Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Lockdown teleworking impacts productivity of women more than men
When the COVID-19 pandemic led countries all over the world to lock down their economies in early 2020, there was an unprecedented global shift to teleworking in white collar sectors. A trend that had been gathering traction was suddenly and exponentially accelerated and many of the world’s largest corporations, Google and Facebook among them, have announced plans allowing employees to work from home well into 2021 or indefinitely. Remote working not only appears to work, but it appears to have a number of advantages—savings in office maintenance costs and time spent commuting, not to mention enabling organizations to safeguard productivity when there’s a major shock or crisis. But is it all good news? Or good news for all? A new paper by Ruomeng Cui, assistant professor of information systems and operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, reveals an important drop in the productivity of female academics around the world in the wake of the COVID-19 lockdowns. In fact, in the ten weeks following the initial lockdown in the United States, their productivity fell by a stunning 13.9 percent relative to that of male colleagues. And it’s likely to do with the disproportionate burden of responsibility for household needs and childcare that persistently falls on women, Cui said. “We know that gender inequality persists both in the workplace and at home, and we were curious to see how the lockdown scenario would attenuate or exacerbate the situation for women,” Cui said. Anecdotal evidence from her own field—academia—showed that in the weeks following the stay at home mandate in March, there was an upswing of around 20 to 30 percent of papers submitted to journals. However, the overwhelming majority of these were being authored by men. Intrigued, Cui teamed up with Goizueta doctoral student Hao Ding and Feng Zhu from Harvard Business School to conduct a systematic study of female academics’ productivity and output during this period. “We knew that the lockdown had disrupted life for everyone, including academics. With schools and kindergartens closed and people taking care of work and household obligations at home, we intuited that women would be affected more than men as they are disproportionately burdened with domestic and childcare duties,” Cui said. For female academics this would theoretically be particularly acute, as the critical thinking that goes into research calls for quiet, interruption-free environments. To put this to the test, Cui and her co-authors created a large data set covering all the new social science research papers produced by men and women, across 18 disciplines and submitted to SSRN, a research repository, between December 2018 to May 2019 and then from December 2019 to May 2020. From this set, they were able to extract information on titles, authors’ names, affiliations, and addresses to identify their countries and institutions, as well as faculty pages to distinguish between men and women. In total they collected just under 43,000 papers written by more than 76,000 authors in 25 countries. Looking at the data, Cui and her colleagues were able to compute the total number of papers produced by male and female academics each week and then compare the productivity of both before and after the start of the lockdown. Prior to the pandemic, the 2019 period showed no significant changes in productivity in either gender. But in the 10 weeks following the shock of lockdown, a clear gap emerges between men and women, with female academics’ productivity falling by just under 14 percent in comparison to their male colleagues. Interestingly the effect was more pronounced in top-ranked research universities. This is likely because top schools require faculty to publish research as the primary requisite for promotion, so men would be motivated to continue authoring papers before and after the lockdown. These findings lend solid, empirical clout to the notion that women do take a hit to productivity when care and work time are reorganized, Cui noted. “We see clearly that women are producing less work as a consequence of working from home. In the field of academia, that has huge implications as achieving a permanent position, or tenure, is generally linked to your research output,” she said. “So, there is a serious fairness issue there. If women are producing less because the burden of household responsibility is greater for them than for men, then you’re likely to see fewer female academics get tenure through no fault of their own.” Indeed, one of the other findings of the study shows that while productivity fell, the quality of female-authored research measured by downloads and citations did not. Then there’s the issue of teleworking and gender. With a significant proportion of the world’s white-collar organizations still working from home and unlikely to head back to the office any time soon—and as many schools and childcare facilities remain closed due to the pandemic—Cui is concerned that productivity as a measure of value and a marker of success might mean the odds are further stacked against women. And not just in academia. “We looked at universities in particular, but our findings can really be externalized to any other industry because the underlying issues here are universal. So, with