9 ms·

Let’s play the unintended downstream consequences of misguided policy game… No fapper in their right mind is submitting their ID to pornhub to have a wank. Th

Let’s play the unintended downstream consequences of misguided policy game… No fapper in their right mind is submitting their ID to pornhub to have a wank. This will just drive users to smaller, shadier sites that don’t comply with local regulations. These sites will contain more harmful or exploitative content, and their increased traffic will incentivize and facilitate a continued cycle of exploitation and abuse.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
A. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. B. Criminally investigate noncompliance.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  When you say "good" what are you referring to here? Because limiting access by ways of privacy invading policies seems to be just "bad".
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      OK, so the "good" in this case being making it more onerous to access a legal product and making it more likely that said consumers of product will have their personally identifying information stolen due to a particular extreme philosophical bent, got it. I'm going to say I vehemently disagree with your stance on this, but I don't think it's worthwhile for either of us to engage. Edit 1: > My views would've been considered normal, rational, and reasonable for almost everyone but the latest generation of porn addicts. There's been pornography in some way, shape or form as long as there's been media to record it. There's been videos since the invention of film - prudes did their best to shut it down. Want to expand on what your "views" are? Because the ones you've expressed so far have been radical as far back as I'm aware of. > If you want me to consider your opinion valid, I challenge you to take 1 year without viewing it, and then reconsider. This seems very on brand to try to force others to take your stance just to engage with you. Edit 2: My last response on this as I abhor this "edit to respond" format. I can't read the article, it's behind a paywall, but your initial argument: > I’m going to be honest and say that I believe pornography is a level of sexual exploitation that no person, not even the actors involved, should be considered capable of legally consenting to partake in. Does not in any way, shape, or form align with this argument: > I believe, at this point, that pornography is actually increasing the subjection of women and increasing misogyny towards them, and there are actually many feminists who agree with me on this view. In fact that first seems to be infantilizing the performers by literally saying that the women and men taking part aren't capable of making their own decisions. It's absurd that a woman can't be considered capable of consent to being photographed nude, and it's ridiculous to hide that stance behind "porn is misogyny".
    - pc86 4y ago
      This paternalistic bullshit has no place in a free, modern society of any sort. And of course obscenity has 1A protection, that's in large part exactly what it is designed to protect.
      - kemayo 4y ago
        "Obscenity" isn't protected by the first amendment (where obscene means, approximately, offensive on a fundamental moral level and without any redeeming artistic qualities). However, what counts as obscene is notoriously fuzzy -- the Supreme Court made up the Miller test[1], which roughly boils down to "would an average person think it's obscene?". In practice, as this applies to pornography, it's not treated as obscene in most cases, as pornography is very popular and widely consumed, so obviously the average person isn't offended by it. (I say "most cases", because this is what leaves open the door to banning specific pornography. E.g. child porn, snuff porn, etc. Things that are shocking to the average person.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      Those pearls sure are tight aren’t they? What, exactly, is wrong with boobs? Porn itself? What part of it is exploitative for the viewer? For the consenting and paid actor?
    - stirfish 4y ago
      >pornography is a level of sexual exploitation that no person, not even the actors involved, should be considered capable of legally consenting to partake in. Why?
    - saagarjha 4y ago
      > I’m going to be honest and say that I believe pornography is a level of sexual exploitation that no person, not even the actors involved, should be considered capable of legally consenting to partake in. Exploitation by whom?
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      I hope you extend your views about work that is beyond consent to non-sexual forms of work. Football players (concussions), kitchen refinishers (silicosis), crab boat workers (death) - they all trade deep risks of physical harm to their bodies for paycheques. If you don’t, what is it about porn that makes it different? Is it possible your views about sex work have less to do with protecting workers from exploitation and more about passing moral judgement on sex work itself?
    - tacitusarc 4y ago
      I respect that you can post an opinion obviously counter to the vast majority. I think the ability to dissent is incredibly important. Personally, I categorize porn as a drug (like caffeine or alcohol), and I treat it with the same suspicion I treat other drugs in my life: by using a healthy dose of suspicion. Things that can mess with me physiologically deserve deep scrutiny. And, obviously, social morays will tend toward normalizing those things as there is a lot of money in them, and people are very protective of their drugs. That being said, drugs affect everyone differently, so it’s vitally important to know your own tolerances and capabilities when using one. And, unless they alter the reasoning of users such that they are substantially more likely to commit a crime, I don’t think there’s a strong case for the drug’s illegality or restriction.
