3 ms·

I dunno. It seems simple: if you don’t like porn, don’t use it.

by amanaplanacanal 3y ago

polski-g 3y ago
If you don't like guns, and use them.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
  Far as I know I never killed anyone by looking at their picture
rayiner 3y ago
That’s simple-minded reasoning, based on the false notion that personal choices don’t have social effects. The things society allows have aggregate social consequences that affect individuals. If aliens were watching a society that allows porn and one that doesn’t, those societies would be different even if the aliens couldn’t see into people’s bedrooms to observe them actually watching porn.
- filoleg 3y ago
  > If aliens were watching a society that allows porn and one that doesn’t, those societies would be different even if the aliens couldn’t see into people’s bedrooms to observe them actually watching porn. Yeah, we can do that today even. All I can say is that after looking at some of the countries in the present day that don’t allow porn, they are indeed different from those that do. Typically not in ways that would make anyone actually want to live there, and with their lack of porn access having pretty much nothing to do with that at all. Makes you wonder, huh.
KBme 3y ago
The law doesn't prevent you from using it. It prevents children from accessing it, or at least tries to.
- sgarland 3y ago
  Not really. I’m fairly confident the lawmakers knew the operators of porn sites would just exit the market, because the methods of proving identity were onerous, and also who wants to submit proof of their identity to a porn site? Similarly, VPNs are a dime a dozen and incredibly easy to use, so a minor who wants to access it can just hop through another state. The law has no real impact.
- nunez 3y ago
  It does this by asking for a government issued ID as proof. Prima facie, this makes sense. When you get cigs or beer, you're asked for ID to prove you're over 18. Porn is age-restricted, so porn websites should also ask for ID. QED, etc. But if you go even one step beneath this reasoning, you'll see that this is an unbelievably slippery slope: - What's stopping state governments from subpoenaing ID verification systems to find out who's viewing porn? - This is from the same state that "pioneered" a legal bounty system for phoning in women who might be getting an abortion so that they can be "dealt with." What's stopping the state from doing the same from people who watch porn? - What's stopping the state from extending this law to require age verification for anything that feels right for an ID check? Abortion sites? sites about birth control? Sites saying the wrong things about $DEITY? - This is also from the same state that, as the article outlines, has also passed a state bill that makes any form of moderation on social media illegal. So enacting spam control for folks spamming OnlyFans links is fine, but if you click on those links, you're viewing contraband and should be dealt with? What the fuck?

I dunno. It seems simple: if you don’t like porn, don’t use it.

polski-g 3y ago

If you don't like guns, and use them.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
Far as I know I never killed anyone by looking at their picture

rayiner 3y ago

That’s simple-minded reasoning, based on the false notion that personal choices don’t have social effects. The things society allows have aggregate social consequences that affect individuals. If aliens were watching a society that allows porn and one that doesn’t, those societies would be different even if the aliens couldn’t see into people’s bedrooms to observe them actually watching porn.

filoleg 3y ago
> If aliens were watching a society that allows porn and one that doesn’t, those societies would be different even if the aliens couldn’t see into people’s bedrooms to observe them actually watching porn. Yeah, we can do that today even. All I can say is that after looking at some of the countries in the present day that don’t allow porn, they are indeed different from those that do. Typically not in ways that would make anyone actually want to live there, and with their lack of porn access having pretty much nothing to do with that at all. Makes you wonder, huh.

KBme 3y ago

The law doesn't prevent you from using it. It prevents children from accessing it, or at least tries to.

sgarland 3y ago
Not really. I’m fairly confident the lawmakers knew the operators of porn sites would just exit the market, because the methods of proving identity were onerous, and also who wants to submit proof of their identity to a porn site? Similarly, VPNs are a dime a dozen and incredibly easy to use, so a minor who wants to access it can just hop through another state. The law has no real impact.
nunez 3y ago
It does this by asking for a government issued ID as proof. Prima facie, this makes sense. When you get cigs or beer, you're asked for ID to prove you're over 18. Porn is age-restricted, so porn websites should also ask for ID. QED, etc. But if you go even one step beneath this reasoning, you'll see that this is an unbelievably slippery slope: - What's stopping state governments from subpoenaing ID verification systems to find out who's viewing porn? - This is from the same state that "pioneered" a legal bounty system for phoning in women who might be getting an abortion so that they can be "dealt with." What's stopping the state from doing the same from people who watch porn? - What's stopping the state from extending this law to require age verification for anything that feels right for an ID check? Abortion sites? sites about birth control? Sites saying the wrong things about $DEITY? - This is also from the same state that, as the article outlines, has also passed a state bill that makes any form of moderation on social media illegal. So enacting spam control for folks spamming OnlyFans links is fine, but if you click on those links, you're viewing contraband and should be dealt with? What the fuck?