Content Moderation Case Study: Xhamster, The 22nd Biggest Site On The Internet, Moderates Content Using Unpaid Volunteers (2020)

Furnished content.


Summary: Formed in 2007 and operated out of Limassol, Cyprus, xHamster has worked its way up to become the 20th most-visited site on the internet. The site boasts 10 million members and hundreds of millions of daily visitors despite being blocked by a number of governments around the world.Being in the pornography business poses unique moderation challenges. Not only do moderators deal with a flood of both amateur and professional submissions, they must take care to prevent the uploading of illegal content. This goes further than policing uploads for unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Moderators must also make decisions -- with facts not in their possession -- about the ages of performers in amateur videos to prevent being prosecuted for the distribution of child pornography.Given the stakes, users would expect a well-staffed moderation team trained in the difficult art of discerning performers' ages or at least given the authority to block uploads until information about performers is obtained from uploaders.Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. An undercover investigation by Vice shows one of the biggest sites on the internet has chosen to lower its costs by relying on an all-volunteer moderation team.

One member of the discussion is Holger, a user created by VICE News to infiltrate the content moderation team and observe its inner workings. Holger finds himself in a team of over 100 unpaid, voluntary workers called the Reviewers Club, which means he has partial control over which photos stay online and which are taken down.

• Does relying on unpaid volunteers create unnecessary risks for the site?
• Would paying moderators result in better moderation? Or would paid moderation result in only nominal gains that would not justify the extra expense?
• As more revenge porn laws are created, does xHamster run the risk of violating more laws by turning over this job to volunteers who may personally find this content acceptable?

• Given the focus on child sexual abuse material by almost every government in the world, does the reliance on an all-volunteer moderation team given the impression xHamster doesn't care enough about preventing further abuse or distribution of illicit content?
• Does asking content consumers to make judgment calls on uploads create new risks, like an uptick in uploads of borderline content that appeals to members of the volunteer staff?
• Can the site justify the continued use of volunteer moderators given its assumed profitability and heavy internet traffic?

0 comments, click here to add the first

The Mystery Of The Copyright On Sherlock Holmes' Emotions Goes Unsolved Due To Settlement

Furnished content.


Since this past summer we have been writing about a bonkers lawsuit brought against the makers of a Netflix movie, Enola Holmes, by the Conan Doyle Estate. The stories of Sherlock Holmes are, of course, largely in the public domain now, although roughly 10 tales still haven't reached the expiration date of their copyright protection. The film does not tell any of those protected stories. Instead, it tells an original story, focused on Holmes' sister, Enola. To make its copyright claim, the Estate instead suggests that Enola Holmes shows a Sherlock who has feelings and empathy, among other details, and therefore runs afoul of the character copyright as Sherlock didn't show such features until those still-protected stories were written. Also, something about Sherlock developing a liking towards dogs. Yes, seriously.Well, Netflix moved to have the case dismissed, going in quite hard on the details of the Estate's claims. For starters, in Enola Holmes, um, no dogs. Added to that, the motion provides ample evidence of Sherlock having feelings and empathy prior to the protected works and that such ideas are not protectable anyway. The rest of us, meanwhile, waited patiently to see if the mystery of whether or not you could break copyright in this way could actually succeed in court.Sadly, we'll never know, as reportedly Netflix and the Estate have reached a settlement.

Is a more emotional Sherlock Holmes protected by copyright? Although that's dubious, the mystery remains technically unsolved as Netflix, Legendary Pictures, and others associated with Enola Holmes have come to a settlement with the Conan Doyle Estate. On Friday, the parties stipulated to dismissal of a lawsuit in New Mexico federal court.In response [to the suit], the producers blasted the suit as an "attempt to create a perpetual copyright," arguing in a motion to dismiss that generic concepts like warmth and kindness don't fall under protection.The Conan Doyle Estate never took the chance to respond. Undoubtedly, its negotiating leverage would be stronger having defeated a dismissal motion, but the heirs to the author surely have their reasons for taking whatever they could in settlement.

0 comments, click here to add the first