All your whataboutery seems to miss the point that decent people generally change their behaviour as much as they're able in order to minimise the adverse impact of their choices once they're aware of the harms done in the production or supply of a product or service - this could be boycotting it altogether, sourcing ethical alternatives, reducing their consumption, campaigning for better conditions for the workers.
Very few people are actively seeking out videos and images of clear abuse. That is the minimisation. Your argument is that they could be viewing porn which does not look like it's abusive, but actually is. At what point would you accept that an actress (because you're not talking about actors) is making a choice (or as much of one she can make under capitalism)?
That's without addressing the wider adverse effect porn is having on society at large, and especially the demands being placed on young women starting their sex lives with men who have been conditioned by mainstream porn to expect rough sex, anal, gagging etc as a baseline, as vanilla. I'm not aware which of the products or services listed above is having a similar effect?
I'm skeptical about the above, but I'll take it as face value. You're comparing the sort of exploitation that has people in developing countries working in conditions that would likely be illegal for us, to some young women being in a situation where someone might ASK them to engage in an activity that they might not want to, at which point they can say "no" and continue with their lives. That's not exactly a damning indictment of the effects of porn.
I've asked and been asked to engage in sexual acts that were refused. I'm sure anyone with any kind of sex life has.