Have you noticed how much of our daily life revolves around online platforms? Whether it’s shopping, chatting, watching shows—or even exploring more private parts of life like sex and desire—platforms are always in the middle, making things happen. They’re no longer just tools; they’ve become our digital assistants (Keller, 2022). But here’s the thing—what happens when these platforms go beyond just helping and start interfering with our privacy and choices, even complicating serious harm? Pornhub is a clear example. It is one of the most visited adult websites in the world. But the problems it has caused go beyond adult content. They raise a deeper question: In a world where platforms decide what we see, what we share, and what we make — who makes sure our privacy and safety are protected?
Free uploads often come at the cost of people’s privacy and dignity
Imagine a sex video with the label ‘schoolgirl’ posted online without your permission. It would be terrifying. Thousands of people could watch, download, and share it in just a few days. This is not just a physical violation for the person in the video. It is also a complete loss of control over their image and voice. It is not only sexual violence. It is also a serious attack on privacy, identity, and rights. According to Nissenbaum’s (2009) contextual integrity theory, this kind of behavior violates the principle that information should be used in the appropriate situation. It breaks this rule if a person’s private video is publicly shared without permission. It becomes a serious privacy problem.
Pornhub has always said that it is an open and free website. It encourages users to upload their own videos. However, in reality, the platform has weak supervision, and almost anyone can upload content without being authenticated. Videos that do not have the consent of the person involved can also be easily spread, including a large amount of content involving the abuse and sexual violence of minors. Even if the police ask the platform to delete these videos, it is often too late. Many videos have already been downloaded and shared again and again. These victims are often minors, young women, or already in a weak position. They usually lack the legal or financial resources to defend and protect their rights. It is also difficult for them to request that the website delete the video. Over time, victimization has become the norm on the platform. As Karppinen (2017) points out, privacy is not only an individual issue but also part of digital human rights.
When digital platforms ignore the risks faced by female and underage users and only care about traffic and clicks. They are helping the harm to continue. This is not just a matter of platform negligence. It shows a continuation and amplification of injustice in the real world. Violations of privacy have become a form of digital oppression, especially when platforms profit from these harms, which is inexcusable.
Who’s Watching, Who’s Staying Silent?
In December 2020, journalist Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times published an article entitled “The Children of Pornhub.” It caused a strong public reaction. The article showed that the site had many videos of child sexual abuse, rape, and acts without consent. Some victims were only 14 years old. Pornhub profited enormously from these cheap and exploitative videos (Legs McNeil et al., 2005).
What upset people more than the numbers is that the platform ignored this kind of content for a long time. One case mentioned in the article described how a 14-year-old girl’s rape was filmed and uploaded to Pornhub. The website did not report it. She only found out after a classmate recognized her and told her. Throughout this process, the platform failed to detect the video and made no effort to intervene. This wasn’t just a technical oversight—it reveals that the platform’s approach to content moderation isn’t built on a moral obligation to protect victims. Instead, it relies heavily on a passive, user-reporting model of governance.
Media scholar Terry Flew (2021) explains that digital platforms like Pornhub are not neutral tools. These platforms do more than just play content. They help decide what we see by using recommendations, rules, and selection. So, when they allow harmful content to remain, it’s not enough to say, “They didn’t see it.” We must ask: What did they choose to show? What did they allow to stay?
More importantly, Flew (2021) reminds us that most platforms are powered by profit models built on clicks. As long as a video generates views, it generates revenue. This means that even illegal or abusive content may go unchecked unless it is widely reported or goes viral. This is called ’outsourcing of platform responsibility‘: platforms handle everything when it benefits them. However, once there’s a problem, they leave it to the users to deal with the damage and prove they were harmed.
Nicolas Suzor , another leading expert in platform governance, takes this criticism further. He argues that the core problem is that platforms can decide what gets shared but do not have transparent and fair accountability rules (Suzor, 2019). In the case of this young girl, the platform failed to implement adequate moderation systems and provided no meaningful protection for users. The victim didn’t even know her abuse had been uploaded—she found out from someone else. Suzor describes it very well: the platforms have the power of voice but don’t take social responsibility. Suppose users don’t even have the opportunity to complain, delete, or learn about the process. In that case, this kind of ‘platform governance,’ as good as it sounds, is just a hypocritical front.
This is not the only case. It shows a deeper problem in how platforms work. Platforms get attention, bring in traffic, and make a lot of money. At the same time, people’s privacy, dignity, and safety are often ignored.
We can’t keep accepting the shallow excuse of “the video has been taken down” after harm has already been done. Real platform responsibility should not rely on victims to discover the damage and fight for themselves. It should be built from the beginning on the principle of protecting people. The platform should not only take technology as a tool to make a profit and harm others but also have the heart to protect people.
