10 ms·

Porn Sites Need Age-Verification Systems in Texas, Court Rules

53 points by berkeleyjunk 3y ago

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Im in Utah which has this law. Now pornhub is effectively inaccessible because Im not giving them my ID but I think it largely backfired because everyone uses offshore sites now. Tbh Im kind of grateful because the offshore sites have much better content since its all pirated, but I never wouldve even thought of them until I was kicked off ph.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  On the other side of that, the pornography is also likely to be dodgier and the sites shadier. Not saying Pornhub isn't, but it had that cull a while back, and it seems to be trying to be semi-above board, and that can't be said for every site. And "the children" are still able to access pornography. Nobody wins, except those offshore sites, and I guess the prudes who are only in it for the sound bite.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Right as I said it backfired. Now the government has legit zero control over porn consumption, where before revenge porn and the like was inaccessible as ph would take it down.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Now we begin discussing a national firewall. With talk of regulating TikTok, I've wondered what the US would do if TikTok sent a notification saying, essentially, "just connect to our servers in China". The kids would do it, and then what? There are a few Internet regulations I've seen discussed that would require a national firewall to achieve their stated goals.
  - InitialLastName 3y ago
    With TikTok, presumably one way to achieve a ban without a firewall is on the supply side (i.e. make it illegal for entities doing business in the US to buy ads on the service, reducing the revenue from the service in the US to $0). That could also include the app store owners, forcing all new users to side-load.
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    I feel like if there is one country where this wouldn't fly, it's the US. Not only because of the population but politicians would have a hard time justifying it when they openly complain about the same thing in other countries. Not that it has ever stopped them, but it'd be harder I think. The US still projects an image of freedom to the rest of the world. It's certainly not idolized as much as a few decades ago but, when compared to other powerful countries, the general population still maintains a good perception of it (at least in the Western world?). Anyway, a national firwall would create roadblocks for business and money talks.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      I really hope that you are right, but where I suspect you may not be is in the assumption that to the average person not having a national firewall is freedom. If there is one thing we have seen in the US, it is that many of the people who value freedom and proclaim it the loudest, will gladly accept restrictions like this as long as they are in a nice sounding package such as the US Patriot act.
    - coliveira 3y ago
      Americans are very comfortable doing things that they condemn in other countries. They only need some silly explanation that ends with liberty or democracy, and they will do anything other countries do.
    - Buttons840 3y ago
      Conservatives fear and already suspect mass Internet censorship of election stealing and conservative viewpoints, etc. They would be skeptical, for only partially legitimate reasons though. An unreliable ally in this fight I think. Also, US trust in mainstream media is falling and people are turning to other sources of news. These alternative news sources won't be happy to see mass censorship, because they know it could happen to them. If they do ban TikTok (or ruin it somehow), an entire generation of kids will be embittered against the government and learn an important lesson; a silver lining. You may be right. I hope you're right.
- gbasin 3y ago
  Strictly for research purposes, what would some of these offshore sites be?
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    I use porntrex
- GypsyKing716 3y ago
  You can't legislate freedoms. You can try, but we've always had the tools to subvert (most likely legally on the federal level) and skirt the unconstitutional (face value, not a lawyer) nature of such things. I'm a Christian, and live within my belief structure, too. BUT the path to redemption is either a chicken finger sub if you are a secularist, or a pulpit if your God fearing individual. I just can't stand politicians who have 0-faith that try to leverage it without consulting those on the opposite side of the idle that need that Adam and Eve 12" whatever demonstrated on pr0nh0rb.
  - JauntyHatAngle 3y ago
    You certainly can legislate freedoms. The biggest news of last year was enabling legislating away access to abortion in many states for example. Internet freedom is harder to legislate, but with enough backing you can legislate things in a way to make it difficult for the common person to access certain websites, which is certainly impactful. It hasn't happened yet but there is nothing to say it wouldn't happen with enough time and backing of certain politicians.
c3534l 3y ago
The slow drip of government interference means people forget what a free and open interent was like. Slowly, its becoming segmented by chickenshit regulation, censorship, and corporate control. We don't care because its only Texas and its adult content, but this is what the slow chipping away of freedom looks like: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- armada651 3y ago