    - gameman144 4y ago
      > If you want me to consider your opinion valid, I challenge you to take 1 year without viewing it, and then reconsider. That's a pretty dang high bar. This is like me saying "if you don't think plain oatmeal is the best breakfast, try eating it every day for a year before I'll consider your opinion valid." Like, totally fine to disagree with people here, but if your argument is that people need to spend a couple percent of their remaining life following your rules before you'll consider their argument, then don't be surprised when people entirely ignore whether you think their arguments are valid.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      > You don't ask cocaine users how they feel about cocaine legalization Eventually people listened to weed users about weed legalization, and the sky did not fall in. > that pornography is actually increasing the subjection of women and increasing misogyny towards them I think in this case that a lot of non-nude but overtly misogynist content of the Andrew Tate variety should be banned instead?
    - gnulinux 4y ago
      Ok fair, but don't be surprised when people vote out politicians who share your opinions. To me, and to the culture, community I live/grew up in, this is a horribly authoritarian, scary, dystopian attitude that has absolutely no place in a free society, period. Thank you for sharing your opinion regardless, but please just understand that some people think adults get to consent to anything (literally anything) as long as it doesn't affect someone else. When an actor gets naked consensually, and when a person watches this moment consensually, there can be no qualifier that can further affect the judgement of this situation. It's not relevant whether this is "obscene", "gross", "objectionable", "less than ideal", "degenerate", "poor taste" etc. (It's not relevant philosophically, of course whether it's relevant legally is a separate question). Two adults made a decision about themselves which had no effect to people not involved in this situation. If you don't like porn don't watch it; if you don't like porn being made, don't be a porn actor. Easy peasy.
    - noabuseplease 4y ago
      I just want to add a comment to the horde, to let you know that I agree with you completely on all these points. Looking at the other replies, it occurs to me that the debate is often framed solely as a moral issue, but actually, we have considerable evidence of harm, several decades worth. Unfortunately it's difficult to get people to even consider the latter, when they want to focus solely on making their arguments for the former.
    - belorn 4y ago
      Everyone is free to hold their own personal beliefs as long they don't prevent others from holding theirs. Some people will agree with you, others disagree. There is very little difference in addictive triggers. All of them trigger the reward center in the brain in a very similar ways. Any time they get triggered there is a associated risk of affecting peoples behavior towards more triggering. We could put people into a brain scanner and identify what specific triggers that person reward center, and then ask them to abstain from that trigger for 1 year. The outcome would be very predictable. It would be like asking a cocaine user to abstain, but individualized to each person based on what trigger their reward center. No one is immune, through individuals will have different amount of struggle to ignore their own reward center. I also have a standing challenge to anyone who want to argue that the profession should be illegal. Write a generic law that makes it illegal but which does not mention the word sex or the concept of it. As an example: It should illegal to consent to work unless a person would be willing to do it without being paid, as otherwise it is exploitation of that person need for money.
    - eatsyourtacos 4y ago
      > If you want me to consider your opinion valid, I challenge you to take 1 year without viewing it, and then reconsider Sex is bad and addictive. If you want me to consider your opinion valid, I challenge you to take 1 year without doing it, and then reconsider
- sambull 4y ago
  The nature of it would require the cajun firewall of freedom. The firewall will need to prevent people from accessing stuff they aren't allowed to, maybe even block vpns.
throw_pm23 4y ago
Maybe some users will switch to more beneficial activities instead.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ryanianian 4y ago
  "Hugs not drugs" has not caused a rush on the hug market.
  - throw_pm23 4y ago
    Was it always so widely accessible? What did people do when it wasn't?
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Pornography has historically been about as accessible as any other form of media. At first it was limited to hand-drawn on paper [1] (just like any other content before the printing press). Woodblock and later cooper-plate printing made it easier to mass produce (just like everything else). Photography was almost immediately used to produce pornography, as was motion picture film. And of course, the internet made it drastically easier to distribute digitally. In short, pornography has always followed the existing means of media production and distribution. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Erotic_Papyrus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Erotic_Papyrus
