probably contractual based on what they signed. After a certain period of time the models were probably allowed to ask to have their videos removed. Keep in mind that there has also been a massive purge at pornhub which is owned by mindgeek and mindgeek owns Sean Cody. Many of these porn performers were coerced, manipulated and groomed by their modeling agents to do porn.
Sean cody
- Thread starter Topbreed
- Start date
They didn't vanish gradually though, they were all there last week and then gone overnight. I think it's less to do with the individual performers than the overall nuking of Mindgeek by the credit card companies.
Damn I’m despondent. Only reason I subscribe to SC for 5 years was the classic videos! I feel robbed. Cant even unsubscribe because I just bought a 5 year package at a fixed rate. This is insane. Is there any recourse? Why get rid of the absolute best material when there’s a massive drought?!
does anyone know if Gabe III from Sean Cody has any social media ???
![B340AA82-2441-4EA3-A715-42F26A18E4A1.jpeg]( "B340AA82-2441-4EA3-A715-42F26A18E4A1.jpeg")
Crushed Coconut
Superior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2019
- Posts
- 2,797
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 7,967
- Points
- 158
- Location
- Michigan (United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I think you're comparing apples and oranges there.
Pornhub isn't the same as SC just because they're owned by the same company. And to that extent, the situation with SC is different than what happened to Pornhub.
SC -- like any other gay porn studio -- must keep records of the models ages at the time of filming. Some people are suggesting that some videos were removed because an audit is being done. Even if that's true, there's no reason to think that the videos won't resurface since proving the models ages should be accomplished rather easily.
Pornhub is another matter entirely. Since the content that was removed was amateur stuff where the age of the models couldn't be easily proven (or perhaps proven at all), it was removed.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Posts
- 352
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1,634
- Points
- 438
- Location
- Pennsylvania (United States)
- Gender
- Male
OK, not to overshare, but what I do for a living is more or less what is happening to MG at the moment. So I have a bit of general insight here.
I can tell you with near certainty that what happened at SC is, in some way, related to what happened at Pornhub. And yes, it's because they share ownership.
Visa and MC aren't examining on a site by site basis. The individual sites aren't their customer... Mindgeek is their customer. Any business line associated with Mindgeek is going to be looked at with the same microscope as the others.
Pornhub and its issues led Visa and MC to identify a compliance concern. That is, they determined that (according to their merchant standards) Mindgeek took insufficient action to prevent certain prohibited material.
It's likely that the reason the older materials from SC were (possibly temporarily) removed is because they may pre date agreements or contracts that Mindgeek signed with Visa and MC (via a sponsor bank.). Chances are they are fine, but given the severity of the violations identified on Pornhub, they likely were required to pull them until a thorough review is done.
This is all speculation and I have no real insight into this, but call it an informed theory based on the fact that I've seen virtually the same thing occur in my line of work.
I can tell you with near certainty that what happened at SC is, in some way, related to what happened at Pornhub. And yes, it's because they share ownership.
Visa and MC aren't examining on a site by site basis. The individual sites aren't their customer... Mindgeek is their customer. Any business line associated with Mindgeek is going to be looked at with the same microscope as the others.
Pornhub and its issues led Visa and MC to identify a compliance concern. That is, they determined that (according to their merchant standards) Mindgeek took insufficient action to prevent certain prohibited material.
It's likely that the reason the older materials from SC were (possibly temporarily) removed is because they may pre date agreements or contracts that Mindgeek signed with Visa and MC (via a sponsor bank.). Chances are they are fine, but given the severity of the violations identified on Pornhub, they likely were required to pull them until a thorough review is done.
This is all speculation and I have no real insight into this, but call it an informed theory based on the fact that I've seen virtually the same thing occur in my line of work.
Thanks for sharing. This is really insightful.
I really appreciate this insight but it kinda doesn't make total sense. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how contracts work (hint: I don't know anything).
So you're saying there's some criteria through which videos are kept and not kept? And that's dependent on the contracts? Or maybe the content? Like, what is the reasoning SOME old videos are there and some aren't?
"Please take down all your facial videos until VISA approves them" or whatever sounds weird. Everyone doesn't just sign one consistent contract that's like "you do sex acts"?
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Posts
- 352
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1,634
- Points
- 438
- Location
- Pennsylvania (United States)
- Gender
- Male
If, as I suspect, the nature of the compliance violation is that they don't have adequate controls in place to screen their content against prohibited acts, then the next step would be to identify all content across all their sites that they can't prove has been screened or otherwise has been omitted from screening efforts because of age of the material, or because it was grandfathered in etc.
Once that content completes a screening and gets the green light, it will likely be released back for the audience. (And said screening will likely need to be completed by a third party, which comes with its own costs, delays etc.)
Since they haven't revoked card acceptance for sites like SC it's probably because they have reasonable confidence that the material is compliant, but they will have to independently confirm that because the violation on Pornhub shows that whatever screening efforts they were doing was insufficient.
FYI, this is also why 5-10 years ago, every site had brothers, twins etc and now they don't. Or they create ridiculous caveats saying they are step siblings or whatever. Visa and MC put a stop to anything that was even close to real incest content. These sites NEED to be able to accept card payments to survive, so they are absolutely at the mercy of the whims of the card brands.
JayceeReid
Mythical Member
It'd be hilarious to work for a porn company in like a desk job capacity and deal with shit like this.
I'd do it, too. Anything to stop this MindGeek quality erosion. Give us back the golden age, I say kicking and screaming.
I'd do it, too. Anything to stop this MindGeek quality erosion. Give us back the golden age, I say kicking and screaming.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Posts
- 352
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1,634
- Points
- 438
- Location
- Pennsylvania (United States)
- Gender
- Male
Sadly, the people that have to review this content aren't looking at fun porn stuff. They are looking at hours of violence, animal abuse, kiddie porn, snuff films... It's not a job you'd want.
I'm taking about meta data about who sucked off who and who came where, not credit card verification of actually crazy shit.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2019
- Posts
- 1,066
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 7,762
- Points
- 583
- Location
- Georgia, USA
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Well put. Chad White, who had a brief G4P career before doing straight porn posted his Onlyfan monthly statement on his gram and as I can remember was around $3300 dollars. That said, he has almost a 1000 post and over 81,000 likes, which isn't a great sum for that level of proliferation.
All things being relative and a few grand can seem like a lot of money when you're broke, but for most of these guys the porn serves only as a means to up their marque value and increase the asking price for their escort work.
