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/
OP article says 61 women, just as a polite heads up.I think you’ve got a title edit to make maybe, if you care.
The article mentions 61 unnamed victims and one named one (Kristy Althaus).
There it is ok, thank you. Idk why this bothered me so much. Also I’m pretty sure it’s an ai written (structured, or expanded using) article becuase I’ve noticed I have a very hard time reading a lot of the ai written stuff for some reason. I don’t follow it properly somehow.
The phrasing of the first paragraph definitely implies that , I think ai might be a good guess. I’m guessing it read both “62” and “61 unnamed” dropped the adjective and got confused.
I hate the AI could be such a fucking awesome thing for Humanity and we’re just going to use it to shove disinformation down people’s throats in manners that they can’t discern readily. I know it’s not the case here and it was probably an honest mix-up but you know it’s on the horizon if not already here.
I think it’s an error on their part then because if you click the article the headline still says 62, but over a 1 person error I won’t change the title for the post it is close enough
Oh wierd. My bad
I think you’ve got a comment edit to make maybe, if you care.
Lmao
Originality score: 0