      - throw_pm23 4y ago
        I agree with you, but quantity takes on a quality of its own. By analogy, sweet fruits and honey have been around and universally enjoyed since the dawn of time. Yet, guzzling down gallons of high-fructose-corn-syrup each day is relatively new and has made half of the population obese.
    - donatj 4y ago
      I grew up in the 80's/90's and there was a whole trade system in school. Swapping magazines and VHS tapes. It's not a new thing.
ArtemZ 4y ago
> No fapper in their right mind is submitting their ID to pornhub to have a wank. How come so? People literally pay for porn content with their credit cards which is a form of identification too. I don't see a problem with showing your id for accessing quality content.
- jehb 4y ago
  Not the minors who this law is supposed to "protect" - they will be the ones driven to shadier locations for their consumption.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    Yeah, they can try all they want but they aren't stopping a teenage boy from finding smut. Pornhub has, at least lately, developed a veneer of trying to be responsible as far as exploitation is concerned. The ones that are trying to play by the rules will be punished.
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    I realize not everywhere is like this, but the internet kind of makes the point moot anyway. I can get a prepaid CC attached to any address I want using cash at a cameraless location. Or I can alter my gait and put on a mask and ignore cameras. When used(value of $2 or less) the card makes for a superb trial abuse method for things like Netflix.
mywittyname 4y ago
I feel like this will eventually become an "everybody poops"-type thing. Kind of like how it's expected that people will share nudes with their partner, thus if they've had multiple partners, former partners are expected to have some. Lots of people watch porn. I'm more concerned with the precedent that this sets. Given the "interstate" nature of online commerce, I would think that this law is not enforceable, but given the current makeup of SCOTUS, it might stand for the next 50-100 years. Once a ruling goes through allowing for this type of regulations, I would expect a patchwork of laws to effectively de-anonymize the entire internet. Since VPNs can be used to ignore these regulations, the next step is to write laws that regulate VPNs. Thus, the government will have a one-stop-shop for finding all of the "bad" things a person is doing. Since payments for like 99.9% of users will be easily traceable to an individual, this will turn VPNs into a honeypot of sorts. Sure, hardened criminals can find ways around this, but I don't think small-town police are too concerned with going after criminals that are out of their league, this is more about projecting power over the locals.
- starkd 4y ago
  minors are less likely to sign up for a vpn service.
  - birdman3131 4y ago
    Hey parents I want a pixel phone. Why? Because my friend likes theirs. (Mentally: Because it has a built-in vpn.)
    - starkd 4y ago
      Parents should be aware of what their children are doing online. If not, they are negligent.
      - SauciestGNU 4y ago
        To an extent sure. Parents should also realize that adolescent youth will seek out pornography, and that's normal and not necessarily unhealthy.
YourMindMyFarm 4y ago
[flagged]
browningstreet 4y ago
Jimmy Kimmel did a parody last night called, "PornHUD". It's on Youtube.
candiodari 4y ago
But just think of using a VPN, then submitting the ID of a teacher ...
iinnPP 4y ago
You sound like a conspiracy theorist /s No, you sound like you took 1 + 1 and arrived at 2. That is precisely what will happen. It will also undoubtedly increase piracy. I don't buy that anyone is this stupid. They must have a (bad)poll telling them this is the best action to maintain power.
mgbmtl 4y ago
I agree it's 100% silly conservative BS, but let's be honest: Pornhub are absolutely terrible at complying with laws. Anyone who uploads something illegal (childporn, non-fantasy rape videos, or stolen nudes) must be held accountable. And if they can't find who is accountable, then Pornhub should be accountable. The other thing they will not do, is have a rating system for porn. Extreme porn should not be promoted to the front page. I'm not talking about when the UK considered facesitting to be "extreme". It could be determined by a neutral panel or whatnot. Then uploaders can set a rating, users can suggest a different rating, and users can change their rating filter. That way, teens exploring porn don't go from a casual gonzo, to something really extreme, in just a few clicks. It's better UX too, because I've talked about this with people, and many do watch porn, but they hate stumbling on something they consider gross (sorry to generalize, but women in particular tend to be more sensitive, and somewhat understandably since it's usually gross towards women). Instead, PornHub repeatedly argue that everyone has their kinks. They do, but it's not a valid excuse for doing nothing.
- nmz 4y ago
  I disagree on this, I've been on websites where I've stumbled on CP right there on the suggestion box, this has never happened to me on pornhub.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > is have a rating system for porn Not an unreasonable suggestion, but definitely going to run into unreasonable people who want everything to be rated "bad" (as you've seen with the UK nonsense)

