4 ms·

My point is simple: Porn companies have a duty to keep their product out of the hands of children. I didn't intend to get into the details of the legislation, b

by jpcfl 3y ago

My point is simple: Porn companies have a duty to keep their product out of the hands of children. I didn't intend to get into the details of the legislation, but on the surface I think it's perfectly reasonable to require proof-of-age from porn users, and to require the display health disclosures.

danShumway 3y ago
I think a lot of things sound reasonable on the surface before the details are clear. Keeping porn away from children is a good goal to have, and porn companies do have a duty to help with that. I think Pornhub itself would agree with that. So I understand having that initial reaction; it's a completely normal, human reaction to have to the idea of children watching porn -- I have that surface-level reaction too. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details and surface-level analysis of the legislation doesn't capture the actual problems with the law. Respectfully, you came into this conversation speaking pretty boldly about Pornhub's motivations and about the strength/weakness of the case (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37092329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37092329) but I think it's important when doing that kind of analysis to take the time to figure out what the actual consequences would be of the legislation being proposed. Especially where sex/porn is concerned: we're coming off of FOSTA/SESTA, two bills that were designed to help keep sex workers safe that sounded good on the surface and that have been widely criticized by sex workers as having made their lives significantly more dangerous. Legislating sex is complicated. In this case, both free speech and child safety are too important for people to be making decisions about this law without digging into the details.
- jpcfl 3y ago
  > you came into this conversation speaking pretty boldly about Pornhub's motivations and about the strength/weakness of the case I came in saying that their stance that they should not have to ID their customers because there are better methods to keep porn away from kids and TX lawmakers don't care about children is weak. I was specifically focusing on that rationale, not the details of an ID system. I have no doubt that that will be fraught with issues. But the porn companies don't want to play ball at all, which I think puts them in a very weak position. Hopefully that clarifies my original comment.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > I came in saying that their stance that they should not have to ID their customers because there are better methods to keep porn away from kids and TX lawmakers don't care about children is weak. Right, but you don't know if it's weak. You don't know what the downsides are of digital ID systems online, you don't know if the better methods being proposed aren't just as if not more effective. Digital ID systems sound good to you, but you haven't dug into the details to figure out whether they actually are a good idea here. You're upset that Pornhub is saying they're not a good idea for online systems, but for all you know they're completely right. > But the porn companies don't want to play ball at all I don't understand how you can say this; Pornhub is offering solutions but saying that the ID requirements here are problematic. And you're refusing to look into the effectiveness of those solutions and refusing to try and figure out what would be deficient about those systems but you're mad that... what, Pornhub counter-offered mechanisms that would help reduce child exposure to porn? In what world is that not playing ball? Of course in terms of the actual lawsuit, whether or not they're "playing ball" has nothing to do with the strength of Pornhub's position. It is not a valid defense against 1st Amendment claims to say, "but they're not helping enough." The government does not get extra rights to abridge speech just because they think a company should be working with them more. It's extra silly in this case because Pornhub is explicitly trying to be productive and offer suggestions. But even if they weren't -- no competent judge is going to look at cooperation with state governments as a precondition to 1st Amendment rights. ---- In general I just think: "We should do X" "X has problems, why don't we try Y" "I don't want to talk about the problems with X, why aren't you just doing it" is not a reasonable take to have.
    - jpcfl 3y ago
      You’re entitled to that opinion. I am of the opinion that porn companies should not be able to freely provide their content to children with impunity. Parents and device makers should provide censorship solutions, but that doesn’t absolve porn providers from their duty to check the ID of the people who view their content. I never said I don’t want to talk about the problems with online ID. You’re arguing with a strawman.

by jpcfl 3y ago

danShumway 3y ago

I think a lot of things sound reasonable on the surface before the details are clear. Keeping porn away from children is a good goal to have, and porn companies do have a duty to help with that. I think Pornhub itself would agree with that. So I understand having that initial reaction; it's a completely normal, human reaction to have to the idea of children watching porn -- I have that surface-level reaction too. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details and surface-level analysis of the legislation doesn't capture the actual problems with the law. Respectfully, you came into this conversation speaking pretty boldly about Pornhub's motivations and about the strength/weakness of the case (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37092329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37092329) but I think it's important when doing that kind of analysis to take the time to figure out what the actual consequences would be of the legislation being proposed. Especially where sex/porn is concerned: we're coming off of FOSTA/SESTA, two bills that were designed to help keep sex workers safe that sounded good on the surface and that have been widely criticized by sex workers as having made their lives significantly more dangerous. Legislating sex is complicated. In this case, both free speech and child safety are too important for people to be making decisions about this law without digging into the details.

jpcfl 3y ago
> you came into this conversation speaking pretty boldly about Pornhub's motivations and about the strength/weakness of the case I came in saying that their stance that they should not have to ID their customers because there are better methods to keep porn away from kids and TX lawmakers don't care about children is weak. I was specifically focusing on that rationale, not the details of an ID system. I have no doubt that that will be fraught with issues. But the porn companies don't want to play ball at all, which I think puts them in a very weak position. Hopefully that clarifies my original comment.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > I came in saying that their stance that they should not have to ID their customers because there are better methods to keep porn away from kids and TX lawmakers don't care about children is weak. Right, but you don't know if it's weak. You don't know what the downsides are of digital ID systems online, you don't know if the better methods being proposed aren't just as if not more effective. Digital ID systems sound good to you, but you haven't dug into the details to figure out whether they actually are a good idea here. You're upset that Pornhub is saying they're not a good idea for online systems, but for all you know they're completely right. > But the porn companies don't want to play ball at all I don't understand how you can say this; Pornhub is offering solutions but saying that the ID requirements here are problematic. And you're refusing to look into the effectiveness of those solutions and refusing to try and figure out what would be deficient about those systems but you're mad that... what, Pornhub counter-offered mechanisms that would help reduce child exposure to porn? In what world is that not playing ball? Of course in terms of the actual lawsuit, whether or not they're "playing ball" has nothing to do with the strength of Pornhub's position. It is not a valid defense against 1st Amendment claims to say, "but they're not helping enough." The government does not get extra rights to abridge speech just because they think a company should be working with them more. It's extra silly in this case because Pornhub is explicitly trying to be productive and offer suggestions. But even if they weren't -- no competent judge is going to look at cooperation with state governments as a precondition to 1st Amendment rights. ---- In general I just think: "We should do X" "X has problems, why don't we try Y" "I don't want to talk about the problems with X, why aren't you just doing it" is not a reasonable take to have.
  - jpcfl 3y ago
    You’re entitled to that opinion. I am of the opinion that porn companies should not be able to freely provide their content to children with impunity. Parents and device makers should provide censorship solutions, but that doesn’t absolve porn providers from their duty to check the ID of the people who view their content. I never said I don’t want to talk about the problems with online ID. You’re arguing with a strawman.