When the Media Becomes the Last ‘Delete Button’
Pornhub’s transformation was not the result of an introspective awakening but rather external pressures. Kristof’s article was published, and it caused public anger. Soon after, Visa and Mastercard ended their partnership with the platform. Only then did it take action. Millions of videos were suddenly taken down. New rules were added — like real-name uploads, no downloads, and identity checks (Griffith, 2020). This shows that platforms can manage content. But they often choose not to unless they might lose money. Ironically, in this digital governance era, what really works is not a system, not a regulation, but a media report. The media became the ‘delete button,’ pushing the platform to act because people were angry.
However, the media should not be doing this job. It is not part of the legal system. The victims would still be waiting if no one had written the story. This means the problem is not just weak rules. The rules are missing. Gillespie (2018, pp.24-44) said platforms do not follow fair regulations. They do what is best for their profits.
As Zeynep Tufekci （2017）criticizes in her speech at TED，the technical architecture of platforms is not designed from the outset to protect users but is built around view and attention. She argues that platforms are not flawed systems. They operate based on the logic they were built on.
In this talk, she provides insight into how platform algorithms can manipulate user behaviour and what this means for privacy and digital rights. This is closely related to the lack of platform responsibility in the case of Pornhub.
In this system, media attention often becomes the only way to pressure platforms. Victims have to rely on journalists to reveal their experiences. This is not real governance. It is a way to avoid responsibility. These views point to a key problem. We need to rethink what platforms are responsible for. Their job should not be to act only when something goes wrong. They should take responsibility all the time, in a clear and active way. If platforms do not have rules to keep them accountable, and no one from the outside is watching them, the media will keep doing the job of the ’last delete button‘ — a job it should not have to do.
When the Law Falls Behind the Platforms
Legally speaking, this failure has been building up for a long time. Laws like Section 230 in the United States were originally created to protect platforms from getting into trouble over what users posted so the internet could grow more quickly (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2023). But today, these laws have become shields that platforms use to avoid responsibility.
Some regions, like the European Union, have attempted stronger regulation. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) gives users more rights over their personal data (Wolford, 2025). However, when facing large global platforms, even GDPR often proves weak. Victims struggle to locate the exact content; removal procedures are usually slow and complicated. In cases like these, the law becomes ineffective. We cannot keep relying on media exposure to force platforms to delete harmful content.
In recent years, some countries have started to push for real change. For example:
- -In 2023, the United Kingdom passed the Online Safety Act, which requires social media platforms to take legal responsibility for harmful or illegal content or face large fines (GOV UK, 2023).
- -In the United States, lawmakers proposed the Digital Platform Commission Act to establish an independent body to oversee platform operations and content moderation (Warner & Blumenthal, 2023).
More and more governments are beginning to pay attention to this issue. They are recognizing that technology must not outrun accountability. But real and lasting change will require stronger and more comprehensive policies, including:
- -Making platforms responsible for checking if uploaded content is legal
- -Asking users to give their real names before uploading videos
- -Preventing the repeated upload of illegal videos through automated detection
- -Creating user-friendly takedown systems with fast response, identity protection, and simpler processes.
- -Establishing independent third-party regulators instead of letting platforms monitor themselves
- -Building international cooperation frameworks to address cross-border content violations more effectively
In today’s world of data and algorithms, protecting privacy and digital rights is more important than ever. Platforms that use technology to push content to users should also take on the same level of responsibility. The Pornhub case is not just one mistake. It shows that the whole system of platform control is not working. We should not keep accepting apologies only after harm is done. We need better rules that are clear and easy to follow. Online platforms must be held responsible for the content they allow. At the same time, people should have simple and quick ways to report issues and get help when needed.
Reference Lists：
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2023). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Flew, T. (2021). Regulating Platforms. John Wiley & Sons.
Griffith, K. (2020, December 10). Mastercard severs ties with Pornhub; Visa suspends payment processing. Retrieved December 8, 2022, from Mail Online website: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9040803/Mastercard-severs-ties-Pornhub-Visa-suspends-payment-processing.html
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media (pp. 24–44). Yale University Press.
GOV UK. (2023). Online Safety Act 2023. Legislation.gov.uk. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/enacted
Kristof, N. (2020, December 4). The Children of Pornhub. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html
Keller, D. (2022, April 6). User Privacy vs. Platform Transparency: The Conflicts Are Real, and We Need to Talk About Them. Stanford CIS. https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2022/04/user-privacy-vs-platform-transparency-conflicts-are-real-and-we-need-talk-about-them-0/
Karppinen, K. (2017) Human rights and the digital. In Routledge Companion to Media and Human Rights. In H. Tumber & S. Waisbord (eds) Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge pp 95-103.
Legs Mcneil, Osborne, J., & Pavia, P. (2005). The other Hollywood: the uncensored oral history of the porn film industry. Regan Books.
Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in Context. Stanford University Press.
Suzor, N. P. (2019). Lawless: the secret rules that govern our digital lives. Cambridge University Press.
Warner, M., & Blumenthal, R. (2023). S.1671 – Digital Platform Commission Act of 2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1671
Wolford, B. (2025). What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law? GDPR.eu.
Zeynep Tufekci. (2017). We’re building a dystopia to make people click on ads. Ted.com; TED Talks. https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads
Be the first to comment