6 ms·

How the American war on porn could change the way you use the internet

42 points by heavyset_go 2y ago

michaelt 2y ago
As I understand things, a big part of the support for age verification comes from religious groups who'd like a complete porn ban. But as that won't fly for first amendment reasons, imposing an impractical age verification requirement is the next best thing. The impracticality is intentional, the people advocating for these laws don't want it to be possible to comply with.
- echelon 2y ago
  Tracking anyone for personal life activities is ridiculous. If those that lobby for these laws want to track porn users, then a fair exchange might be to require public registration of one's religious affiliation with the state and require it for religious donations to remain untaxed. They might back down really fast and understand how important privacy is.
  - anon291 2y ago
    It's literally no different than the current laws against selling porn to minors physically. Unless you're proposing getting rid of that law, exactly why should websites be held to different standards?
    - dTal 2y ago
      PornHub is free. There are no laws against leaving porn where a minor might find it. Arguably, the websites are being held to different standards. You can go into Barnes and Noble and find all kinds of filthy books, and they're not locked behind a glass display cabinet requiring a clerk to check your ID.
      - anon291 2y ago
        This is a lot different than leaving porn somewhere. PornHub is advertising on their porn websites. Leaving porn is equivalent to leaving pornhub open inadvertently (I.e., an adult opened it, was advertised to, and didn't close it). Pornhub is earning money from the porn. Huge difference. Pornhub intends to show its content to minors. In the case where someone leaves it inadvertently, it's an accident (like finding Dad's hidden store of playboys). And yes, in general, leaving porn intentionally where some kids may find it is illegal (and a sex crime!). For example, in California, It's CA penal code 288.2 (https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-288-2/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-288-2/). If the purpose of pornhub is to arouse, then pornhub providing its services to a child is illegal in California and many other states. The only way it's not already illegal is if pornhub is going to claim it's not meant to arouse (I mean come on... really?) I'm honestly shocked this is even controversial. What's going on here is that the law is actually already being broken in most states, including liberal California; but the state governments are unable to enforce it. The laws in Texas et al make it enforceable and clear, as it should be. I'm not some prude. I don't think these things should be banned outright, but it seems obvious to me that there's every interest in preventing children from viewing it. First of all children under a certain age should never be exposed to this stuff and if they are, it should frankly be investigated. Secondly, it can be harmful to minors to view porn, as evidenced by many studies on the matter.
        dTal 2y ago
        I agree with you that ideally kids would not be browsing PornHub. I'm not sure that requiring PornHub to de anonymize you is a good or proportionate solution. It seems to me that a major driver of intuition here is whether a website is a "transaction of service", or simply a thing that you can look at if you go to a certain place. PornHub is large and complex and prints t-shirts, and so perhaps intuitively they feel like a "service". But what if I write a silly little piece of erotica and host it as a plain txt file on my pokey little personal website, behind a link that says "click here for my silly piece of erotica (18+ only pls!)". Should I be legally compelled to collect and store people's personal information over that? Should it really be illegal to put arousing material on a public facing webserver?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - choo-t 2y ago
      > It's literally no different False, as interaction on the web and in meatspace are not equivalent. By going to a brick & mortar shop, you already know you have to show your face and have kind of a low expectation of privacy (and its already a problem for some people to go to a sex shop, in part because of the social stigma some religion put on enjoying sex), but you don't have to ID yourself further assuming you look old enough. Checking age in a brick & mortar shop, for anything from alcool to porn, doesn't force you to log your identity in a database. On the contrary, you don't have to show your face to access a website, neither have to ID yourself. By requiring it for porn, even with a convoluted pseudo-privacy-focused way, you're now requiring it for any website that could host porn even if it's not their focus (e.g : reddit, twitter), or pushing said websites to become puritan.
      - anon291 2y ago
        > Checking age in a brick & mortar shop, for anything from alcool to porn, doesn't force you to log your identity in a database. Neither does checking age on the web. The whole 'database' thing is a scare tactic. They have to make sure you're not a minor. That's it. Again, I'm shocked this is controversial. You can be the most pro-porn person on the planet, but surely you don't think children should be exposed to this stuff, right? In many states, children can't even see inside liquor stores (mandated blackout curtains), yet we think it's okay they're watching porn? Come on. Let's just be normal. > you're now requiring it for any website that could host porn even if it's not their focus (e.g : reddit, twitter), or pushing said websites to become puritan. Well... yeah? If you have user generated content, you have to moderate it. Remember during the previous two presidential elections when we demanded every website moderate political speech? And now, it's a porn free for all?