gjsman-1000 4y ago

A. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. B. Criminally investigate noncompliance.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
When you say "good" what are you referring to here? Because limiting access by ways of privacy invading policies seems to be just "bad".
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    OK, so the "good" in this case being making it more onerous to access a legal product and making it more likely that said consumers of product will have their personally identifying information stolen due to a particular extreme philosophical bent, got it. I'm going to say I vehemently disagree with your stance on this, but I don't think it's worthwhile for either of us to engage. Edit 1: > My views would've been considered normal, rational, and reasonable for almost everyone but the latest generation of porn addicts. There's been pornography in some way, shape or form as long as there's been media to record it. There's been videos since the invention of film - prudes did their best to shut it down. Want to expand on what your "views" are? Because the ones you've expressed so far have been radical as far back as I'm aware of. > If you want me to consider your opinion valid, I challenge you to take 1 year without viewing it, and then reconsider. This seems very on brand to try to force others to take your stance just to engage with you. Edit 2: My last response on this as I abhor this "edit to respond" format. I can't read the article, it's behind a paywall, but your initial argument: > I’m going to be honest and say that I believe pornography is a level of sexual exploitation that no person, not even the actors involved, should be considered capable of legally consenting to partake in. Does not in any way, shape, or form align with this argument: > I believe, at this point, that pornography is actually increasing the subjection of women and increasing misogyny towards them, and there are actually many feminists who agree with me on this view. In fact that first seems to be infantilizing the performers by literally saying that the women and men taking part aren't capable of making their own decisions. It's absurd that a woman can't be considered capable of consent to being photographed nude, and it's ridiculous to hide that stance behind "porn is misogyny".
  - pc86 4y ago
    This paternalistic bullshit has no place in a free, modern society of any sort. And of course obscenity has 1A protection, that's in large part exactly what it is designed to protect.
    - kemayo 4y ago
      "Obscenity" isn't protected by the first amendment (where obscene means, approximately, offensive on a fundamental moral level and without any redeeming artistic qualities). However, what counts as obscene is notoriously fuzzy -- the Supreme Court made up the Miller test[1], which roughly boils down to "would an average person think it's obscene?". In practice, as this applies to pornography, it's not treated as obscene in most cases, as pornography is very popular and widely consumed, so obviously the average person isn't offended by it. (I say "most cases", because this is what leaves open the door to banning specific pornography. E.g. child porn, snuff porn, etc. Things that are shocking to the average person.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    Those pearls sure are tight aren’t they? What, exactly, is wrong with boobs? Porn itself? What part of it is exploitative for the viewer? For the consenting and paid actor?
  - stirfish 4y ago
    >pornography is a level of sexual exploitation that no person, not even the actors involved, should be considered capable of legally consenting to partake in. Why?
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    > I’m going to be honest and say that I believe pornography is a level of sexual exploitation that no person, not even the actors involved, should be considered capable of legally consenting to partake in. Exploitation by whom?
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    I hope you extend your views about work that is beyond consent to non-sexual forms of work. Football players (concussions), kitchen refinishers (silicosis), crab boat workers (death) - they all trade deep risks of physical harm to their bodies for paycheques. If you don’t, what is it about porn that makes it different? Is it possible your views about sex work have less to do with protecting workers from exploitation and more about passing moral judgement on sex work itself?
  - tacitusarc 4y ago
