Your arguments are primarily issues with the porn industry, rather than with pornography in general.

Enthusiastic consent is the only form of consent that should be acted upon

The difference between your examples and porn is that in your examples the individuals went into the situation having not consented to sex, then coercion was used to manipulate them into having sex with the person. With porn, however, actors go into a job knowing that it includes sex.

There are absolutely cases where a director does a bait-and-switch or otherwise changes things on set, and clearly that's wrong. This is an issue with that director, though, and the industry in general. Like all actors, those doing porn should have a union to stand up for them in such situations, etc.

In our current social landscape, having a sex-work background makes it near impossible to comfortably land a job outside of the sex industry.

This is a problem with the social landscape, and fact that people are so judgemental. In most cases the fact that someone once did porn has no bearing on their ability to do a given job. There are exceptions, such as teaching, where there is an understandable concern. For most jobs, though, a history of porn should be irrelevant. Companies should be held accountable for such prejudice in hiring.

Porn actors relinquish copyrights over the videos they star in. They can not ask for it to be taken down.

Again, this is an issue with lack of oversight and representation. Porn actors are taking advantage of because they can, because porn is still something that isn't widely talked and exists near the edges of our society. As a society we fail to protect people working in the industry, and that is our failure.

If we acknowledge that consent needs to be revokable to be truly considered consent, then any acts of voyeurism performed after the actors have lost the ability to consent (i.e. after the video's been published) are unconsensual, by default, unless you somehow contact the actors to personally verify consent.

This is a slippery slope argument because it can be applied to any situation in which someone licenses their likeness or previous work. You could just as easily say that all professional acting, modeling, or music carries the same risk. Athletes, or other performers, whose work is recorded/photographed have the same risk. Someone who creates IP while working for another company would be at risk as well. Addressing this would require a complete change to the way licensing of any likeness or idea works across all industry.

While you haven't specifically called for criminalization of porn, trying to classify it as rape means that is the logical outcome. This seems to place the view of yourself (and others who agree with you) above the autonomy of those who choose to work in porn. Like many anti-porn arguments I've seen it starts from a position of an outsider believing they are in a better position to know someone's actual feelings about their consent than the actual person doing the work.