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/

archive: https://archive.ph/zQWt3#selection-593.0-609.599

  • Stuka@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s but one example, the term “boy toy” invalidates your whole paragraph.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      How often does that term come up in an industry widely known for raping men and full of other references to children such as “barely legal” “just turned 18” “jailbait” and so on? Tell me, is there a pattern in society of men being equated with children by people who disproportionately control the government and all levels of corporate and private society, combined with a long history of matriarchal thought that disenfranchises men of their rights?

      Again, no. Not even close. You clearly didn’t even read what I wrote, you read the first sentence thought “ha theres one example of women using boy in a sexual context, so that totally invalidates whatever nonsense she said in the rest of her comment”. Lazy, tired, and the same dismissal of women’s voices that always happens whenever this subject comes up.

      • Stuka@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Then frame your arguments better.

        This is all in reference to the terms girl and boy. You lost that bit so now you’re pivoting to counter arguments nobody has made. Have fun with that.

          • Stuka@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            And I won’t. I responded to the bits that were relevant to my argument and ignored the rest. If I wanted to debate the finer points of the porn industry I would have led with that.