    I respect that you can post an opinion obviously counter to the vast majority. I think the ability to dissent is incredibly important. Personally, I categorize porn as a drug (like caffeine or alcohol), and I treat it with the same suspicion I treat other drugs in my life: by using a healthy dose of suspicion. Things that can mess with me physiologically deserve deep scrutiny. And, obviously, social morays will tend toward normalizing those things as there is a lot of money in them, and people are very protective of their drugs. That being said, drugs affect everyone differently, so it’s vitally important to know your own tolerances and capabilities when using one. And, unless they alter the reasoning of users such that they are substantially more likely to commit a crime, I don’t think there’s a strong case for the drug’s illegality or restriction.
  - gameman144 4y ago
    > If you want me to consider your opinion valid, I challenge you to take 1 year without viewing it, and then reconsider. That's a pretty dang high bar. This is like me saying "if you don't think plain oatmeal is the best breakfast, try eating it every day for a year before I'll consider your opinion valid." Like, totally fine to disagree with people here, but if your argument is that people need to spend a couple percent of their remaining life following your rules before you'll consider their argument, then don't be surprised when people entirely ignore whether you think their arguments are valid.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > You don't ask cocaine users how they feel about cocaine legalization Eventually people listened to weed users about weed legalization, and the sky did not fall in. > that pornography is actually increasing the subjection of women and increasing misogyny towards them I think in this case that a lot of non-nude but overtly misogynist content of the Andrew Tate variety should be banned instead?
  - gnulinux 4y ago
    Ok fair, but don't be surprised when people vote out politicians who share your opinions. To me, and to the culture, community I live/grew up in, this is a horribly authoritarian, scary, dystopian attitude that has absolutely no place in a free society, period. Thank you for sharing your opinion regardless, but please just understand that some people think adults get to consent to anything (literally anything) as long as it doesn't affect someone else. When an actor gets naked consensually, and when a person watches this moment consensually, there can be no qualifier that can further affect the judgement of this situation. It's not relevant whether this is "obscene", "gross", "objectionable", "less than ideal", "degenerate", "poor taste" etc. (It's not relevant philosophically, of course whether it's relevant legally is a separate question). Two adults made a decision about themselves which had no effect to people not involved in this situation. If you don't like porn don't watch it; if you don't like porn being made, don't be a porn actor. Easy peasy.
  - noabuseplease 4y ago
    I just want to add a comment to the horde, to let you know that I agree with you completely on all these points. Looking at the other replies, it occurs to me that the debate is often framed solely as a moral issue, but actually, we have considerable evidence of harm, several decades worth. Unfortunately it's difficult to get people to even consider the latter, when they want to focus solely on making their arguments for the former.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Everyone is free to hold their own personal beliefs as long they don't prevent others from holding theirs. Some people will agree with you, others disagree. There is very little difference in addictive triggers. All of them trigger the reward center in the brain in a very similar ways. Any time they get triggered there is a associated risk of affecting peoples behavior towards more triggering. We could put people into a brain scanner and identify what specific triggers that person reward center, and then ask them to abstain from that trigger for 1 year. The outcome would be very predictable. It would be like asking a cocaine user to abstain, but individualized to each person based on what trigger their reward center. No one is immune, through individuals will have different amount of struggle to ignore their own reward center. I also have a standing challenge to anyone who want to argue that the profession should be illegal. Write a generic law that makes it illegal but which does not mention the word sex or the concept of it. As an example: It should illegal to consent to work unless a person would be willing to do it without being paid, as otherwise it is exploitation of that person need for money.
  - eatsyourtacos 4y ago
    > If you want me to consider your opinion valid, I challenge you to take 1 year without viewing it, and then reconsider Sex is bad and addictive. If you want me to consider your opinion valid, I challenge you to take 1 year without doing it, and then reconsider
sambull 4y ago
The nature of it would require the cajun firewall of freedom. The firewall will need to prevent people from accessing stuff they aren't allowed to, maybe even block vpns.

