Pornhub mods watch up to 1,200 vids/day: 'Our job was to find weird excuses to keep videos on sites"

[beavr]

https://www.businessinsider.com/insi...rocess-2020-12

One of the former employees noted that there's no gold standard of content moderation — Facebook and YouTube, for example, have garnered their share of content-related headlines. But John said the lack of industry consensus on best practices shouldn't have stopped MindGeek from investing more in moderation, particularly when the CEO bragged at the annual February all-staff meeting about how much money MindGeek was making.

The enormous number of explicit videos to review every day was a logistical and time-management challenge, as well as a job that could take an emotional toll. If moderators didn't review their set number of videos or if prohibited content slipped through, they could face repercussions, from warnings to terminations.

The guidelines on which videos were permitted and which were off-limits varied depending on the site. YouPorn didn't allow urination, Brian said, while Pornhub, "our breadwinner," was the most lenient.

Brian's team joked about the circuitous logic that managers employed when they approved questionable videos, like perennially popular incest content. If an incest video title said "his mother," the team wouldn't approve it. But if a generic title said "mother f---s son," then managers would deem it acceptable, because it wasn't 100% clear whether the mother was related to the son; managers would ask, "Whose mother?"

"Our job was to find weird excuses to keep videos on our sites," Brian said.

And the rules could change.

"At one point we were debating what creatures were OK to be stepped on," he said. "Crickets, insects, and crawfish were OK, but not goldfish, because people have goldfish as pets."

Later, when his team reviewed videos of women kicking puppies to death, MindGeek decided the rules were too lenient, and they prohibited stepping on any living creature.

[CaptainHowdy]

Bunch of crybabies . . .

[NALEM]

PornHub likely generates 450-600 million annually.

A. They can afford to retain a lot of moderators.

B. If they cannot reasonably moderate the free content easily viewed by anyone, minors included, maybe they shouldn't be in business of having all that "user" uploaded content.

Btw, notice how Brian states "Pornhub, "our breadwinner," was the most lenient" ?

Just saying ...

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by NALEM

PornHub likely generates 450-600 million annually.

A. They can afford to retain a lot of moderators.

B. If they cannot reasonably moderate the free content easily viewed by anyone, minors included, maybe they shouldn't be in business of having all that "user" uploaded content.

Btw, notice how Brian states "Pornhub, "our breadwinner," was the most lenient" ?

Just saying ...

Well said. The solutions is to cut back to what they can manage to check before it goes live.

[Useless Warrior]

Big whoop. I watch that many in the half hour before going to bed.

[RycEric]

https://www.dwt.com/blogs/media-law-...-dmca-safe-har

Mind-Geek = Mind-Less

[beavr]

Originally Posted by RycEric

https://www.dwt.com/blogs/media-law-...-dmca-safe-har

Mind-Geek = Mind-Less

September 2017 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How comes it wasn't enforced so far?

[RycEric]

Originally Posted by beavr

September 2017 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How comes it wasn't enforced so far?

I will always defer to this video when asked that.



The last guy with balls big enough to go after people (and wallet as well), in court, was Norm Zada. We need another Norm Zada.