6 ms·

> 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 st

by 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.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > I never said I don’t want to talk about the problems with online ID. > I was specifically focusing on that rationale, not the details of an ID system > I didn't intend to get into the details of the legislation > No matter what regulation there is, someone will have to bear a burden, but I'm not going to try to quantify that. It's very easy for you to say that Pornhub is just being lazy or that they're deliberately trying to show porn to children when you refuse to look into what it would require to comply with Texas's law or what the magnitude of that burden would be both on companies and on regular adults. Your description of Pornhub's "duty" is an abstract notion that you're refusing to connect to any practical real-world implementation online. That allows you to keep characterizing online ID as just a basic duty that Pornhub should be helping with. But you don't have anything to back that that up, it's a purely surface-level "but doesn't is sound good that Pornhub should take responsibility for this" perspective. And when I've tried to talk about the actual consequences, you just handwave that as "well sure there will be consequences, but we should do it anyway." No, if there are massive consequences, we shouldn't do it. Even if it sounds instinctively good to you or feels more "fair" because internally you're just imagining this as a casual ID check like you'd give to a cashier before buying alcohol. In fact, if a system has obvious downsides and will be worse for everyone and if better options are available, then that does absolve Pornhub from the responsibility of going along with that obviously flawed system. And digital ID is an obviously flawed system. This conversation has all the energy of law enforcement complaining that tech companies keep talking about how breaking E2EE harms security. "Yeah, we know it's difficult, but nerd harder, figure out how we can have the backdoor we want. You're not being constructive with us, you have a duty to access that information when we ask for it. What gives you the right to shirk your responsibility to know what your users are saying?" But it's not Pornhub's fault that you have an unrealistic expectation about how digital online ID would go.

by jpcfl 3y ago

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.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > I never said I don’t want to talk about the problems with online ID. > I was specifically focusing on that rationale, not the details of an ID system > I didn't intend to get into the details of the legislation > No matter what regulation there is, someone will have to bear a burden, but I'm not going to try to quantify that. It's very easy for you to say that Pornhub is just being lazy or that they're deliberately trying to show porn to children when you refuse to look into what it would require to comply with Texas's law or what the magnitude of that burden would be both on companies and on regular adults. Your description of Pornhub's "duty" is an abstract notion that you're refusing to connect to any practical real-world implementation online. That allows you to keep characterizing online ID as just a basic duty that Pornhub should be helping with. But you don't have anything to back that that up, it's a purely surface-level "but doesn't is sound good that Pornhub should take responsibility for this" perspective. And when I've tried to talk about the actual consequences, you just handwave that as "well sure there will be consequences, but we should do it anyway." No, if there are massive consequences, we shouldn't do it. Even if it sounds instinctively good to you or feels more "fair" because internally you're just imagining this as a casual ID check like you'd give to a cashier before buying alcohol. In fact, if a system has obvious downsides and will be worse for everyone and if better options are available, then that does absolve Pornhub from the responsibility of going along with that obviously flawed system. And digital ID is an obviously flawed system. This conversation has all the energy of law enforcement complaining that tech companies keep talking about how breaking E2EE harms security. "Yeah, we know it's difficult, but nerd harder, figure out how we can have the backdoor we want. You're not being constructive with us, you have a duty to access that information when we ask for it. What gives you the right to shirk your responsibility to know what your users are saying?" But it's not Pornhub's fault that you have an unrealistic expectation about how digital online ID would go.