  > free and open interent I have already forgotten all about the open interent, all we're left with is this internet thing full of closed gardens with nations each trying to claim parts of it fall under their jurisdiction.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > slow drip of government interference means people forget what a free and open interent was like Not sure what about any of this is slow or quiet.
- CPLX 3y ago
  An alternate point of view is that one day we will look back with deep shame at this hopefully brief period where we made porn and gambling available to children instantly in limitless quantities. Not saying it’s easy to figure out how to accomplish change in a free and fair way. But the status quo is pretty clearly a horrifying outcome.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    > But the status quo is pretty clearly a horrifying outcome. Care to elaborate? This feels like all of the ads that were warning about the "dangers of gay marriage" without ever being able to name an actual danger. Just fear mongering.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      I think having children and teens exposed to limitless hardcore pornography is likely harmful to them. Maybe I’m wrong but it seems that the benefits to society of allowing this are essentially zero and the harms likely severe, so I’d support attempts to limit it as a matter of public policy.
TeckPerspecc 3y ago
Would be better to just require all porn sites to be payment-only. Deals with addiction as well as child access. Right now, this sort of regulation seems like the purpose is a de-anonymised internet in a format that Republicans can accept.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Because addicts won’t use their money to feed an addiction? Or because people don’t get addicted to things that cost money?
  - TeckPerspecc 3y ago
    It’s much harder to hide an addiction from a spouse if it’s not free.
- gizmo686 3y ago
  How does payment help with addiction? Most porn sites would likely go with a flat rate for unlimited access. Addict levels of viewing would be no more expensive than casual viewing
- tiznow 3y ago
  Better for lawmakers perhaps. Certainly not porn sites or a few advertisers.
- zzz999 3y ago
  Got 3 children under 10 and they all have a bank card
nerdjon 3y ago
> Texas cannot enforce a provision requiring porn websites to "display health warnings about the effects of the consumption of pornography." Well at least some common sense prevailed, there is zero reason to have a notice like that. Like I kinda get on paper how you could come to the conclusion of needing to do something like this (the ID part), I mean generally (unless you look a certain age) you do have to show your ID to buy porn or any related places... But it just feels unnecessary and reeks of data collection that could be used for bad reasons. I know I started looking at porn at... middle school timeframe. Maybe freshman of high school but pretty sure middle school. So 13/14 years old time frame. I am just fine. I am not saying that kids should have free access to it, but we need to remove this stigma.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    You really believe the negative effect has been nothing? I totally oppose this law, but I think claiming that widespread access to internet pornography has had no ill effect at all is denying your own lying eyes.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      You're free to list these effects. Obviously the "sex crazed delusional woman abusers" theory didn't play out, ironically domestic abuse fell off cliff as internet porn became widespread. Not saying they are necessarily related, but the prude hot heads of the early 00's were _completely_ wrong. https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_IPV_508_QC.pdf https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/...
      - caeril 3y ago
        Yes, and sexual assault also declined along with porn proliferation: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601... But this isn't a popular thing to raise because it contradicts the insane zero-evidence misandrist talking point we've had shouted for decades that rape is about "male power" or "controlling women". Turns out it's actually about "being horny with criminal intent".
MiddleEndian 3y ago
What counts as a porn site? Reddit, Twitter, etc. all have porn on them. Definitely backwards for free speech and the open internet. Also backwards for privacy and security. If anything, sites should be prevented from collecting identifying info unless absolutely necessary.
- 0cVlTeIATBs 3y ago
  >The law applies to websites in which more than one-third of the content "is sexual material harmful to minors."
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    How is “harmful to minors” defined here?
    - yau8edq12i 3y ago
      https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H... > (6) "Sexual material harmful to minors" includes any material that: > (A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest; > (B) in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of: > (i) a person's pubic hair, anus, or genitals or the nipple of the female breast; > (ii) touching, caressing, or fondling of nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals; or > (iii) sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act; and > (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
      - quesera 3y ago
        This is, obviously, garbage. As with all "offensiveness" laws.
alfiedotwtf 3y ago
Given the smut in the Bible, will all Bible websites and by extension church websites in Texas need to be updated?
- tennisflyi 3y ago
  No church website has extensive passages from the Bible
Edmond 3y ago