    - eesmith 2y ago
      So you want to prohibit sending pornography by USPS mail until the receiver has identified themselves sufficiently to confirm they are old enough? Because surely that is the more valid comparison than physical stores. United States Postal Service v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. said Hustler had the right to send unrequested copies of the magazine to Congress members. If only they had thought to require people to send a copy of their id first before being allowed to receive porn.
      - anon291 2y ago
        It doesn't matter. If Hustler magazine sends a magazine to a child with the intent to arouse, it's against the law in California (and other states).
        eesmith 2y ago
        So what? I sincerely doubt Hustler sent the magazine to Congress members with the intent to arouse. In any case, there's no law saying that if I, as an adult, want to get a subscription to the print edition of Hustler magazine, then Hustler is obligated to verify that I am an adult. Not now, not in the 1970s. Why should the internet be any different? It's "literally no different."
        anon291 2y ago
        Transmitting electronic images of nudity to people under 18 years old is already illegal: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223 Why aren't companies being held liable? Pornhub should not have more privileges than everyone else. Look, most states explicitly allow parents showing porn to minors under the guise of education. If you want your kid to view porn... that's your prerogative. But the companies themselves cannot distribute pornography to minors. It is illegal already.
        eesmith 2y ago
        Which has squat all to do with the flaw in your earlier analogy. You wrote "It's literally no different than the current laws against selling porn to minors physically." I pointed out that the laws regarding physical stores are different than the laws regarding mail. There is no law requiring me to present identification or other proof of age before I subscribe to a pornographic magazine. You can't cherry pick the analogy that works best for you, without explaining why other (IMO more) reasonable analogies are invalid. You pointed to 47 USC § 223 but didn't read it closely enough to figure out it isn't relevant. It requires "a telecommunications device", but that does not include an interactive computer service. The definitions say "The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section ... does not include an interactive computer service" and "The term “interactive computer service” has the meaning provided in section 230(f)(2) of this title." where "The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server". Internet companies aren't liable under the law you pointed to for the simple reason that the law doesn't apply to them.
    - consteval 2y ago
      It is, because you already can't sell to minors. Your ISP verifies your identity, and that you're an adult, when you purchase service. If parents turn around and then give that good/service to their child, all bets are off. The store clerk doesn't follow you home, do they? I should hope not.
      - anon291 2y ago
        This is a great point. The ISPs should allow an IP lookup of whether or not a particular origin IP / port combination (for VPN) is able to view porn. Parents can then tell their ISP to block porn for the household, if they have kids. Or, if they do have kids and want them to see porn, then they can do nothing. Either way, the responsibility is now on the parents. That would be an acceptable way of doing things.
  - krapp 2y ago
    They think they have a pro-Christian anti-Federalist Supreme Court majority on their side. They won't back down.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  Religious leaders like their own porny, rapey lifestyle, no? Why do they want to ban porn?
  - behringer 2y ago
    For the same reason they want to ban abortion. They want complete control over sex and reproduction. If they are in control of these things their church has a reason to exist.
  - theshrike79 2y ago
    The rules won't apply to them, just the normal folk. Then they can use the guilt from wanting to watch porn into donations to their tax-exempt churches.
- guywithahat 2y ago
  I support basically any limits on porn. I’m not religious, but I used to watch a ton of it and it had lasting repercussions on my real sex life. While I would believe religious groups don’t like porn, I think they’re just a part of it
  - superkuh 2y ago
    Should we also ban sports because people can be injured? It only happens to a small fraction of the players but the same can be said for people like you that believe they've had "lasting repercussions" serious enough to justify the use of violence against others.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Some sports are banned because of the harms they cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_sports I don't think porn is in this category. I have not seen any real evidence that would justify the concern, and for the most part the indications are the opposite — there is less harm when it's easier to get. But for the sake of argument, if it can be demonstrated that some content is harmful, then a ban is justifiable.
