has always meant that mythical transitional period between capitalism and communism. (Communism being that Shangri-La that you describe as a stateless society where people do not have any harmful impulses and are not ruled by lust and greed and stupidity). I call it mythical because for some reason states never seem to get beyond it, except in name only, like the Chi-coms. Even the Russians only called themselves socialists.
The libertarians are also seeking this end, just by another way. Regardless of definition, I am genuinely curious about how this would play out. With stateless, do you mean, no Mayor, no City council, no police, no courts, no DOT, no agencies overseeing welfare, no OSHA, no EPA etc.. Is this correct? Just everyone living happily in the state of nature? Or, do you mean the end of nation-states, and everyone subject to one all-encompassing global governance?

Concerning Patriarchy, I think that merely saying that prostitution has always been frowned upon by previous and ancient modes of governance equates to the nefarious hand of the patriarchy and that conservatives muddy the discussion by introducing "morals" misses the point. It seems to me that sexuality was regulated for the same reasons that murder, theft and perjury are regulated. It is not victim-less. Why not criticize the prohibition of murder as antiquated, moralistic, conservative, religious and puritanical? Why is the moral injunction against it not invalid? Why would a patriarchy that you describe as existing for the purpose of men dominating women not embrace dominating weaker men?
Obviously a King had no such compunctions. Caligula killed and humped whom he would. What kind of injunction can we place on him except a moral one? Hitler and the Nazis killed and stole. They stole all the art and valuables from everywhere. What argument can we make except a moral one? The Japanese and Russians raped those they conquered like it was going out of style and what can we say about that? If we do not have moral arguments then it is all just economics. The only constant is power. Those with power tend to abuse it if not governed by something transcendental to that power.
But you say that all previous forms of governance were informed by religion. I agree, and would add that atheism is a religion that informs the morality of states too. The soviets and the chi-coms consider themselves atheistic. (The nazis were indo-nordic pagans and the north-koreans worship the dear leader as god so these two socialist states are not included) and yet they operated from a morality formed by their ideology. They have their own right and wrong, obviously, otherwise they would not have killed so many transgressors of their morality.
Every state is ultimately a theocracy, the question is merely, which Theo is worshiped.
Sorry but I would never get on board with equiparating what consenting adults do with each other to murder, have fun but I'm out, don't bother replying.