There are effective ways (cryptography) to implement age verification and other forms of ID and ID-adjacent verification online that isn't a privacy nightmare. I am currently working on one such solution: https://youtu.be/92gu4mxHmTY https://youtu.be/92gu4mxHmTY https://certisfy.com/ https://certisfy.com/ It works, it scales and solves the problem comprehensively. Happy to answer any questions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kstrauser 3y ago
  That’s a privacy nightmare.
causi 3y ago
It's illegal at the federal level to distribute pornography to people under the age of 18. I don't understand why people don't advocate for repealing this law while at the same time saying internet companies deserve an exception to it. There is no other age-gated product, such as alcohol, tobacco, or firearms where "well they told us they were of age" is sufficient, nor does the responsibility for verification lie on anyone but the distributor. Personally I'm more of the free-for-all, repeal the obscenity laws type of person, but this logical inconsistency irks me.
- AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
  I propose putting all age gated products under the purview of the ATF, since we are already well on our way to doing that.
  - GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
    I swear officer, I lost all of my old Hustler magazines in a boating accident!
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
Let's hope a new generation of kids learns the wisdom in cooking up fake IDs. I was worried it was dying out due to today's children not boozing as hard as my peers.
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  I can understand being opposed to these laws on the principle of freedom of information and freedom from government interference, but why are you explicitly hoping for specifically children to receive pornographic material? That's a very strange thing to wish.
  - amenhotep 3y ago
    Presumably because he was a kid and remembers what it was like.
    - Geeek 3y ago
      Now, do you have any evidence that he was a kid in the past?
    - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
      Pretty much this. That and I'm suspicious of the claim that the content in online pornography is worse than the selection available 20 years ago. "Online pornography is teaching our boys to be misogynists who are bad in bed. Yes, it's worse than the stuff you watched with your friends as a teen. Source? It's obvious to see (a.k.a. just trust me, bro)."
- zooq_ai 3y ago
  We have software to sus out most fake IDs
cellinaabram 3y ago
[dead]
beej71 3y ago
Only 2/3 of the site has to be non-porn. Generative AI to the rescue!
karaterobot 3y ago
> "the age-verification requirement is rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in preventing minors' access to pornography. Therefore, the age-verification requirement does not violate the First Amendment." The idea that the government takes an interest in whether a minor views pornography doesn't make sense to me. I can see why their parents would take an interest, but it's harder for me to justify why the government ought to weigh in on it. I get that the government gets to say what they have a legitimate interest in and what they don't, but if you follow that logic you just wind up back where you started. It seems pointless and overreaching. This is a completely different matter than child exploitation or sex trafficking, or any matters tangential to porn.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  That's democracy for you. The government is the solution to all ills, if enough people want a rule then the rule becomes real. Parents are the government in a democracy. I'm partial to a republic, a set of difficult to change rules that protect us against mass hysteria and tyrrany of the majority, subjecting us all to the will of the majority in potentially every fascet of our lives is a recipe for disaster. There are some things that are nobody's business but mine, restricting the scope of the civic process is an absolute necessity IMO.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Exposure to pornography among minors is a huge problem today with the advent of the internet, and especially given the ubiquity of smart phones among minors. The harms cannot be overstated. Those who are old enough to remember the days before the internet may remember how accessing porn was more difficult, especially for minors. The typical story is about how boys would get a hold of a copy of some sad uncle's "dirty magazines". That's in the last 50 years. Before that, it was virtually unheard of, as it was only in the 1970s that production codes and norms were broken, and obscenity laws were loosened. This law may very well be just about protecting children, but if it were also a part of a broader strategy of containing and eventually obliterating the porn industry and the normalization of porn use, then I welcome it.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  > The harms cannot be overstated. Proceeds to not state said harms… Maybe tell us those supposed harms.
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    And the punchline is they're actually vanishingly marginal and esoteric compared to those from junk food, guns, tobacco, booze, and social media.
    - nerdjon 3y ago
      Right? And like is said elsewhere, how many of those problems come from the stigma around porn and sex and our inability to discuss this with friends and family without it being uncomfortable. We all (well most, asexual people exist) have sex. Most of us exist because of sex. If we could openly talk about porn and sex, would the “problems” exist? Too much of anything could be a problem. Video games, movies, whatever.