  - s5300 2y ago
    [dead]
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    Do you think all vices with potential for addiction should be banned, or just yours?
    - superkuh 2y ago
      You're using the wrong word here. The issue of weather pornography is "addictive" has been visited multiple times by multiple DSM committees in recent times and in the latest release DSM-5-TR they have found that pornography cannot and does not cause "addiction". There may be disorders associated with it, but it is not addiction. Using that word allows for framing which justifies the use of violence against people and is, frankly, more damaging than pornography.
- leptons 2y ago
  >But as that won't fly for first amendment reasons The republican scheme called "Project 2025" calls for criminalizing porn. Where there's a will, there's a way, and that's why republicans must be kept out of office. They don't care about the first amendment or any of the other amendments except maybe the 2nd amendment when it serves their agenda. They've had banning all porn on their platform for years, they'll eventually do it if we stupidly let them.
  - ugotsta 2y ago
    Isn't this misinformation? Project 2025 is not a Republican scheme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
    - leptons 2y ago
      "with the aim of promoting a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should Donald Trump win the 2024 presidential election." So you don't think these are Republicans?
    - sys_64738 2y ago
      Quite a few ex-Trump staffers helped draft it. It is the vision for the Republican Party after the next election.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Republican? Debatable. Certainly, it was written by republicans. Maybe you can argue it doesn't speak for all of them, only the very important ones at the Heritage Foundation. Conservative? Absolutely. And I don't think any conservatives would even argue otherwise. I mean, this is their dream.
- HereIGoAgain 2y ago
  It's even worse than that. Even if these did work, the goal isn't just to make it harder.. These will act as a chilling effect on viewing, the first time there is a security risk, or it become convenient, the information will be out there. Or at least the risk and fear of such.
sneed_chucker 2y ago
VPNs make short work of these blocks in Texas just as they do in large parts of the Middle East and Eastern Asia where porn is illegal. Assuming you're an adult and are able to pay for and set up a VPN. That aside, I'm not convinced unfettered access to all varieties of hardcore pornography is a good thing for society, especially kids.
- echelon 2y ago
  The reason they want this is so they can (1) eliminate it and (2) publicly shame those that use it when details are leaked or the zeitgeist swings even further in their favor. The solution is for parents to be mindful of their children and not allow them to use the internet without supervision. We shouldn't become a nanny state or a spy state because of bad parenting.
  - PessimalDecimal 2y ago
    I'm generally sympathetic to not allowing negligent parenting to encourage "nanny state" regulations to be put into place. But the meat space equivalent to the age verification here seems to be something like age verification for buying alcohol, tobacco, or a firearm. Would we not want to verify a potential purchaser's age because "the solution is for parents to be mindful of their children and not allow them to buy firearms/tobacco/booze without supervision"? My guess is fewer people would be onboard with that. What's the difference?
    - janetmissed 2y ago
      The difference is showing my id to a minimum wage liquor store worker for a few seconds vs giving my id to a company and trusting them to store it indefinatly and tying my internet presence to my actual identify all for a law that would be at best a minor hinderance for underaged people wanting to access pornography
      - PessimalDecimal 2y ago
        Many state issued IDs are now machine readable. I've had my ID scanned when I went to buy some beer before. I assume I trusted them to store it indefinitely, tying my real-world presence to my actual identity to comply with a law that is a minor hindrance to underage people wanting to access alcohol. (I don't know if the person who scanned my ID made minimum wage, though. Probably.)
whycome 2y ago
> According to Kekesi, every single piece of content uploaded to Pornhub is now manually reviewed by a human being. That's ...a job. > Device-based age verification This seems like something Apple will inevitably get into. It could be enough pressure to deter device-sharing. edit: and I don't mean they'll be forced to do it. They'll just use it as an opportunity. Eg, pornhub will work in Texas for 'age-verified devices" -- no ID upload required. (At least not to the site in question). Texans won't need to futz with a VPN, they'll just use iPhone. Parents will want to get their kids devices that have the verification.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  Not just Pornhub, but OpenAI, and all social media sites too.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  I don't know about PornHub specifically, but I've seen the upload system in play on other major sites and it happens near-instantaneously. I've asked some of the developers about it and they won't comment about what is happening on the backend, but if I had to take a guess it is some kind of Mechanical Turk system that simply shows a snapshot of the media to someone's screen and gets them to confirm it looks like the person on the ID card for the account, and makes sure it isn't something fucked up like CSAM. The major sites that I know also run AI over all uploads to check there aren't other persons in the media (outside those authorized to be in there, with release forms). On the upload side, these sites seem to run a tight ship these days. These are the legit ones who are now getting cut off in the ban. Not the rogue sites running out of Kazakhstan.
