subreddit you don't want to be on.
 

https://www.reddit.com/r/BanFemaleHateSubs/

gfy mentioned here.
https://osintguardian.com/2024/06/14...ner-of-smutty/

Hey Claudia.

Holy fucking SHITTTTT that is a massive post...

That was a fascinating read. A lot more well known names listed in addition to GFY.

The author has definitely connected some dots that aren't there, especially in regards to shell corp offices, site sales, and ad networks, but damn.

Just started reading but wow, not looking good this is crazy.

Yeah the author is all over the place linking people that have no connection to any of this.

However, the actual reporting on Smutty the site itself is pretty damning

GFY: From here to infamy . . .

Also jessequinn you're famous for calling out this shit site.

:bowdown:bowdown:bowdown:bowdown:bowdown

lol hardly

I would hope that would not be the case though, even in the context of calling it out

aside from the fact that I was misgendered (my pronouns are yo/s'up, and Claudia there are women who work in adult), the article was filled with inaccuracies about people who worked for Manwin under the co's many names along the way. who had zero to do with CSAM, nor did their specific businesses

she also misspelled Silverstein's name. he's a top industry lawyer, of course he works with the big co's but that has nothing to do with protecting CSAM

she even called out at least one totally innocent industry person by name AND posted his pic. insinuating he played a role. that's completely irresponsible in an article about such a seriously despicable issue

another thing that bothered me was listing the co that issues legit payments to content creators on a clips platform

like we don't have enough banking issues already in this biz? I guess only some women warrant protection in a climate hostile to our livelihoods

I don't think Ms Lopez grasps the consolidation that has rapidly occurred in the industry. props that she called out cb and exo, but we all already knew those two companies don't give a fuck. at the time that thread was posted by Dio I did contact both co's, and of course was completely ignored and their ads stayed up

but MG/MW/Aylo bought up a ton of companies which had nothing to do with smutty. she doesn't understand that and is just painting all with the same brush

I noticed that on the reddit sub, there's a sticky post to NCOSE. the group that wants our entire industry destroyed no matter if it's legal, consenting work amongst adults

interesting read but highly problematic 'research' for the reasons above

just happy Klen turned me purple so my username can't be easily seen in the screencap

You have to pay to be JQ's sub . . .

Sheesh. I started reading but had to stop. Shit goes on forever.

Will read the rest later with a joint and a bag of popcorn.

Even a summary of that post would be like a short novel!

nah, me and Mech just nerd it out discussing trigonometry

you however, mi amor, are always welcome to be my sub for free

(offer subject to availability and you staying cute. all rights reserved)

https://i.imgur.com/5hoZotq.png

This was my takeaway as well. Started off with good intentions, and then sucked a bunch of unaffiliated people in. The panama papers and terrorism laundering connection is embarassing.

Well, that was a fun article. Enjoy it while it's up, I am sure it will be taken down soon. You can't just lump people in like this.

[QUOTE

Hey Claudia.[/QUOTE]

hey lezinterracial :pimp

I swear one day I will retake that class and ace it with flying colors! :1orglaugh

I wonder if they are also against men competing against women in sports...but I guess thats ok. :1orglaugh

fantastic work :2 cents::thumbsup

Too bad nobody puts that kind of work into investigating non paying/scammy sponsors.

Can someone write up a summary?

i thought u were gonna say /r/cocaine

That is a long article; it took some time to read. Fried pickles, anyone?
It must have taken a considerable amount of time to piece this all together. Easy to read, and lots of details.

Props for the one who made this article.

I believe the article was very factual and informative. It contained no assumptions, followed relevant links, and presented the information accurately.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lump people in like this." If you're referring to sponsors giving prepaid advertising money to websites purely for traffic and clicks without realizing that some of the traffic comes from illegal sources, then I don't think this is lumping anyone in. It simply highlights that some sponsors only look at traffic statistics without examining them further.

This is a valid point that deserves to be highlighted.

I think Roald is describing the parts where the author is accusing people of being guilty by association, when in reality, the truth is slightly more complex.

Yes, programs and networks should be more proactive in analyzing their traffic sources, but when you have hundreds or thousands of different traffic sources, the logistics of determining what is legal and what isn’t becomes insanely difficult, near impossible.

So condoning them is a slippery slope.

Some of the companies mentioned in the article do have direct associations and that should be investigated. However, a lot aren’t.

Some of the leaps the author makes are so far fetched that its almost equivalent to accusing Google for enabling illegal content because they had Analytics on their website.

You make good points; thank you for your response. I spent two hours reading the article and can only say that this topic has been heavily criticized. Some people dismiss the issue with a "Yeah, so what" attitude, but I become anxious when I see something that attracts pedophiles online. These individuals are a significant problem, and everything associated with them should take a more proactive stance in excluding them.

Thank you again for your comment. :thumbsup