Camming to be featured in Hot Girls Wanted: Turned On

[justjoinedtopost]

But can you emphasize why others are upset with the creators choices? That's what I'm saying the lack of empathy is coming from.

On a personal level, yes. On a grand inclusive SW scale, I think it is silly if you can't call out the hysterical exaggerators.

I don't like the documentary so far (4,6, and skimmed 3; probably need a bottle of Pepto-Bismol before I try and tackle ep. 5). But it is foolish to run around hollering "DOXXING!" based on rumor and innuendo.

Foolish also to associate the potential danger of stalking/raping/murdering with fluff such as this...

Spoiler

Effy Elizabeth said her immediate family was already aware of what she did for a living, but she still felt she had to reach out to tell them, just in case they came across it. “I hated having to warn my family,” she said in a Twitter direct message to Vocativ.

Now her closest family members are worried that more distant relatives will find out about her work by watching the Netflix series. “I’m okay being open but my family does not deserve any backlash bc of the job I chose for myself,” she wrote. Effy Elizabeth is already visible as a sex worker on social media, but as she points out, “everyone is on Netflix” — the potential reach is exponentially greater than the camming community on Twitter. She says she’s scared because “I know it’s going to be almost impossible to get any sort of justice for this.”

The bold, justice for this? Justice for the worries of Effy's close family, who might potentially have some upcoming drama with distant relatives? Please.

"Justice for this" means Effy's distant relatives are going to have to cope, unpleasant as that may be. And Effy is going to have to cope with the fact that they are going to have to cope. And any attempts to use them for the purposes of special pleading via media outlets is probably going to elicit no more than a snort of derision out of me. This crap documentary did not create the stigma.

I wonder if any of the other people on the Periscope segment are aware/upset that they were used in the documentary. That would be an interesting twist. Also, if EffyElizabeth is shown without consent on a camsite, it will change my view somewhat.

I mentioned hypocritcal earlier. Someone else mentioned COPS. I had to quit watching that show; sometimes I rooted for the cops, but a lot of drug/sex stings grieved me. It bothered me too much. I would wonder, "Why are you taking this person to jail? And why is it being put up for entertainment?". Wonder how many of them were really in a position to demand their faces be blurred.

Weep for Effy, the SW who has suffered a grave injustice.



We love our porn, don't we?

It also should be noted that Netflix is a strictly vanilla streaming service.
People dont go on there to look for adult content.

Are SW documentaries considered adult content?
If they are, adult content has been on Netflix since at least 2012.
http://decider.com/2015/04/22/documentaries-about-sex-on-netflix/

I kind of wish they just didn't do any documentaries on webcamming. They're never neutral. I mean, if someone just wants to find out more about camgirls they could like... hang around MFC a while or here or buy some shows on Streamate. Chit chat with some studio girls on Livejasmin. We're not a weird mystery.

Now that I have watched some of it, I agree. I don't see any reason to let everyone have a peek behind the curtain. Seems like it might destroy the illusion a little.

 

[Guy]

Im worried that the series will be released outside of Netflix. Netflix frequently has their originals released on al le carte streaming services like itunes, Google Play, and Vudu.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Im worried that the series will be released outside of Netflix. Netflix frequently has their originals released on al le carte streaming services like itunes, Google Play, and Vudu.

Why does that worry you?

 

[Guy]

Why does that worry you?

Because then those models would be recognized by people who dont even have Netflix.
It would make the situation even worse.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Now this one I feel empathy for.

See she said get a lawyer. Wonder if that can go anywhere. If it's possible, I'm rooting for her.

Wonder how many cam models feel strongly enough about this to cancel their Netflix.

 

[Guy]

https://www.ynotcam.com/2017/04/25/hot-girls-wanted-2-exploiting-people-we-claim-to-support/

 

[Gen]

https://www.ynotcam.com/2017/04/25/hot-girls-wanted-2-exploiting-people-we-claim-to-support/

Taken from that article: "Which brings us to our inevitable takeaway. Models, though your work is legal and viable and real and good, the law is not on your side. Always be aware that in a battle between you and Rashida Jones, our culture continues to be on the side of alarmist pearl-clutching and the sustained narrative of “correct” sexual expression."

