9 ms·

This will only push underage users to more underground sites, that don’t care enough about the laws, and which have even more extreme content. Whoever thinks th

• bradlys 4y ago
  This will also push me (an adult) to other websites. I have no interest in giving any ID to any random website.
  • flangola7 4y ago
    There will probably be a secure 3rd party identity provider that all the sites use eventually. The video sites will only receive a binary yes or no indicating if the user is "authorized." All of this is beyond sanity though. Porn is not evil. My dad grew up with Hustler, I grew up with The Pirate Bay, and my kids are growing up with 4K Pornhub (after they reached age 12 we disabled the content filters on the home DNS server, also using it as an opportunity to teach how DNS and basic networking functions). Government (and let's be honest, on this topic it's almost entirely one party in particular) needs to mind its own business. Sex, and things related to sex, are a personal matter. Thinking that I have the right to dictate someone else's personal life in this manner is not something that ever cross my mind, much less thinking it consciousable, much less introducing and voting for it to be the law of the land.
    • alienicecream 4y ago
      What if porn is evil, but you don't see why anymore because it changes you?
      • flangola7 4y ago
        Porn doesn't change you, so that concern can be safely discarded. It's not evil because there's no harm being inflicted. Adults who consent to have sex and doing it on camera are not engaging in evil. A person consenting to watch the video is not engaging in evil. There are tangential harms such as abuse and exploitation of the actors, but that's not inherent to porn (there is ethically produced porn) nor unique to it (actors in Hollywood are also exploited). The answer to those problems are breaking down existing power structures and zealously protecting worker rights, not banning Pornhub and AMC Theaters.
        • alienicecream 4y ago
          It absolutely does change you. Seeing people degrade themselves for money has a corrosive effect on your soul, and it's worse when you're getting off on it. It is inherently evil. That there is harm being inflicted is obvious to anyone who hasn't been so desensitized to it that it doesn't register anymore. The willingness of an individual to degrade themselves for money has nothing to do with whether they are being degraded.
          • flangola7 4y ago
            Many (most?) actors do not find it degrading. I already addressed the ones that do in my tangential harms comment. There's been plenty of easily googled interviews of both active and retired adult actors and for a numerous amount the work is not only not degrading, but the opposite - empowering. This matches the experience of SWs I know IRL. I would hazard a guess that the average worker in a large number of low-wage blue collar fields feels that their job is more degrading than the average porn SW. Regardless of line of work the solution is robust worker's rights protections and social safety nets, so that workers can't be exploited or financially pressured into jobs they find degrading, not to forbid the line of work or portray it as taboo.
            • alienicecream 4y ago
              If you don't know what you have, you won't know what you've lost. That's what's happening with "sex workers". Maybe some know, but it's too late. Others are just oblivious and that's too bad. To describe what these "performers" do on camera for a lewd, leering audience as empowering is absurd on it's face. Maybe they mean that in the sense of having a kind of power over their enslaved audience. The whole thing is evil.
              • flangola7 4y ago
                [dead]
• mildmotive 4y ago
  It’ll act as an additional hurdle, which is good. If people want to take their time to use a proxy, then they can still do so. What this prevents is easy access by minors. Right now anyone, regardless of age is a few clicks away from seeing porn on their smartphone.
  • denkmoon 4y ago
    How exactly will this change the situation of porn being a few clicks away regardless of age? Kid searches for "porn" on Google and clicks through the links until they find a non-compliant website. Pornhub is owned by a Canadian company, btw. The UK abandoned their effort to do this precisely because of how pointless it is.
  • candiddevmike 4y ago
    I would argue it's even less clicks to see violent, disturbing content on YouTube, and we don't require ID checking for that.
    • myko 4y ago
      In the US, at least, parents seem much more upset about a child seeing a bare female presenting breast than someone being stabbed/shot/killed in a movie.
      • dudul 4y ago
        Movies are rated to try to target the appropriate audience. Do you have a study to corroborate your statement or you're just parroting a popular "gotcha"?
  • hdhddhshhshd 4y ago
    >which is good citation needed? why should a teenager not see pictures of a naked person? keep in mind that teenagers in africa are fighting and dying in wars.
    • nsxwolf 4y ago
• KennyBlanken 4y ago
  It's not a genuine attempt at legislation by christo-fascists, it's a way to push the overton window, and is also a failure that they can then bring back to their tribe to shout about how they're fighting the good fight against the heathens - so give them money / vote for them. Sometimes it's used to trade political capital. They submit lots of bills like this, the party leadership keeps refusing to support it, the christo-fascists threaten to take their voters and donations away, party leadership gives them some concession by pushing some other bill to lean further in their direction.
  • karmakurtisaani 4y ago
    That's actually very plausible. And not limited to the fundies only. It's all fun and games, until such a bill gets passed and all of a sudden the UK leaves the EU (sure, it was a popular vote, but the spirit is the same).
  • altano 4y ago
    I think you missed the part where this legislation passed in Louisiana