Connect with us

Business

Pornhub Will Ban Uploads From Unverified Users After New York Times Exposé

Published

on

  • Pornhub is banning all uploads from unverified users, instead only allowing them from content partners and members of its Model program.
  • It’s also blocking all downloads of content, with the exception of paid downloads within its verified Model program, and launched a new team to look for potential content violations on videos that have already been uploaded.
  • Pornhub says it made the decision after an independent review it launched in April, aimed at eliminating illegal content on the site. However, it actually comes days after an explosive NYT report about videos of child sexual assault on the site that Pornhub allows and profits off of.
  • It also comes after Visa and Mastercard promised to investigate and potentially end their relationships with Pornhub’s Canada-based parent company, MindGeek. The site also drew criticism from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Pornhub’s New Changes

Pornhub announced sweeping changes Wednesday, including a ban on uploads from unverified users, in an effort to prevent illegal content from spreading on its site.

The change to its upload policy is major for a platform that has built itself on non-professional uploads.

In an official statement it released online, the company explained that uploads can now only be made by content partners and members of Pornhub’s Model program. However, the company said it plans to roll out a broader verification process for regular users sometime next year.

Additionally, Pornhub said its blocking downloads of content effective immediately, with the exception of paid downloads within its verified Model program. 

The site also announced an additional layer of content moderation efforts that work alongside the manual and AI tools it already uses. For instance, the company has formed a “Red Team,” which is dedicated to “proactively sweeping content already uploaded for potential violations and identifying any breakdowns in the moderation process.”

Finally, it pledged to publish its first transparency report in 2021, which details the results of its moderation from the previous year.

Changes Follow Allegations of Child Abuse on the Platform

Pornhub attributed these policy changes to an independent review that it launched in April, aimed at eliminating illegal content on the site.

However, what Pornhub didn’t say is that the move actually comes just days after an explosive op-ed from The New York Times.

That report highlighted a number of young girls who appeared in videos on the site without their consent. For instance, it points to the story of a missing 15-year-old whose mother found her after the teen appeared in 58 sex videos. Another 14-year old’s sexual assaults were allegedly found on the site and were reported to authorities by a fellow classmate. 

One exploited victim was quoted saying, “Pornhub became my trafficker,” after she was trafficked by her adoptive parents and forced to appear in pornographic videos when she was as young as 9.

In some cases, even after videos were flagged and removed, downloaded copies continued to circulate and bring these victims more harm. 

Though offenders are sometimes arrested for these assaults, the writer, Nicholas Kristof, notes that Pornhub escapes all responsibility for sharing and profiting off them. While Pornhub has made some attempts to fight off this type of content, Kristof claimed that they dragged their feet for a long time and aren’t really doing enough.

Expose Prompts Outrage and Investigations

In the wake of the article, Pornhub’s business partners faced a ton of pressure to cut ties with them, with many saying they too were profiting off abuse.

Payment processors like Visa and Mastercard promised to investigate and potentially end their relationships with Pornhub’s parent company, MindGeek. 

Since MindGeek is a Canadian based business, the country’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, expressed concerns about what was written in the piece. In fact, he pledged to work with police and security agencies to address sex trafficking and child pornography.

Pornhub and MindGeek, for their part, denied the allegations and said they were committed to combating this type of illegal material. However, they ultimately announced these new changes, perhaps to combat the growing outrage.

In response to this, the Times reporter who published the exposé tweeted about the new policies.

“A great deal depends on how responsibly Pornhub implements these, and it hasn’t earned my trust at all, but these seem significant,” Kristof said.

A great deal will also depend on whether past content, already on the site, is vetted or removed,” he continued.

Still, Kristof emphasized that continued monitoring and pressure will be necessary and added that this lens should be widened to other porn hosting companies.

He also later noted that according to Pornhub, the policies will apply to all MindGeek sites. For reference, MindGeek owns more than 100 websites, production companies, and brands.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Verge) (BBC)

Business

Apple Raises Worker Pay as Unions Gain Ground

Published

on

The company’s vice president of people and retail was caught trying to dissuade employees from unionizing in a leaked video.


Labor Squeezes Apple into Submission

Apple announced Wednesday that its U.S. corporate and retail employees will see a pay increase later this year, with starting wages bumped from $20 per hour to $22, though stores in certain regions may get more depending on market conditions.

Starting salaries are also expected to increase.

“Supporting and retaining the best team members in the world enables us to deliver the best, most innovative, products and services for our customers,” an Apple spokesman said in a statement. “This year as part of our annual performance review process, we’re increasing our overall compensation budget.”

Some workers were told their annual reviews would be moved up three months and that their pay increases would take effect in early July, according to a memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Furthermore, they were told the increased compensation budget would be in addition to pay increases and special awards already received within the past year.

Feeling squeezed by low unemployment and high inflation, tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have changed their compensation structures in recent weeks to pay workers more, and Apple is the latest to bend to market pressure.

Unions Gaining Traction

On Wednesday, The Verge received a leaked video of Apple’s vice president of people and retail, Deirdre O’Brien, explicitly dissuading employees from unionizing.

“I worry about what it would mean to put another organization in the middle of our relationship,” she said. “An organization that does not have a deep understanding of Apple or our business. And most importantly one that I do not believe shares our commitment to you.”

She vocalized more anti-union talking points, like the idea that the company will not be able to make important decisions as quickly with a collective bargaining agreement.