I don't like how this is painted as specifically an anti-SW issue? I am against taking random people on Periscope and putting them into your documentary, especially something that's controversial like this, and I think there's a really good discussion to be had about when we put ourselves in public spaces online such as Periscope (how should that footage be used? With social media becoming an integral part of many industries, should whichever sites happen to catch on as popular get to use our image/content however they want forever?). But this discussion isn't even happening because we're so focused on the fact that it's sex workers "in a battle between you and Rashida Jones".

What happened, imo, is wrong and shitty and unethical, and would be even more unethical to me if it was actually underage girls dancing around. But the law (as referenced in the quote above) wasn't created to spite sex workers who want to advertise publicly but also be exempted from how public footage is used. Again, I feel bad for everyone involved and I don't agree with what HGW did, but I think this is a broader issue than just one about outting sex workers. I don't think I'm one for ~alarmist pearl-clutching~ but I do think it's a broad issue, and I resent being treated like a puritan prude who just hates SWs by articles like this, especially as a sex worker who has been outted.

Again, I feel the need to reiterate that I think it's unethical and gross. I feel like questioning it is seen as supporting it, which I don't. I just don't agree with the narrative that articles like this are pushing.

Wonder how many cam models feel strongly enough about this to cancel their Netflix.

I am wondering this, too. If anyone does, make sure you write to them and tell them why.

 

[Guy]

Taken from that article: "Which brings us to our inevitable takeaway. Models, though your work is legal and viable and real and good, the law is not on your side. Always be aware that in a battle between you and Rashida Jones, our culture continues to be on the side of alarmist pearl-clutching and the sustained narrative of “correct” sexual expression."

I don't like how this is painted as specifically an anti-SW issue? I am against taking random people on Periscope and putting them into your documentary, especially something that's controversial like this, and I think there's a really good discussion to be had about when we put ourselves in public spaces online such as Periscope (how should that footage be used? With social media becoming an integral part of many industries, should whichever sites happen to catch on as popular get to use our image/content however they want forever?). But this discussion isn't even happening because we're so focused on the fact that it's sex workers "in a battle between you and Rashida Jones".

What happened, imo, is wrong and shitty and unethical, and would be even more unethical to me if it was actually underage girls dancing around. But the law (as referenced in the quote above) wasn't created to spite sex workers who want to advertise publicly but also be exempted from how public footage is used. Again, I feel bad for everyone involved and I don't agree with what HGW did, but I think this is a broader issue than just one about outting sex workers. I don't think I'm one for ~alarmist pearl-clutching~ but I do think it's a broad issue, and I resent being treated like a puritan prude who just hates SWs by articles like this, especially as a sex worker who has been outted.

Again, I feel the need to reiterate that I think it's unethical and gross. I feel like questioning it is seen as supporting it, which I don't. I just don't agree with the narrative that articles like this are pushing.


I am wondering this, too. If anyone does, make sure you write to them and tell them why.

Oh. I linked it because its covering the situation.

 

[Gen]

Oh. I linked it because its covering the situation.

Once again I'm gonna bug you because I think it's only useful to share articles if you give a little context or say your thoughts on it either way though it prompted me to articulate something that had been nagging me about the situation so I'm glad that you shared it!

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

That isn't accurate. Effy and Autumn did claim to be "outed" They simply stated that it wasn't ok for the producers to use ANY girls image in a porn documentary without their consent because for some it could be outing them.

After looking at Effy's twitter again, you are right. I got confused because of the number of people she retweeted that claimed she was outed.

But also reading her twitter again I found this interesting tweet.



I get why she was uncomfortable being included in the documentary. But Effy knew neither her real nor her cam name were in the clip. How in the hell is a producer suppose to notify two anonymous girls that their Periscope clip is going to be used? Do producers, find the equivalent of ACF forum, for Periscope and post a clip saying "anybody know the name of these girls." ? Is there any reason to suspect that would be more successful than guys who post on ACF say hey I found this camgirl on Pornhub what's her name? We all know how well that works out for the guys looking for camgirls.