remote working becoming normalized, I think there’s a real onus on organizations of every type to think about how to mitigate these unintended consequences,” she said. “There needs to be more thought about how we measure value or potential of employees.” Cui calls for organizations and institutions to consider these factors when they evaluate male and female workers in the present context and looking to the future. Among the kinds of proactive moves they might consider are to make training programs for male and female employees that explore fairness and encourage a more even distribution of responsibility in the home and for children. “There’s nothing to be gained in prioritizing productivity as a tool for evaluation and just giving women more time, say, to produce as much,” Cui warned. “You’re just left with the same scenario of women doing more than their fair share. Solving this issue is really much more about being aware of it, getting educated about it, and changing your mindset.” If you are a journalist looking to cover this research or speak with Professor Ciu about the subjects of telework and productivity, simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
The 'XX' factor: Women voters and what candidates need to know for future elections
As unique as the 2020 election was, it was still similar to every other election, where winning comes down to isolating key demographics, swaying them to lend support and getting those voters out to the ballot box. There are many different blocks of voters in America based on income, education, race, geography and gender. Gender among them is key, and on Nov. 3, women ensured their votes were counted. Ask Virginia voter Mary Hayes why Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump, and she does not hesitate. “Women won this election!” says Hayes, 56, a mother of three and Biden supporter from Leesburg, Virginia. In particular, she credits two categories of voters that she herself is part of: Black women and suburban women. Trump had begged the latter group — some of whom he’d alienated by referring to them as “housewives” — to “please, please” like him. But that plea rang hollow, she says. “We showed America that suburban women are diverse, and are a beautiful collection of ethnicity, race, marital status, occupations and many other categories,” Hayes says. “Suburban women mobilized, determined to remove Trump from office.” And, she says, they succeeded. Nov. 16, Associated Press Women did play a key role in the vote as it rolled across the country. But now, the balance of power in Washington will rely on two key Senate races in Georgia. And no doubt, both sides are strongly courting female voters. If you are a journalist looking to know how important a role gender will play in the January runoffs and what all four of the candidates need to do to secure those votes, then let an expert from Augusta University help with your story. Dr. Mary-Kate Lizotte is an expert in political behavior and the implications of gender differences in public opinion. She is available to talk about the 2020 election and the upcoming Senate runoffs in Georgia. Click on her name to schedule an interview.
Are vaccine passports legal in a post-COVID-19 era? Let our experts explain
As America and the world look to slowly round the corner of the safety measures enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, the new coronavirus vaccines are giving hope of an eventual return to normal. However, with an active anti-vaccination movement afoot and many still skeptical of getting that essential poke in the arm, the World Health Organization said some government officials are suggesting the idea of vaccine passports. A simple piece of identification would end the uncertainty that comes with travel, work and the much sought-after leisure that often means crowded places and smaller spaces. The idea has already caught on in countries in Europe and South America. It may be the safety blanket many seek, but are vaccine passports actually legal? It is a question that’s beginning to get serious coverage. “Having proof of vaccination can be essential for a number of sectors other than health, but we cannot overlook the potential discriminatory consequences that may arise,” said Dr. William Hatcher, an expert in public policy and interim chair of the Department of Social Sciences at Augusta University. Another idea being floated is immunity passports, but Hatcher suggests¬ allowing only people with immunity to work might disadvantage those who haven’t gotten sick or those without the antibodies to prove it. It’s as if, in the eyes of their employer, their lack of infection constitutes a disability. The inequality that immunity passports could foster in these situations may be illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act. There are also other ethical, practical, and cultural aspects to consider as well. If you are covering this emerging topic and are looking to know more, our experts can help. Dr. Hatcher is a professor of political science and interim chair of Augusta University’s Department of Social Sciences. He is an expert in the areas of public administration and social, economic, and political institutions in local communities. Hatcher is available to speak with media regarding the concept of vaccination and immunity passports. To arrange an interview, simply click on his name.