53 points by berkeleyjunk 3y ago

Im in Utah which has this law. Now pornhub is effectively inaccessible because Im not giving them my ID but I think it largely backfired because everyone uses offshore sites now. Tbh Im kind of grateful because the offshore sites have much better content since its all pirated, but I never wouldve even thought of them until I was kicked off ph.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
On the other side of that, the pornography is also likely to be dodgier and the sites shadier. Not saying Pornhub isn't, but it had that cull a while back, and it seems to be trying to be semi-above board, and that can't be said for every site. And "the children" are still able to access pornography. Nobody wins, except those offshore sites, and I guess the prudes who are only in it for the sound bite.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Right as I said it backfired. Now the government has legit zero control over porn consumption, where before revenge porn and the like was inaccessible as ph would take it down.
Buttons840 3y ago
Now we begin discussing a national firewall. With talk of regulating TikTok, I've wondered what the US would do if TikTok sent a notification saying, essentially, "just connect to our servers in China". The kids would do it, and then what? There are a few Internet regulations I've seen discussed that would require a national firewall to achieve their stated goals.
- InitialLastName 3y ago
  With TikTok, presumably one way to achieve a ban without a firewall is on the supply side (i.e. make it illegal for entities doing business in the US to buy ads on the service, reducing the revenue from the service in the US to $0). That could also include the app store owners, forcing all new users to side-load.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  I feel like if there is one country where this wouldn't fly, it's the US. Not only because of the population but politicians would have a hard time justifying it when they openly complain about the same thing in other countries. Not that it has ever stopped them, but it'd be harder I think. The US still projects an image of freedom to the rest of the world. It's certainly not idolized as much as a few decades ago but, when compared to other powerful countries, the general population still maintains a good perception of it (at least in the Western world?). Anyway, a national firwall would create roadblocks for business and money talks.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    I really hope that you are right, but where I suspect you may not be is in the assumption that to the average person not having a national firewall is freedom. If there is one thing we have seen in the US, it is that many of the people who value freedom and proclaim it the loudest, will gladly accept restrictions like this as long as they are in a nice sounding package such as the US Patriot act.
  - coliveira 3y ago
    Americans are very comfortable doing things that they condemn in other countries. They only need some silly explanation that ends with liberty or democracy, and they will do anything other countries do.
  - Buttons840 3y ago
    Conservatives fear and already suspect mass Internet censorship of election stealing and conservative viewpoints, etc. They would be skeptical, for only partially legitimate reasons though. An unreliable ally in this fight I think. Also, US trust in mainstream media is falling and people are turning to other sources of news. These alternative news sources won't be happy to see mass censorship, because they know it could happen to them. If they do ban TikTok (or ruin it somehow), an entire generation of kids will be embittered against the government and learn an important lesson; a silver lining. You may be right. I hope you're right.
gbasin 3y ago
Strictly for research purposes, what would some of these offshore sites be?
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  I use porntrex
GypsyKing716 3y ago
You can't legislate freedoms. You can try, but we've always had the tools to subvert (most likely legally on the federal level) and skirt the unconstitutional (face value, not a lawyer) nature of such things. I'm a Christian, and live within my belief structure, too. BUT the path to redemption is either a chicken finger sub if you are a secularist, or a pulpit if your God fearing individual. I just can't stand politicians who have 0-faith that try to leverage it without consulting those on the opposite side of the idle that need that Adam and Eve 12" whatever demonstrated on pr0nh0rb.
- JauntyHatAngle 3y ago
  You certainly can legislate freedoms. The biggest news of last year was enabling legislating away access to abortion in many states for example. Internet freedom is harder to legislate, but with enough backing you can legislate things in a way to make it difficult for the common person to access certain websites, which is certainly impactful. It hasn't happened yet but there is nothing to say it wouldn't happen with enough time and backing of certain politicians.