Plus how would they know those girls were camgirls, should they have notified all the other folks? The couple making out in the segment certainly could have been embarrassed. especially if they have new partners. Did the producers need to track them down also? I find these requests for the producers to do X, Y, and Z to be really unreasonable

Now in contrast, I'm quite sympathetic to Sweet Mystery. If her friends and family watched the series there is a reasonable chance they'd be outed as camgirl. HGW could have and should have blurred the faces, it wouldn't impacted the film at all and would have protected the model's privacy. But, I do think that when people are bitching about Hot Girls doing, but nobody complained when Camgirlz did the same exact thing it is hypocritical. Either, you all should insist that anytime the home page of camsite is shown outside of advertising on an adult website, your faces should be blurred or no one has to.

 

[AudriTwo]

Now in contrast, I'm quite sympathetic to Sweet Mystery. If her friends and family watched the series there is a reasonable chance they'd be outed as camgirl. HGW could have and should have blurred the faces, it wouldn't impacted the film at all and would have protected the model's privacy. But, I do think that when people are bitching about Hot Girls doing, but nobody complained when Camgirlz did the same exact thing it is hypocritical. Either, you all should insist that anytime the home page of camsite is shown outside of advertising on an adult website, your faces should be blurred or no one has to.

if camgirlz did the same. fuck them too.

 

[BiancaBaker]

if camgirlz did the same. fuck them too.

to my knowledge the camgirlz people did not do anything like this. I know girls who loved being in that documentary and praised the guys who made it. I've never heard/seen anything negative.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Taken from that article: "Which brings us to our inevitable takeaway. Models, though your work is legal and viable and real and good, the law is not on your side. Always be aware that in a battle between you and Rashida Jones, our culture continues to be on the side of alarmist pearl-clutching and the sustained narrative of “correct” sexual expression."

I don't like how this is painted as specifically an anti-SW issue? I am against taking random people on Periscope and putting them into your documentary, especially something that's controversial like this, and I think there's a really good discussion to be had about when we put ourselves in public spaces online such as Periscope (how should that footage be used? With social media becoming an integral part of many industries, should whichever sites happen to catch on as popular get to use our image/content however they want forever?). But this discussion isn't even happening because we're so focused on the fact that it's sex workers "in a battle between you and Rashida Jones".

What happened, imo, is wrong and shitty and unethical, and would be even more unethical to me if it was actually underage girls dancing around. But the law (as referenced in the quote above) wasn't created to spite sex workers who want to advertise publicly but also be exempted from how public footage is used. Again, I feel bad for everyone involved and I don't agree with what HGW did, but I think this is a broader issue than just one about outting sex workers. I don't think I'm one for ~alarmist pearl-clutching~ but I do think it's a broad issue, and I resent being treated like a puritan prude who just hates SWs by articles like this, especially as a sex worker who has been outted.

I think there are a couple of good discussions that could come out this series. Personally, I like to discuss some of the themes the series raised about the relationship between members and models, controlling your own content, the unwillingness of people to pay for porn and the impact that it causes, and the racism in porn.

But there is the bigger issue the Gen talked about with respect the sharing of social media and I while agree that sex workers are particularly vulnerable, it is just not reasonable for there to be special rules for sex workers.

Anytime anybody posts or shares something on social media that portrays someone or some organization in a negative light there is potential for the sharing to harm someone. The network effect and viral nature of social media makes this occur at frightening speed and we all seen the stories of suicide etc cause people were ravaged on social media. Rightly or wrong there is no expectation that anyone needs permission to share anything on social media. But let's acknowledge that we all played a part in this, the stupid/annoying/funny thing members or models threads is filled with examples. I find hypocritical that we should hold HGW to some higher standard than we hold ourselves.

I understand that feeling is these are powerful Hollywood celebrities, and we are powerless camgirls. But in today world the power imbalance isn't nearly what you think, many camgirls have 10K plus followers on twitter/Instagram and a fair number have 50,100,150K. Somebody like Rashida Jones has 1.2 million followers but she hasn't tweeted since the election and really isn't a user. If you tweet something and gets retweet by a follower with a few hundred follower, it is not hard for nearly 1 million people to see your condemnation of the series. Now I don't know if overall the controversy was good or bad for streams of the series, but I do bet there are a lot of people who won't watch it because they saw on twitter the producers outed sex workers. Although, I am sure some tuned in because of the controversy.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

to my knowledge the camgirlz people did not do anything like this. I know girls who loved being in that documentary and praised the guys who made it. I've never heard/seen anything negative.