After four years of scandals, gaffes, hearings, indictments and even an impeachment – President Donald Trump seemed to be coasting on a coating of Teflon that kept him virtually unscathed as nothing ever stuck or shook his grasp on evading trouble. But that might have come to an end this week as The Washington Post dropped a bombshell of a story that including a recording of Trump allegedly seeking to interfere with the results in the recent election. President Trump urged fellow Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat in an extraordinary one-hour phone call Saturday that legal scholars described as a flagrant abuse of power and a potential criminal act. The Washington Post obtained a recording of the conversation in which Trump alternately berated Raffensperger, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences if the secretary of state refused to pursue his false claims, at one point warning that Raffensperger was taking “a big risk.” January 03 - The Washington Post No doubt the president was passionate – but did he cross the line? And if so – what are the consequences? There’s a lot of questions to be asked about what is next and that’s where our experts can help if you are covering. The University of Mary Washington has one of the foremost political experts in the country who can help with your stories. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a sought-after political commentator on presidential politics. He has been widely featured in national media, including The Washington Post, Reuters, The Chicago Tribune and MSNBC. Dr. Farnsworth is available to speak with media any time regarding the election and its aftermath – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
Network Science Offers Key Insights into Polarization, Disinformation, and Minority Power
People tend to think of the arena of politics as being driven by human decision and emotions, and therefore unpredictable. But network scientists like Boleslaw Szymanski, a computer science professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, have found that the country’s political activity – from American society’s ever-growing partisan divide to its grappling with the spread of misinformation online – can be explained by abstract and elegant models. These models provide insights — and even answers — to a number of pressing questions: Is increasing access to information driving us apart? Can an entrenched minority ultimately prevail? Could structural changes be made that insulate us from misinformation and reduce the polarization that divides us? Szymanski studies the technical underpinnings of our choices, how we influence one another, and the impact of the algorithms we rely upon to navigate a growing ocean of information. His work has yielded fascinating insights, including research on how a committed minority will overcome less determined opposition and the development of a parameter to determine what drives polarization in Congress. Through his research on the influence of minority opinions, Szymanski found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, it will ultimately be adopted by the majority of the society. “When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said Szymanski, a computer science professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.” In his present work, Szymanski is researching tools for measuring the level of polarization in specific news sites, search engines, and social media services, and developing remedies, like algorithms that offer better data provenance, detect misinformation, and create internal consistency reasoning, background consistency reasoning, and intra-element consistency reasoning tools. “Informed citizens are the foundation of democracy, but the driving interest of big companies that supply information is to sell us a product,” Szymanski said. “The way they do that on the internet is to repeat what we showed interest in. They’re not interested in a reader’s growth — they’re interested in the reader’s continued attention.” With the political environment becoming increasingly bitter and dubious information becoming ever more prevalent, Szymanski is available to discuss his research on polarization, disinformation, and the power of a committed minority.