c3534l 3y ago

The slow drip of government interference means people forget what a free and open interent was like. Slowly, its becoming segmented by chickenshit regulation, censorship, and corporate control. We don't care because its only Texas and its adult content, but this is what the slow chipping away of freedom looks like: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

armada651 3y ago
> free and open interent I have already forgotten all about the open interent, all we're left with is this internet thing full of closed gardens with nations each trying to claim parts of it fall under their jurisdiction.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> slow drip of government interference means people forget what a free and open interent was like Not sure what about any of this is slow or quiet.
CPLX 3y ago
An alternate point of view is that one day we will look back with deep shame at this hopefully brief period where we made porn and gambling available to children instantly in limitless quantities. Not saying it’s easy to figure out how to accomplish change in a free and fair way. But the status quo is pretty clearly a horrifying outcome.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  > But the status quo is pretty clearly a horrifying outcome. Care to elaborate? This feels like all of the ads that were warning about the "dangers of gay marriage" without ever being able to name an actual danger. Just fear mongering.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    I think having children and teens exposed to limitless hardcore pornography is likely harmful to them. Maybe I’m wrong but it seems that the benefits to society of allowing this are essentially zero and the harms likely severe, so I’d support attempts to limit it as a matter of public policy.

TeckPerspecc 3y ago

Would be better to just require all porn sites to be payment-only. Deals with addiction as well as child access. Right now, this sort of regulation seems like the purpose is a de-anonymised internet in a format that Republicans can accept.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
Because addicts won’t use their money to feed an addiction? Or because people don’t get addicted to things that cost money?
- TeckPerspecc 3y ago
  It’s much harder to hide an addiction from a spouse if it’s not free.
gizmo686 3y ago
How does payment help with addiction? Most porn sites would likely go with a flat rate for unlimited access. Addict levels of viewing would be no more expensive than casual viewing
tiznow 3y ago
Better for lawmakers perhaps. Certainly not porn sites or a few advertisers.
zzz999 3y ago
Got 3 children under 10 and they all have a bank card

nerdjon 3y ago

> Texas cannot enforce a provision requiring porn websites to "display health warnings about the effects of the consumption of pornography." Well at least some common sense prevailed, there is zero reason to have a notice like that. Like I kinda get on paper how you could come to the conclusion of needing to do something like this (the ID part), I mean generally (unless you look a certain age) you do have to show your ID to buy porn or any related places... But it just feels unnecessary and reeks of data collection that could be used for bad reasons. I know I started looking at porn at... middle school timeframe. Maybe freshman of high school but pretty sure middle school. So 13/14 years old time frame. I am just fine. I am not saying that kids should have free access to it, but we need to remove this stigma.

Workaccount2 3y ago
[flagged]
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
  You really believe the negative effect has been nothing? I totally oppose this law, but I think claiming that widespread access to internet pornography has had no ill effect at all is denying your own lying eyes.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    You're free to list these effects. Obviously the "sex crazed delusional woman abusers" theory didn't play out, ironically domestic abuse fell off cliff as internet porn became widespread. Not saying they are necessarily related, but the prude hot heads of the early 00's were _completely_ wrong. https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_IPV_508_QC.pdf https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/...
    - caeril 3y ago
      Yes, and sexual assault also declined along with porn proliferation: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601... But this isn't a popular thing to raise because it contradicts the insane zero-evidence misandrist talking point we've had shouted for decades that rape is about "male power" or "controlling women". Turns out it's actually about "being horny with criminal intent".

MiddleEndian 3y ago

What counts as a porn site? Reddit, Twitter, etc. all have porn on them. Definitely backwards for free speech and the open internet. Also backwards for privacy and security. If anything, sites should be prevented from collecting identifying info unless absolutely necessary.

0cVlTeIATBs 3y ago
>The law applies to websites in which more than one-third of the content "is sexual material harmful to minors."
- kstrauser 3y ago
  How is “harmful to minors” defined here?
  - yau8edq12i 3y ago
    https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H... > (6) "Sexual material harmful to minors" includes any material that: > (A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest; > (B) in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of: > (i) a person's pubic hair, anus, or genitals or the nipple of the female breast; > (ii) touching, caressing, or fondling of nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals; or > (iii) sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act; and > (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
    - quesera 3y ago
      This is, obviously, garbage. As with all "offensiveness" laws.

alfiedotwtf 3y ago

Given the smut in the Bible, will all Bible websites and by extension church websites in Texas need to be updated?