50 minutes in Camgirlz you'll see a brief clip of the Chaturbate homescreen, without the girls faces being blurred. I believe they also show the MFC homepage, but I could be wrong.

 

[Ambers Troll]

Keep in mind what a blurred image implies to a viewer of a documentary. The perception is that you are either protecting an innocent or a lowlife who may sue you for exposing them. Cam models will struggle with taking the innocent perception path, so blurring implies that they should be ashamed.
In short, too much blur will look sleazy.

The HGWTO (ep5) did use a blur effect, but large images like sweet mystery's need special attention or permission before using them. The only real full screen shot used was a model shaking her ass (no face/ ID visible). The aim was to show Tom using the site and to actually show what he is like using it, describing the search process did tell much about him. Adding full blur would have implied sleaze, and painted everything he said as being coloured by that.
There seemed to be some consideration for model security, but it needed to go a little further on larger images. Even if they got the site's permission to use them, which would have given them legal protection, morally consideration for the model was appropriate.

 

[PrincessAnathema]

I think people who don't work in the industry shouldn't be given platforms to speak for us/all of us.

Why should somebody who has never worked in the industry be given the opportunity to create a documentary about adult entertainment? Especially if they're anti sex work.

You find it degrading and women "exploit" themselves, but those views are thrown out the window once you can profit off of us, right?

Fuck that. Fuck this series. And fuck everybody who wants to explore the adult industry but look down on us because we are sex workers.

In fact, I'm pretty sure if a sex worker or former sex worker wanted to work for these companies they would get denied because of their sex work. But it's totally a fucking okay to create documentaries centered around the very thing they despise.

I'm sorry for the profanity but it just pisses me off.

 

[heybarkeep]

As a non-sex-worker, it is hard to truly grasp how it feels to be treated as less-than because of a job.​

I really, really don't think that it is all that hard for people to relate to others that are feeling treated as less than for whatever reason.

Here is the truth. You strike me as a trained victim. I don't want to take that away from you; it may be all you have.

Impossible to not notice how a few only show up to reinforce old stereotypes. Always looking to soak up all that sweet pity.

Watched all of it. Nothing new was learned and can't say that I was all that entertained either. Don't want to waste more energy on it with faux outrage or pity parties. I do sympathize with those that have been outed, sucks and nobody deserves for it to happen, but camming is a job that has occupational hazards just like many others. Being outed is a risk you accept when you sign up. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst and whatnot. Probably a worry for any person living a double life. The stigma attached to sex work is illogical and unfair but this is known in advance and adults still willingly make the choice. 2/5, wouldn't recommend or watch again. This thread has already provided more entertainment and insight.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I don't like how this is painted as specifically an anti-SW issue? I am against taking random people on Periscope and putting them into your documentary, especially something that's controversial like this, and I think there's a really good discussion to be had about when we put ourselves in public spaces online such as Periscope (how should that footage be used? With social media becoming an integral part of many industries, should whichever sites happen to catch on as popular get to use our image/content however they want forever?). But this discussion isn't even happening because we're so focused on the fact that it's sex workers "in a battle between you and Rashida Jones".

What happened, imo, is wrong and shitty and unethical, and would be even more unethical to me if it was actually underage girls dancing around. But the law (as referenced in the quote above) wasn't created to spite sex workers who want to advertise publicly but also be exempted from how public footage is used. Again, I feel bad for everyone involved and I don't agree with what HGW did, but I think this is a broader issue than just one about outting sex workers. I don't think I'm one for ~alarmist pearl-clutching~ but I do think it's a broad issue, and I resent being treated like a puritan prude who just hates SWs by articles like this, especially as a sex worker who has been outted.

Again, I feel the need to reiterate that I think it's unethical and gross. I feel like questioning it is seen as supporting it, which I don't. I just don't agree with the narrative that articles like this are pushing.

