Real name policies in this context have an obvious flaw when the host gets hacked and now the ostensibly private records fall into the hands of criminals who start blackmailing everyone to reveal to their bosses and families that they were involved in the creation of pornography.
The ability to remain pseudonymous is more important in this context than many others.
> Similarly, adding video fingerprinting should make it very easy to avoid someone uploading the same video again.
Those systems don't really work, because the uploaders can tell when it's rejected so they can keep messing with the file until it's accepted. Or they upload it to a different host each time, or to a file rather than video host who can't see the contents because it was encrypted and the key is distributed to the downloaders with the link but the host doesn't have it.
I personally "online"-know people where I have no doubt they share their porn with consent of everybody involved (e.g. they often hold signs up with messages for their fans), but who at the same time would never share their identity because of the social repercussions if certain neighbors or coworkers or their families learned about their "hobby".
Same as reddit's r/gonewild really, where posters would verify themselves with handwritten signs, but most would never even dream of handing over a copy of their driver's license to moderators or reddit.
I'd argue such a "sign-holding" verification method in regards to consent is far more conclusive and secure than any checkbox + copy-of-some-id method ever could be, and yet every campaigner/activist out there seems to rave on about real names and government id, which is a worse method that also comes with a huge chilling effect.
(I also happen to know that a lot of horny husbands share the ids of their wives with other people. I am not condoning that in any way. But of course is another way other than hacks where verification by government id can go horribly wrong)
> What’s privileged about suggesting you shouldn’t upload videos of people without their consent.
You're suggesting that people shouldn't upload videos of themselves with the consent of everyone involved unless they are willing to attach their full name in a way that could plausibly lead to their employer or entire extended family discovering it.
This is a serious concern for people in conservative religious families or who work for people who are. It increases their risk of unjust retaliation or violence and impairs their ability to express themselves when the increased risk induces self-censorship.
So I take it Retric is your full legal name? Or are you posting under a pseudonym? If you don't want to be associated with your comments maybe they shouldn't be made.
Is that the point you are trying to make? Why is porn "special" in this regard?
It’s video that’s special in this case not porn. Comments come from one person, video can include hundreds but only one person needs to upload it.
In the cases of Mainstream movies you can trace consent before they end up on the big screen. But, online it seems like people want anyone with access to a file to be able to do anything with it. Hacker find some cool footage, wow let’s post it to everyone!
If society weren't bunch of puritanical prudes walking around with sticks firmly implanted in their rectums whether someone created pornography or not wouldn't be an issue at all.
This entire "problem" is the result of society's backwards thinking towards sex and sexuality.
The ability to remain pseudonymous is more important in this context than many others.
> Similarly, adding video fingerprinting should make it very easy to avoid someone uploading the same video again.
Those systems don't really work, because the uploaders can tell when it's rejected so they can keep messing with the file until it's accepted. Or they upload it to a different host each time, or to a file rather than video host who can't see the contents because it was encrypted and the key is distributed to the downloaders with the link but the host doesn't have it.