The Alexa Effect: How the internet of things (IoT) is increasing retail sales
Imagine this scenario. You’re out of coffee but with the click of a button or a simple voice command, you reorder a two months’ supply that will arrive the same day. And that almond milk you like? Well, imagine your fridge already knew you were running low on supplies and independently sent the order to restock before you ran out. The stuff of science-fiction until only recently, internet of things (IoT) technology is beginning to change the way we live and work. Simply put, IoT is a system of interrelated devices—things that can include gadgets, digital objects, or machines, wearables and so on—which have the capacity to send and receive data over a network without human agency or human interaction. As a technology, IoT is novel, and it’s poised to reconfigure a range of sectors and industries—among them, the world of retail. Amazon is a leader in the consumer-facing space with an ecosystem of apps like Alexa, Fire TV, and the now-defunct Dash Button. Meanwhile, tech-savvy retailers are using IoT to facilitate operations. Smart shelves in stores can detect the status of perishable goods or inventory requirements; radio frequency identification (RFID) sensors can actively track the progress of produce through the supply chain. Retailers can even use IoT to send customers personalized digital coupons when they walk into the store. As IoT continues to gain traction around the globe, the potential for efficiency-boosting innovation in retail is clear. Less clear, however, is its actual impact on consumer choices and behaviors. Sure, IoT can save time and mental effort, but how does that translate into real-world business outcomes? This is the question that underscores new research by Vilma Todri and Panagiotis Adamopoulos, both assistant professors of information systems and operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. They were keen to understand whether consumer behavior is significantly changed under the regime of this new technology as it continues its roll out across the world. Specifically, they wanted to know if IoT technology actually increases demand for products. And it turns out that it does. “IoT technology in retail is really in its infancy, so understanding its impact on users and business is key,” Adamopoulos said. “We wanted to shed light on these dynamics at this early point to spark interest and generate more debate around how retailers can leverage this technology.” Together with Stern’s Anindya Ghose, he and Todri put together a large data-set with information about sales of certain products in countries with existing IoT retail markets and in others where the technology has not yet been introduced. “We needed to take into account these sorts of variables to really understand the effect,” Todri said. “So, we had our control group of non-IoT retail markets, and we were able to compare sales data for the same products in countries where the technology has been adopted.” The researchers also controlled for time trends, looking at the impact on sale prior to and post IoT adoption. “Looking at the data over time and pinpointing the exact moment when a product has been made available for sale via IoT sales channels across different countries and at different moments, we were able to infer the effect of the technology on product sales,” Todri said. In total, they looked at sales for the same or similar products in six countries between 2015 and 2017. They also compared sales across different retailers. “By analyzing the same sales information for different products in different markets using different channels across the world, we can see differences in the data that can only be attributable to this new technological feature,” Adamopoulos said. And the differences are significant. The concept is fascinating, and if you are interested in learning more, a complete article about this topic is attached: If you are a journalist or looking to learn more about IoT, our experts can help. Vilma Todri and Panagiotis Adamopoulos, both assistant professors of information systems and operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. Both experts are available to speak with media; simply click on either expert's icon to arrange an interview today.
Is hospital advertising actually good for our health?
Hospitals and healthcare organizations in the U.S. spend $1.5 billion on advertising every year. It’s a topic that provokes lively debate and a certain amount of controversy. Medical bodies, policy makers, and scholars alike question the ethics and efficacy of using (constrained) budgets to promote hospitals to patients. Diwas KC, professor of information systems & operations management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School, and Tongil Kim, an assistant professor of management at Naveen Jindal School of Management in Texas, conducted a large-scale study of hospitals and patients in the state of Massachusetts to better understand the impact of hospital advertising. What they found is striking: Not only does television advertising work, it significantly drives demand, attracting patients living far from the hospital and beyond its regular area. And that’s not all. KC and Kim discovered that limiting hospital advertising or imposing an outright ban, as some groups have called for, might actually have serious negative effects on patient healthcare. “There has been a lot of discussion about banning advertising over recent years because of uncertainties around wasting money and resources,” KC said. In the paper “Impact of hospital advertising on patient demand and outcomes,” KC shows that there is a correlation between the amount spent on TV advertising and the quality of the hospital in question. Healthcare facilities that invest more in advertising tend to be “better” hospitals, he adds; they offer higher caliber care and services and, as such, they see much lower patient readmission rates—a key quality metric in healthcare. To get to these insights, KC and Kim looked at more than 220,000 individual patient visits to hospitals in the state of Massachusetts over a 24-month period. Among the data they collected were things like hospital type, location, and dollars spent