tennisflyi 3y ago
No church website has extensive passages from the Bible

Edmond 3y ago

There are effective ways (cryptography) to implement age verification and other forms of ID and ID-adjacent verification online that isn't a privacy nightmare. I am currently working on one such solution: https://youtu.be/92gu4mxHmTY https://youtu.be/92gu4mxHmTY https://certisfy.com/ https://certisfy.com/ It works, it scales and solves the problem comprehensively. Happy to answer any questions.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kstrauser 3y ago
That’s a privacy nightmare.

causi 3y ago

It's illegal at the federal level to distribute pornography to people under the age of 18. I don't understand why people don't advocate for repealing this law while at the same time saying internet companies deserve an exception to it. There is no other age-gated product, such as alcohol, tobacco, or firearms where "well they told us they were of age" is sufficient, nor does the responsibility for verification lie on anyone but the distributor. Personally I'm more of the free-for-all, repeal the obscenity laws type of person, but this logical inconsistency irks me.

AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
I propose putting all age gated products under the purview of the ATF, since we are already well on our way to doing that.
- GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
  I swear officer, I lost all of my old Hustler magazines in a boating accident!

BeFlatXIII 3y ago

Let's hope a new generation of kids learns the wisdom in cooking up fake IDs. I was worried it was dying out due to today's children not boozing as hard as my peers.

sickofparadox 3y ago
I can understand being opposed to these laws on the principle of freedom of information and freedom from government interference, but why are you explicitly hoping for specifically children to receive pornographic material? That's a very strange thing to wish.
- amenhotep 3y ago
  Presumably because he was a kid and remembers what it was like.
  - Geeek 3y ago
    Now, do you have any evidence that he was a kid in the past?
  - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
    Pretty much this. That and I'm suspicious of the claim that the content in online pornography is worse than the selection available 20 years ago. "Online pornography is teaching our boys to be misogynists who are bad in bed. Yes, it's worse than the stuff you watched with your friends as a teen. Source? It's obvious to see (a.k.a. just trust me, bro)."
zooq_ai 3y ago
We have software to sus out most fake IDs

cellinaabram 3y ago

[dead]

beej71 3y ago

Only 2/3 of the site has to be non-porn. Generative AI to the rescue!

karaterobot 3y ago

> "the age-verification requirement is rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in preventing minors' access to pornography. Therefore, the age-verification requirement does not violate the First Amendment." The idea that the government takes an interest in whether a minor views pornography doesn't make sense to me. I can see why their parents would take an interest, but it's harder for me to justify why the government ought to weigh in on it. I get that the government gets to say what they have a legitimate interest in and what they don't, but if you follow that logic you just wind up back where you started. It seems pointless and overreaching. This is a completely different matter than child exploitation or sex trafficking, or any matters tangential to porn.

friend_and_foe 3y ago
That's democracy for you. The government is the solution to all ills, if enough people want a rule then the rule becomes real. Parents are the government in a democracy. I'm partial to a republic, a set of difficult to change rules that protect us against mass hysteria and tyrrany of the majority, subjecting us all to the will of the majority in potentially every fascet of our lives is a recipe for disaster. There are some things that are nobody's business but mine, restricting the scope of the civic process is an absolute necessity IMO.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

Exposure to pornography among minors is a huge problem today with the advent of the internet, and especially given the ubiquity of smart phones among minors. The harms cannot be overstated. Those who are old enough to remember the days before the internet may remember how accessing porn was more difficult, especially for minors. The typical story is about how boys would get a hold of a copy of some sad uncle's "dirty magazines". That's in the last 50 years. Before that, it was virtually unheard of, as it was only in the 1970s that production codes and norms were broken, and obscenity laws were loosened. This law may very well be just about protecting children, but if it were also a part of a broader strategy of containing and eventually obliterating the porn industry and the normalization of porn use, then I welcome it.

nerdjon 3y ago
> The harms cannot be overstated. Proceeds to not state said harms… Maybe tell us those supposed harms.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  And the punchline is they're actually vanishingly marginal and esoteric compared to those from junk food, guns, tobacco, booze, and social media.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    Right? And like is said elsewhere, how many of those problems come from the stigma around porn and sex and our inability to discuss this with friends and family without it being uncomfortable. We all (well most, asexual people exist) have sex. Most of us exist because of sex. If we could openly talk about porn and sex, would the “problems” exist? Too much of anything could be a problem. Video games, movies, whatever.