3 ms·

Pornhub is a pretty disgusting company[1]. At the same time, this law was manifestly meant to serve as a foot in the door towards increased online surveillance

Pornhub is a pretty disgusting company[1]. At the same time, this law was manifestly meant to serve as a foot in the door towards increased online surveillance (there is no such thing as "online age verification" for just minors) with the obvious aim of stifling constitutionally protected speech. Seems like a reasonable (and very straightforward) ruling. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornhub#Non-consensual_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornhub#Non-consensual_pornogr...

darkclouds 3y ago
Surely its just publicly documenting criminal acts for law enforcement purposes when looking at data privacy laws like EU GDPR? Mind you, when will the legal system admit it non-consensually forces itself onto people from the day one is born? I wonder who does more harm especially as we are supposed to live in a democracy where we can pick and choose our politicians and thus legislators, and yet the state doesn't teach law to people in a tldr way. The legal system is certainly dictatorial in a fascist dictator way, so does that make law abiding citizens little fascist dictators, who use a mere transgression of the law, to unload their pent up frustration of violence on those around them? I will say this, the US constitution is so vague, its barely worth repeating let along harping back to for court cases. Time to update the constitution for the 21st century, unless it should be viewed simply as a tldr in todays modern times?
- deprecative 3y ago
  If we updated the constitution then we'd have slavery back in effect and there would be no separation of church and state.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    Without "updates" you wouldn't even have the First Amendment...
    - deprecative 3y ago
      The processes via which we update that Constitution. I wasn't speaking to historically I mean now. We cannot get amendments ratified through the normal Congress + States approach. We'd have to do the whole Constitutional Convention thing. That opens the entire Constitution up for changing. If that happens, because land means more than people, we'd have the chucklefuck brother-husbands in charge of the process.
  - darkclouds 3y ago
    Why would you have slavery back and no separation of the church and state? If the Christian Church can recognise it needed a New Testament, then why not a new US constitution. I'm sure many of religious followers would accept the need for change and updates, as technology and business in general demonstrates on a daily basis. Or is the resistance to change simply demonstrating peoples needs or desires to live in some rose tinted past of human history, that has white washed the abominations of the past? If it does, should these people be making decisions for lots of people?
    - deprecative 3y ago
      Conservatives are actively trying to do both at present. Let's not give them power to do either.
666lumberjack 3y ago
This seems to amount to: 1. They purportedly did a really shitty job of handling a report of CSAM 14 years ago. 2. They have the same problem with occasional abhorrent content every platform for user-submitted content has, except that they've taken stronger steps to reduce it by attempting to verify that everyone in uploaded content has consented to being in it. Would we really call that 'pretty disgusting', if not for the consistent effort of conservative activists and thinkpiece journalists to frame the site in the most unfavourable terms possible?

darkclouds 3y ago

Surely its just publicly documenting criminal acts for law enforcement purposes when looking at data privacy laws like EU GDPR? Mind you, when will the legal system admit it non-consensually forces itself onto people from the day one is born? I wonder who does more harm especially as we are supposed to live in a democracy where we can pick and choose our politicians and thus legislators, and yet the state doesn't teach law to people in a tldr way. The legal system is certainly dictatorial in a fascist dictator way, so does that make law abiding citizens little fascist dictators, who use a mere transgression of the law, to unload their pent up frustration of violence on those around them? I will say this, the US constitution is so vague, its barely worth repeating let along harping back to for court cases. Time to update the constitution for the 21st century, unless it should be viewed simply as a tldr in todays modern times?

deprecative 3y ago
If we updated the constitution then we'd have slavery back in effect and there would be no separation of church and state.
- hnfong 3y ago
  Without "updates" you wouldn't even have the First Amendment...
  - deprecative 3y ago
    The processes via which we update that Constitution. I wasn't speaking to historically I mean now. We cannot get amendments ratified through the normal Congress + States approach. We'd have to do the whole Constitutional Convention thing. That opens the entire Constitution up for changing. If that happens, because land means more than people, we'd have the chucklefuck brother-husbands in charge of the process.
- darkclouds 3y ago
  Why would you have slavery back and no separation of the church and state? If the Christian Church can recognise it needed a New Testament, then why not a new US constitution. I'm sure many of religious followers would accept the need for change and updates, as technology and business in general demonstrates on a daily basis. Or is the resistance to change simply demonstrating peoples needs or desires to live in some rose tinted past of human history, that has white washed the abominations of the past? If it does, should these people be making decisions for lots of people?
  - deprecative 3y ago
    Conservatives are actively trying to do both at present. Let's not give them power to do either.

666lumberjack 3y ago

This seems to amount to: 1. They purportedly did a really shitty job of handling a report of CSAM 14 years ago. 2. They have the same problem with occasional abhorrent content every platform for user-submitted content has, except that they've taken stronger steps to reduce it by attempting to verify that everyone in uploaded content has consented to being in it. Would we really call that 'pretty disgusting', if not for the consistent effort of conservative activists and thinkpiece journalists to frame the site in the most unfavourable terms possible?