O’Brien has been personally visiting retail stores over the past few weeks in an apparent bid to combat budding union activity.

Apple stores in three locations — New York, Georgia, and Maryland — are currently pushing to unionize, with the latter two set to vote in elections on June 2 and 15, respectively. In response to these efforts, Apple has hired anti-union lawyers, given managers anti-union scripts, and held anti-union captive audience meetings.

In the United States, unionized workers make about 13.2% more than non-unionized workers in the same sector, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

As of Wednesday, Apple’s shares had fallen 21% since the start of the year, but sales grew 34% last year to almost $300 billion.

See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (CNBC) (The Verge)

Continue Reading

Business

Employees at Activision Blizzard’s Raven Software Form First Union at a Major Gaming Company

Published

on

Organizers say the decision has the potential to upend labor practices in the gaming industry.


Raven Software QA Testers Win Union Bid

A group of 28 workers at Activision Blizzard subsidiary Raven Software voted to form the first-ever union at a major U.S. gaming company. 

While the Game Workers Alliance is a small union, organizers in the space say its formation represents a major shift for the gaming industry and will encourage others in the sector to follow suit.

The newly unionized workers are quality insurance (QA) testers working at the Wisconsin-based studio to develop “Call of Duty.” QA testers work to sort out any glitches in games, and the jobs are notoriously known for extreme crunch periods where staffers work long stretches of hours before a game’s release.

During crunch periods, employees are regularly given 12- to 14-hour shifts with just a few days off each month in order to meet release deadlines.

Many QA testers have said they are treated as second-class to others in the industry. They are paid much lower — often minimum wage or close to it — work on contract cycles and, as a result, feel disposable.

That particular sentiment was underscored for workers at Raven Software in December when the company ended the contracts of about a dozen QA testers. The decision prompted the remaining QA testers to hold a walkout and, shortly after that, they began organizing to form a union, which they dubbed the Game Workers Alliance.

Activision’s Battle Against Unionization Effort

Activision did not support the push for unionization and actively fought against it. The company refused to voluntarily recognize the union, and just days after the group filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board, it moved QA testers to different departments across its properties.

Activision also announced it would convert over 1,000 temporary QA workers to full-time employees, give them a pay raise to $20 an hour, and provide more benefits. However, management said the move would not apply to the unionizing workers because, under federal law, they could not try to encourage workers from voting against unionization by offering pay hikes or benefits. Union leaders repudiated that argument.

Additionally, Activision fought against the union petition, arguing that any union would need to include all of the studio’s employees, but the Labor Board rejected the claim and let the effort proceed.

According to multiple reports, Activision management continued to push against the union in the weeks leading up to the vote. Some Raven employees told The Washington Post company leaders had suggested at a town hall meeting that unionization could hurt game development and impact promotions and benefits. The following day, the managers allegedly sent an email urging workers to “vote no.” 

On Monday, Labor Board prosecutors announced they had determined that Activision illegally threatened workers and enforced a social media policy that violated bargaining rights. Activision denied the new allegations.

The two parties will have until the end of the month to file an objection, and if none are filed, the union becomes official. It is currently unclear how Activision and Raven will respond, but they have signaled that they might not make the transition period easy for the union.

According to internal documents seen by Bloomberg, the company has repeatedly mentioned that it can take a while for a union to negotiate its first contract.

In a statement following the vote, an Activision spokesperson told The Post that the company respects the right of its employees to vote for or against a union, but added: “We believe that an important decision that will impact the entire Raven Software studio of roughly 350 people should not be made by 19 of Raven employees. We’re committed to doing what’s best for the studio and our employees.”

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (Bloomberg)

Continue Reading

Business

Uber Forks Over $19 Million in Fine for Misleading Australian Riders

Published

on

The penalty is just the latest in a string of lawsuits going back years.


Uber Gets Fined

Uber has agreed to pay a $19 million fine after being sued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for making false or misleading statements in its app.

The first offense stems from a company policy that allows users to cancel their ride at no cost up to five minutes after the driver has accepted the trip. Despite the terms, between at least December 2017 and September 2021, over two million Australians who wanted to cancel their ride were nevertheless warned that they may be charged a small fee for doing so.

Uber said in a statement that almost all of those users decided to cancel their trips despite the warnings.

The cancellation message has since been changed to: “You won’t be charged a cancellation fee.”

The second offense, occurring between June 2018 and August 2020, involved the company showing customers in Sydney inflated estimates of taxi fares on the app.

The commission said that Uber did not ensure the algorithm used to calculate the prices was accurate, leading to actual fares almost always being higher than estimated ones.

The taxi fare feature was removed in August 2020.

A Troubled Legal History

Uber has been sued for misleading its users or unfairly charging customers in the past.

In 2016, the company paid California-based prosecutors up to $25 million for misleading riders about the safety of its service.

An investigation at the time found that at least 25 of Uber’s approved drivers had serious criminal convictions including identity theft, burglary, child sex offenses and even one murder charge, despite background checks.

In 2017, the company also settled a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for $20 million after it misled drivers about how much money they could earn.

In November 2021, the Justice Department sued the company for allegedly charging disabled customers a wait-time fee even though they needed more time to get in the car, then refused to refund them.

Later the same month, a class-action lawsuit in New York alleged that Uber charged riders a final price higher than the upfront price listed when they ordered the ride.

See what others are saying: (ABC) (NASDAQ) (Los Angeles Times)

Continue Reading