on advertising. Patients were documented in terms of medical conditions, insurance, zip codes (to determine residence), and median household income. They were able to contrast those hospitals that invested in television advertising and those that did not. With the former, they uncovered a significant uptick in patient visits, with people coming from far further afield. This was particularly true of wealthier patients. Then there’s the question of patient outcomes. Here the data showed unequivocally that it’s the high-quality, low-readmission hospitals that advertise more—something that KC attributes to the natural tendency to get “more bang for the advertising buck when the quality of your product or service is better.” As for banning advertising, this would negatively impact these hospitals, he argues, limiting their ability to attract patients. It could also lead to an increase in population-level readmission rates. “Patient readmission rates are one of the key metrics along with mortality rates that tell us how well a healthcare facility is working,” said KC. “If a patient gets discharged but has to come back to a hospital in, say, 30 days, unless it’s a chronic condition or ongoing treatment, it’s a good indication that the patient didn’t get the level of care they should have the first time.” Indeed, “when we looked at all of the data, we found that the hospitals where there were fewest revisit rates were those that advertised more,” he said. KC finds that a blanket ban on hospital advertising could lead to an extra 1.2 readmissions for every 100 patients discharged. It’s a significant and “surprising” finding. And one that should inform the debate around healthcare advertising spend in the U.S. “There’s also the idea that this is a zero-sum game because if a patient doesn’t go to hospital A, they’re just going to go to hospital B—the one that advertises more—splitting the pie in different ways but not increasing that pie,” KC said. “What our study finds is that yes, advertising does draw patients away from one facility and towards another, but that the latter generally delivers better patient outcomes,” he said. “So, there is a social welfare benefit right there that suggests that you should not ban hospital advertising. There are real health benefits in allowing [advertising] to happen.” If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic - then let our experts help. Diwas KC is a Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. He is an expert in the areas of Data Analytics, Operations, and Healthcare. If you are interesting in arranging an interview - simply click on his icon to set up a time today.
Heads up CFOs: The capital asset pricing model still rules
Firms invest in various things: bonds, stocks or other assets—new stores, new premises or even other firms. And they do so to earn maximum value from available cash that would otherwise be idle. For example, for the last five years Walmart generated an annual cash flow of more than $25 billion from its operations. The retailer has the option to channel this cash into opening new stores, ultimately growing its business and profits. Alternatively, Walmart can pay the cash out to its shareholders in the form of dividends, or through share repurchases. So far, it’s been productive. However, this win-win scenario is contingent on successfully navigating a number of complexities. Primary among these is that to invest optimally, you first need to determine the correct hurdle rate for that investment. Hurdle rates are the minimum rates of return that firms seek on their investments. The hurdle rate is the appropriate compensation commensurate with the investments’ risk. Therefore, the higher the risk, the higher the hurdle rate needs to be. For instance, a hurdle rate of 10% means that for every $100 invested, you would expect to earn an average of $10 average per year. But it’s tricky. You have to calculate the right hurdle rate that would add the most value for your shareholders—the optimal rate of return for you and your business. Too high and there’s risk of missing out on a good investment. If your right hurdle rate is 10%, but you mistakenly opt for 15%, you’re likely to ignore any investment that is projected to earn you less than 15%, but more than 10% is likely to be missed. As a result, you’ll end up leaving money on the table. Too low a hurdle rate and you’re in danger of burning money. Again, supposing your hurdle rate should be 10%, but you set it at 5%, you’re likely to end up investing in things with a suboptimal return. In the end, you’re wasting your cash on low value investments when you could be paying it directly to your shareholders in dividends and giving them the chance to earn 10% return on their own. For the last 50 years, the financial world has built models to calculate hurdle rates and rates of return. But which one works best? Shedding critical new light on this is a recently published paper by Narasimhan Jegadeesh, Dean’s Distinguished Chair of Finance at Goizueta, entitled “Empirical tests of asset pricing models with individual assets.” Jegadeesh and his co-authors developed new statistical methods to differentiate among a raft of new models that have been developed in recent years and to compare their efficacy to that of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), a model introduced in the 1960s. What they found is that none of the newer models work any better than the CAPM in determining the appropriate hurdle rate or rate of return of an asset. That paper is attached and is required reading for CFOs and anyone interested in the Capital Asset Pricing Model. If you are looking to know more, or if you are a journalist interested in covering this important aspect of business and investing – then let our experts help. Narasimhan Jegadeesh is Dean’s Distinguished Chair of Finance at Goizueta. He is a renowned expert in this field and has been published extensively in the Journal of Finance, the Journal of Financial Economics, the Review of Financial Studies and other leading academic finance journals. His research has been discussed in several publications including Businessweek, The Economist, Forbes, Kiplinger's Personal Investments, Money, New York Times, and Smart Money.