Good post. Doubling down on the bold -- wailing about a lack of empathy, or suggesting someone is victim blaming, or exaggerating your victim status is worthy of contempt. Do it only if you wish to draw derision to your cause.

The conversation about including ANY users from Periscope is one worth having. Autumn Kay's response in the article has a different feel entirely (I am a special case because I am a sex worker! I want special treatment!). It is the reason we had to invent the term "butthurt".

That agree rating I put on your post was symbolic; it actually represents 10,000 agrees.

I think people who don't work in the industry shouldn't be given platforms to speak for us/all of us.

Why should somebody who has never worked in the industry be given the opportunity to create a documentary about adult entertainment? Especially if they're anti sex work.

I understand your dislike, anger is quite alright. Hopefully that was just written in the heat of an angry moment; understandable if that is the case.

Free speech. If your special interest gets the right to shut down outside voices, they have put your ass on a proverbial boat; you will be a slave, whether you realize it or not.

 

[Shia]

How in the hell is a producer suppose to notify two anonymous girls that their Periscope clip is going to be used?

Plus how would they know those girls were camgirls, should they have notified all the other folks? The couple making out in the segment certainly could have been embarrassed. especially if they have new partners. Did the producers need to track them down also? I find these requests for the producers to do X, Y, and Z to be really unreasonable

Periscope still shows what user is showing what. and YES anybody who is shown in ANYTHING should give consent.

50 minutes in Camgirlz you'll see a brief clip of the Chaturbate homescreen, without the girls faces being blurred. I believe they also show the MFC homepage, but I could be wrong.

Camgirlz wasn't released on a large scale. Up until recently you could only watch it on Vimeo and had to pay for it. I'm not sure as far as if they notified models shown on homepages but the fact that it was released only to the adult industry community (until shared by others" is the main thing.

 

[Ambers Troll]

I think people who don't work in the industry shouldn't be given platforms to speak for us/all of us.

Any documentary about any topic is discussing a topic they don't work in, unless it is on documentary making.
The aim of a documentary is for those who are not in the industry/ their audience to understand it in some way. When it becomes too biased, it just isn't worth much to anyone and discredits their other work.

More important is for those who work in the industry to speak up when something is biased. Scientist must do it all the time when their work is misrepresented, otherwise people viewing it can believe it.

It is annoying and there will always have inaccuracies in any documentary. The voices of the documentary maker is always louder, luckily most viewers do notice overt bias. Social media in particular allows us to call out the maker and discredit their work, ultimately this bias will stain them too.

 

[Gen]

Any documentary about any topic is discussing a topic they don't work in, unless it is on documentary making.
The aim of a documentary is for those who are not in the industry/ their audience to understand it in some way. When it becomes too biased, it just isn't worth much to anyone and discredits their other work.

More important is for those who work in the industry to speak up when something is biased. Scientist must do it all the time when their work is misrepresented, otherwise people viewing it can believe it.

It is annoying and there will always have inaccuracies in any documentary. The voices of the documentary maker is always louder, luckily most viewers do notice overt bias. Social media in particular allows us to call out the maker and discredit their work, ultimately this bias will stain them too.

Agreed. I immediately thought of the movie Blackfish. Should it not have been made because it was anti-whale entrapment? Of course not. It's entire purpose was to make a specific, one-sided point. Look at Making a Murderer; it was incredibly selective in what evidence it showed and how it presented everything. I think most documentaries are fairly one-sided? Hardly anyone would be moved to make a documentary about something so political without having a passionate viewpoint on it.

Either way I don't think anything should be off-topic to outsiders, even if I do think they should centre the voices of the people actually involved. But I find with sex work, anti-SW folks have current or former SWs who support their position too. Idk it annoys me how often people have strong views on sex work that are based on sort of a smattering of information and stereotypes they've gleaned from various media, but I don't think sex work should require special "no touching" status just because we disagree with what they say. Counter alarmist hype (which tbh it doesn't sound like this series was) with more viewpoints.

I also find it problematic when people assume anyone who disagrees with them on sex work issues is ignorant or uninformed, or just pearl-clutching like that article said. People can have differing opinions, including abolitionist or anti-porn ones, without being stupid or not knowing enough. A lot of sex workers go on to speak out against sex work. Two people can look at the same facts and view them differently. I dislike the notion of One True Sex Worker Experience that often comes from both sides (we are either exploited victims or Happy Hookers, no in between).

