But what if their diligent efforts failed or proved to be inadequate, and they still kept their site up?
If there's a fundamental flaw in their model that allowed horrible things to persist despite their efforts, they can't just throw up their hands and continue with the excuse that "they tried." That's a situation where the right thing to do is shut the whole thing down.
Encryption has the fundamental “flaw” of allowing terrorists to communicate freely. Should a back door be installed everywhere?
PH doesn’t seem to be throw their hands up, either. They deploy algorithms similar to other social media / video websites to detect illegal content.
I’m not saying PH is definitely doing enough; I can’t possibly know that. But whether their effort is enough should be judged in the court. If they aren’t doing what the law requires them to do, they should be prosecuted.
> Cash also has the fundamental “flaw” of allowing criminal activity to be funded. Should the government stop printing cash?
Your comparisons are apples and oranges to this PornHub situation. It's not a rebuttal to mechanically list other things that might have some associated negative tradeoffs. You have weigh both the severity of the problem, the benefits, and the alternatives.
> PH doesn’t seem to be throw their hands up, either. They deploy algorithms similar to other social media / video websites to detect illegal content.
PornHub has taken a "laissez faire with cleanup" model for their porn uploads, which frankly invites abuse that's difficult to clean up (as the Kristof outlined). That might work for a site like Facebook, which bans porn outright, so it doesn't have to worry so much about the distinction between underage and of-age porn, since it's all forbidden. PornHub's a porn site, however, so their moderation already starts at a disadvantage. A preclearance model (with identity verification), while more expensive, doesn't have the abuse potential of laissez faire; and given the severity of abuse here, is for more appropriate.
The parent of my comment has the following reasoning:
1) If a model has a fundamental flaw that allows horrible things to persist despite their effort, the whole thing should be shut down.
2) PH has a model that allows horrible things to persist despite their effort
3) Therefore, PH should shut themselves down
My cash example was a counter-example to 1). I was not saying that PH should definitely not be shutdown, but that the manner the parent came to such a conclusion was flawed.
Specifically for PH, we don't know exactly what's happening on their servers. How many illegal videos have been taken down? How many fell through the cracks? How many accounts have been banned?
That's why I suggested that PH should be challenged in court, where evidence can be presented and an informed conclusion can be made. Otherwise, you are not weighing severity against benefits; you are just weighing your intuitions.
It's unfortunate but the reality is that every advancement in society can and will be used for illegal and immoral activity. It is a matter of the greater good.