Exploring the direct link between drug abuse and the internet
Drug overdoses account for a staggering number of deaths in the United States. In 2017 alone, more than 70,000 U.S. citizens died from opioid overdoses, a number that eclipses the death toll due to traffic accidents, gun violence, or HIV in the same year. Among the academic community, media and national organizations such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there is a growing consensus that the internet plays a key role in enabling access to illicit drugs in America. As far back as 2005, the DEA referred to the internet as an “open medicine cabinet; a help-yourself pill bazaar to help you feel good.” But until now, the jury has been out about whether online platforms actually drive substance abuse among internet users. Research by Anandhi Bharadwaj, vice dean for faculty and research and Roberto C. Goizueta Endowed Chair in Electronic Commerce, along with doctoral candidate Jiayi Liu 22PhD, casts compelling new light on this issue. Their paper, Drug Abuse and the Internet: Evidence from Craigslist, was published in March 2020. By using data from Craigslist, one of the largest online platforms for classified advertisements, the researchers found a significant uptick in drug abuse in areas where Craigslist had become active in the last decade or so. Launched in San Francisco in 1995, Craigslist is a location-specific site that has been spreading to different U.S. cities in a staggered fashion since 2000. As the site has grown, so too have the number of illicit, user behaviors that exist in tandem with the many positive services it offers. Among these are prostitution and the sale of controlled or illicit drugs. The internet: a pipeline for narcotics Historically the sale and purchase of illegal drugs has happened in physical spaces—streets and urban areas prone to certain boundaries and limitations, not to mention the risk of arrest or potential violence. The internet has changed the game in two key ways. First, there is the simple mechanism of buyer-seller matching. Dealers and buyers transact online, which is more straightforward, faster and cuts through many of the risks associated with physical interaction. Simply put, it’s easy to buy drugs online. Second, there is the issue of anonymity. Research has documented how human beings behave differently when we believe our identity is shielded from others. We are prone to take more risks under the cloak of anonymity. Working off these two premises, Bharadwaj and Liu hypothesized that the internet not only facilitates the sale and purchase of drugs—it must also proactively spur supply and demand. To put this to the test, they documented the U.S. cities and counties where Craigslist has become operational since 2000 and then analyzed three other key variables: total number of people admitted into drug treatment facilities in different counties between 1997 and 2008, county-level drug abuse violations, and number of deaths caused by overdose per county. Eager to understand how this new access to drugs online might also be impacting people at a demographic and socioeconomic level, the researchers merged this data with statistics on age, ethnicity and poverty from the U.S. Census Bureau. Additionally, the authors compiled information about income and unemployment, crime and arrests from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the FBI respectively. What they found was stunning. Not only is there a marked increase in drug-related treatments (14.9 percent), violations (5.7 percent) and deaths (6.0 percent) wherever Craigslist becomes operational in a city or county; the momentum of increasing drug abuse also continues to grow over time in that area. And that’s not all. Economic disadvantages—poverty, unemployment and lower standards of education—are typically associated with a higher risk of substance abuse. But the findings suggest that in fact it’s the wealthier, higher-educated groups—especially among whites, Asians, and women—that are more likely than others to engage in drug abuse once Craigslist starts operating in an area. In fact, they conclusively found an uptick in this kind of behavior where crime and drug abuse had been less prevalent previously. In other words, where drugs are becoming readily available online, there is a dramatic increase in new and first-time users. If you are interested in learning more or if you are a journalist looking to cover this research – then let our experts help. Professor Anandhi Bharadwaj is the Vice Dean for Faculty and Research and the Goizueta Endowed Chair in Electronic Commerce and Professor of Information Systems, Operations Management. To arrange an interview with – simply click on her icon today.