throw_pm23 4y ago

Maybe some users will switch to more beneficial activities instead.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ryanianian 4y ago
"Hugs not drugs" has not caused a rush on the hug market.
- throw_pm23 4y ago
  Was it always so widely accessible? What did people do when it wasn't?
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Pornography has historically been about as accessible as any other form of media. At first it was limited to hand-drawn on paper [1] (just like any other content before the printing press). Woodblock and later cooper-plate printing made it easier to mass produce (just like everything else). Photography was almost immediately used to produce pornography, as was motion picture film. And of course, the internet made it drastically easier to distribute digitally. In short, pornography has always followed the existing means of media production and distribution. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Erotic_Papyrus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Erotic_Papyrus
    - throw_pm23 4y ago
      I agree with you, but quantity takes on a quality of its own. By analogy, sweet fruits and honey have been around and universally enjoyed since the dawn of time. Yet, guzzling down gallons of high-fructose-corn-syrup each day is relatively new and has made half of the population obese.
  - donatj 4y ago
    I grew up in the 80's/90's and there was a whole trade system in school. Swapping magazines and VHS tapes. It's not a new thing.

ArtemZ 4y ago

> No fapper in their right mind is submitting their ID to pornhub to have a wank. How come so? People literally pay for porn content with their credit cards which is a form of identification too. I don't see a problem with showing your id for accessing quality content.

jehb 4y ago
Not the minors who this law is supposed to "protect" - they will be the ones driven to shadier locations for their consumption.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Yeah, they can try all they want but they aren't stopping a teenage boy from finding smut. Pornhub has, at least lately, developed a veneer of trying to be responsible as far as exploitation is concerned. The ones that are trying to play by the rules will be punished.
- iinnPP 4y ago
  I realize not everywhere is like this, but the internet kind of makes the point moot anyway. I can get a prepaid CC attached to any address I want using cash at a cameraless location. Or I can alter my gait and put on a mask and ignore cameras. When used(value of $2 or less) the card makes for a superb trial abuse method for things like Netflix.

mywittyname 4y ago

I feel like this will eventually become an "everybody poops"-type thing. Kind of like how it's expected that people will share nudes with their partner, thus if they've had multiple partners, former partners are expected to have some. Lots of people watch porn. I'm more concerned with the precedent that this sets. Given the "interstate" nature of online commerce, I would think that this law is not enforceable, but given the current makeup of SCOTUS, it might stand for the next 50-100 years. Once a ruling goes through allowing for this type of regulations, I would expect a patchwork of laws to effectively de-anonymize the entire internet. Since VPNs can be used to ignore these regulations, the next step is to write laws that regulate VPNs. Thus, the government will have a one-stop-shop for finding all of the "bad" things a person is doing. Since payments for like 99.9% of users will be easily traceable to an individual, this will turn VPNs into a honeypot of sorts. Sure, hardened criminals can find ways around this, but I don't think small-town police are too concerned with going after criminals that are out of their league, this is more about projecting power over the locals.

starkd 4y ago
minors are less likely to sign up for a vpn service.
- birdman3131 4y ago
  Hey parents I want a pixel phone. Why? Because my friend likes theirs. (Mentally: Because it has a built-in vpn.)
  - starkd 4y ago
    Parents should be aware of what their children are doing online. If not, they are negligent.
    - SauciestGNU 4y ago
      To an extent sure. Parents should also realize that adolescent youth will seek out pornography, and that's normal and not necessarily unhealthy.

YourMindMyFarm 4y ago

[flagged]

browningstreet 4y ago

Jimmy Kimmel did a parody last night called, "PornHUD". It's on Youtube.

candiodari 4y ago

But just think of using a VPN, then submitting the ID of a teacher ...

iinnPP 4y ago

You sound like a conspiracy theorist /s No, you sound like you took 1 + 1 and arrived at 2. That is precisely what will happen. It will also undoubtedly increase piracy. I don't buy that anyone is this stupid. They must have a (bad)poll telling them this is the best action to maintain power.

mgbmtl 4y ago

I agree it's 100% silly conservative BS, but let's be honest: Pornhub are absolutely terrible at complying with laws. Anyone who uploads something illegal (childporn, non-fantasy rape videos, or stolen nudes) must be held accountable. And if they can't find who is accountable, then Pornhub should be accountable. The other thing they will not do, is have a rating system for porn. Extreme porn should not be promoted to the front page. I'm not talking about when the UK considered facesitting to be "extreme". It could be determined by a neutral panel or whatnot. Then uploaders can set a rating, users can suggest a different rating, and users can change their rating filter. That way, teens exploring porn don't go from a casual gonzo, to something really extreme, in just a few clicks. It's better UX too, because I've talked about this with people, and many do watch porn, but they hate stumbling on something they consider gross (sorry to generalize, but women in particular tend to be more sensitive, and somewhat understandably since it's usually gross towards women). Instead, PornHub repeatedly argue that everyone has their kinks. They do, but it's not a valid excuse for doing nothing.

nmz 4y ago
I disagree on this, I've been on websites where I've stumbled on CP right there on the suggestion box, this has never happened to me on pornhub.
pjc50 4y ago
> is have a rating system for porn Not an unreasonable suggestion, but definitely going to run into unreasonable people who want everything to be rated "bad" (as you've seen with the UK nonsense)