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Periscope still shows what user is showing what. and YES anybody who is shown in ANYTHING should give consent.

Camgirlz wasn't released on a large scale. Up until recently you could only watch it on Vimeo and had to pay for it. I'm not sure as far as if they notified models shown on homepages but the fact that it was released only to the adult industry community (until shared by others" is the main thing.

Yes , Periscope generally has user names, but the clip of the two models didn't. In fact very few of the more than 100 people shown in that were identified at all. Maybe they should have obtained permission, but unless you or somebody else can show HOW the producers could contact anonymous people on the internet, it isn't at all practical.

Do you obtain permission before you share other people social media? I sure don't.

Right now Camgirlz had 400K view on Vimeo, plus an unknown amount on Sean's website.. I estimate that is twice as much as the original Hot Girls had. Camgirlz, is better, had better word of mouth, has been around longer, and has been free for a while. Netflix has more than 8,000 pieces of content, a small percentage hit a million streams. I seriously doubt that HGW:Turned On will hit a million views. First it is a documentary, next it is not all that good. (I'd rate it 7 just like you, but that only cause I'm very interested in the subject), and finally, for a show on sex-industry, it has no sex and very little nudity, which is going to decrease its appeal to guys (and maybe some girls).[/QUOTE]

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I think people who don't work in the industry shouldn't be given platforms to speak for us/all of us.

Why should somebody who has never worked in the industry be given the opportunity to create a documentary about adult entertainment? Especially if they're anti sex work.

You find it degrading and women "exploit" themselves, but those views are thrown out the window once you can profit off of us, right?

Hmm, that's an interesting idea. Maybe we show extend that to all professions, only people who've done a job can produce films, books, tv shows etc. about it So only cops can write about cops, politicians about politicians. Same thing for Orca trainers, the mafia, doctors, astronaut, tobacco executives, rapist, humanitarian, rock stars, tech executive, preachers, cowboys, and drug dealers etc. We'd live in much different and dare say less interesting and empathetic world.

I get the anger of being part of a group. that you think is good but suddenly everybody is making fun of your group, calling you stupid, and evil. There is a natural instinct to be suspicious of outsiders and feel like it is us vs them and become more insular Now, I've never been part of something that I was embarrassed to tell my parents about or been called a slut so I'm sure you all have had it worse.
I bet Amber could retire today if she had 1$ for every person who's posted, "I wish there wasn't such a stigma about sex workers" Now as some of you have said the stigma, helps keep wages up, but I imagine most of you would trade some wages for being able to proudly tell your friends and family. "Woot, I made the Top 100 in Miss MFC this month"

Back in the 1980s, there was far more social stigma to being homosexual, than there was to being a sex worker like a stripper or a porn star. Today that's changed and the stigma of being gay is far less than being a sex worker. The polling data, I've seen suggests that being gay is really not a big deal among young people at all.

Why the shift? I think a huge reason is because Gays came out of the closet. Now they didn't all come out at once, only a few brave people did. One of the big ways they did it was cooperating with media. There were a lot of documentaries, newspaper articles, and films, plays and much later TV shows. Many of the media accounts were very anti-gay, especially in the early days of the AIDs epidemic.
One of the consequences of some brave folks coming out in public is that other were outed accidently. Joe is gay, oh he hangs out a lot with Bill, I bet Bill is gay also. Eventually after many decades, and many folks accidently outed, American started to accept that your orientation doesn't define you.

Despite, its many flaws, I think on balance that somebody unfamiliar with sex workers who watch the first 5 episode of Hot Girls wanted would view sex workers in a more empathetic light. Even if they wouldn't want to see their daughter in the industry. If others who've watched it disagree that's cool.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Keep in mind what a blurred image implies to a viewer of a documentary. The perception is that you are either protecting an innocent or a lowlife who may sue you for exposing them. Cam models will struggle with taking the innocent perception path, so blurring implies that they should be ashamed.
In short, too much blur will look sleazy.