New York Times, Pornhub, Visa & Mastercard: The Debate
Yet another example of no one listening to sex workers Pornhub just made major changes to how their platform works, including expanded moderation and new guidelines for content uploads. Now, only verified users can upload videos to the platform – a decision which meant the total number of videos hosted on Pornhub were more than quartered overnight from 13.4 million to 2.9 million – and users can no longer download videos from the site. This comes after an expose on the New York Times, The Children of Pornhub, which investigated the number of rape videos being hosted on the site, including those of minors. The article, written by Nicholas Kristof, followed the lives of child sexual assault victims whose videos were uploaded onto the site. The op-ed launched a huge debate within the adult industry over censorship & moderation. People, rightfully so, do not trust Kristof because of his ties to anti-porn organisations and his reputation when it comes to reporting on sex work. In the past he has been accused of conflating sex work with sex trafficking, using misleading statistics, and was instrumental in the shutting down of Backpage, a vital safeguarding tool for sex workers, calling it “the pillar of sex trafficking”. He also quoted Laila Mickelwait in the op-ed, who is an activist and director of Traffickinghub, a campaign launched by Exodus Cry which has anti-sex work, anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion links (it’s founder reportedly compared abortion to the holocaust). This week, two days after Pornhub announced their changes, Visa and Mastercard started an investigation and soon announced that their cards would no longer be accepted on the platform. This has left Pornhub with no way to process payments other than with cryptocurrencies. It goes without saying that the decision from Visa & Mastercard has panicked adult content creators who make their living from paid content on Pornhub. Because let’s be clear, Mastercard & Visa’s decision will not hurt Pornhub, who always have and always will continue to make money off of stolen content, this decision hurts sex workers – the people that Pornhub has never cared for. Adult performers, producers and directors have spent years speaking out about the exploitation within Pornhub and the tube site business model, yet no one has listened. MindGeek, the parent company of Pornhub, dominates online porn. It has completely demolished the industry and drained money out of the industry by stealing performers’ work and giving it away for free, and by monopolising the industry. MindGeek is an aggressive tech company through and through, it does not care about porn or adult content creators, it cares about traffic and advertising. It also owns production companies which means performers who may want to speak out about the system ultimately can’t for fear of being black listed from the production companies and therefore having less work and even less money. "Adult performers have spent years speaking out about the exploitation within Pornhub and the tube site business model, yet no one has listened" Pornhub does not care about performers and it’s clear that Kristof doesn’t either, but it wasn’t until the New York Times covered this issue that Pornhub did something. I wonder why? If properly implemented by Pornhub, their new regulations could have had a significant impact on illegal and stolen content, which would be a win for adult performers who have no choice but to use the platform. But with the new ban from Mastercard & Visa, they could now be in an even worse position than before. This is yet another example, just like SESTA/FOSTA, that shows that when it comes to making changes to the adult industry we must speak to sex workers & have their involvement in policy. Pornhub, Mastercard, & Visa, do not care about the issue of rape videos or of pirated material, these are policies that were brought in under pressure to “do something” out of fear of negative publicity. We know that Pornhub does not care about the content it hosts, the people it hurts or the lives it ruins – they have shown us this time and again. Just last year they demonstrated this with the Girls do Porn case. Despite 22 women coming forward to sue Girls Do Porn for uploading explicit videos of them to Pornhub without their consent, Pornhub refused to remove the videos from the platform, even promoting them, until Girls do Porn were finally charged with sex trafficking. Now is not a time to protect Pornhub, it’s time to protect and support the people who will actually be harmed by this. We must remember who have been talking about this for years whilst no one has listened; sex workers. Please go and find performers and indie producers that you want to support and pay them for their work. Whether it’s on Only Fans or through their personal websites, pay & support sex workers & adult content creators.