I don't really agree with that entirely. Some might take it that way, but I have seen faces of passersby blurred in the faces of other shows (though I can't even recall what it was, seems like it may have been one of the 20/20 or 60 Minutes type tv programs). The only impression that I can remember is that it was done out of courtesy; their face was not relevant to the story.

On the camsites I would definitely rather the faces be blurred, simply out of a desire not to cause models any unnecessary grief. I think a model who is geo-blocking on a camsite weighs heavier in my mind than a model who struggles with the implication of shame caused by blurred faces.

 

[SaffronBurke]

I don't really agree with that entirely. Some might take it that way, but I have seen faces of passersby blurred in the faces of other shows (though I can't even recall what it was, seems like it may have been one of the 20/20 or 60 Minutes type tv programs). The only impression that I can remember is that it was done out of courtesy; their face was not relevant to the story.

On the camsites I would definitely rather the faces be blurred, simply out of a desire not to cause models any unnecessary grief. I think a model who is geo-blocking on a camsite weighs heavier in my mind than a model who struggles with the implication of shame caused by blurred faces.

I think I've even seen news stations
blur people's faces when they do stories about obesity and are just filming fat people walking around in public, because they were just filming the general public's bellies/butts and didn't have permission for anyone to appear, so they blur faces out of courtesy. I would personally recognize my own ass in a heartbeat, but I do spend a lot more time staring at it than the average person, what with the editing of ass worship videos constantly and everything else that goes along with them.

 

[BiancaBaker]

50 minutes in Camgirlz you'll see a brief clip of the Chaturbate homescreen, without the girls faces being blurred. I believe they also show the MFC homepage, but I could be wrong.

yes but I'm 90 percent sure they got consent and the way they showed it was not as violating as what this documentary is doing. Not all film makers are bad who make films on sex work. This documentary is just on another level of fucked up

 

[justjoinedtopost]

50 minutes in Camgirlz you'll see a brief clip of the Chaturbate homescreen, without the girls faces being blurred. I believe they also show the MFC homepage, but I could be wrong.

Never saw it, but I went and looked. Showed considerably more faces in that brief moment than I have seen so far in HGWTO.

yes but I'm 90 percent sure they got consent and the way they showed it was not as violating as what this documentary is doing. Not all film makers are bad who make films on sex work. This documentary is just on another level of fucked up

Strikes me as very dubious that they contacted those women all over the world getting their consent. What makes you 90% certain?

 

[BiancaBaker]

Never saw it, but I went and looked. Showed considerably more faces in that brief moment than I have seen so far in HGWTO.

Strikes me as very dubious that they contacted those women all over the world getting their consent. What makes you 90% certain?

Because I know the guys who filmed the documentary and I know they had to get consent from the sites, also when they showed the screen they didn't have distinguishable faces showing (hence why they probably didn't have to contact every girl) the issue with the current documentary is they get super close and show the screen for an extended period of time where you can see the girls and recognize who they are. The other guy who mentioned the other documentary failed to put that when they showed the home page it was from a far shot/non recognizable shot- this is why there was no complaints over the previous documentary. Don't you think if they didn't get consent girls should have raised hell?

I just wanted to put it out there that NOT all non sex workers who make documentaries are evil. Thats why I wanted to comment on his mis information.


Edit to Add: I do not agree with what Hot Girls did and I hope they get sued to fuck. Its disgusting and unfair to girls who do not give consent. I completely understand that I could be seen on TV and it's a risk of course BUT I should be able to chose if I get shown on a documentary on fucking Netflix.

 

[JickyJuly]

Just in case anyone missed it or doesn't work on Streamate to understand fully, SweetMystery, on top of having her face shown, from the sound of her Twitter also has geoblocking/opted out of Streamate advertising. This generally lowers your placement on the site. She's basically given up money to maintain a lower profile on the site only to have this happen.

 

[Guy]

Just in case anyone missed it or doesn't work on Streamate to understand fully, SweetMystery, on top of having her face shown, from the sound of her Twitter also has geoblocking/opted out of Streamate advertising. This generally lowers your placement on the site. She's basically given up money to maintain a lower profile on the site only to have this happen.

Based on her tweets, It sounds like she geoblocks because of her nephews.