  - bloopernova 2y ago
    I've read about the PTSD that human content reviewers suffer from, the job sounds like hell. You're exposed to the most upsetting images humanity can produce, and you're supposed to view thousands of pictures a day. I was wondering if many measures to reduce the trauma are already in place? You could show a small thumbnail, or black out most of the picture, or maybe blur everything except a small part of the image. Definitely a difficult job, I wish they were better treated.
benreesman 2y ago
Lot of fucking luck Texas et al, there’s no way this sticks. I have no idea what the new status quo will be, VPNs becoming as common as web browsers would be one amusing future, but it won’t be that these laws get complied with, that is zero percent going to happen ever.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  This is the reality in the Middle East. Every home has a shared VPN account that even the kids have the login for, to get around all the bans that are in place, that make the Internet really annoying.
- Avshalom 2y ago
  They're absolutely fine with that, because then they can prosecute anyone for it whenever they want. Especially once they expand the definition of porn to include any lgbtq+ content like they're already trying to.
  - benreesman 2y ago
    Seems a pretty shortsighted move for a would be digital fascist unless they really strongly believe they can get VPNs outlawed or backdoored. The powers that be have been pretty careful to not drive all communication onto Signal for example.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    They're not trying, they are just more successful with books. They've re-defined obscenity for the books, and there's no real reason it won't carry over to the rest of the media.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Can you give an example of books that have had obscenity redefined?
      - 2y ago
spacecadet 2y ago
Meanwhile you can go on Amazon, without signing in, and search various terms that return all variety of products depicting "porn".
- twiclo 2y ago
  [flagged]
- falcolas 2y ago
  Or Google. Or Bing. Or DDG. Some of them even optimize for showing you porn.
twiclo 2y ago
[flagged]
ProfessorZoom 2y ago
[flagged]
BLKNSLVR 2y ago
What does the research say regarding the negative effects of social media on children? Social media seems far more pervasive amongst young people than porn. Social media ain't never going to be banned though.
puppycodes 2y ago
Laws written by grandparents is whats going on here. Sure... legislate away the hormones of a teenager lol good luck.

42 points by heavyset_go 2y ago

As I understand things, a big part of the support for age verification comes from religious groups who'd like a complete porn ban. But as that won't fly for first amendment reasons, imposing an impractical age verification requirement is the next best thing. The impracticality is intentional, the people advocating for these laws don't want it to be possible to comply with.

echelon 2y ago
Tracking anyone for personal life activities is ridiculous. If those that lobby for these laws want to track porn users, then a fair exchange might be to require public registration of one's religious affiliation with the state and require it for religious donations to remain untaxed. They might back down really fast and understand how important privacy is.
- anon291 2y ago
  It's literally no different than the current laws against selling porn to minors physically. Unless you're proposing getting rid of that law, exactly why should websites be held to different standards?
  - dTal 2y ago
    PornHub is free. There are no laws against leaving porn where a minor might find it. Arguably, the websites are being held to different standards. You can go into Barnes and Noble and find all kinds of filthy books, and they're not locked behind a glass display cabinet requiring a clerk to check your ID.
    - anon291 2y ago
      This is a lot different than leaving porn somewhere. PornHub is advertising on their porn websites. Leaving porn is equivalent to leaving pornhub open inadvertently (I.e., an adult opened it, was advertised to, and didn't close it). Pornhub is earning money from the porn. Huge difference. Pornhub intends to show its content to minors. In the case where someone leaves it inadvertently, it's an accident (like finding Dad's hidden store of playboys). And yes, in general, leaving porn intentionally where some kids may find it is illegal (and a sex crime!). For example, in California, It's CA penal code 288.2 (https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-288-2/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-288-2/). If the purpose of pornhub is to arouse, then pornhub providing its services to a child is illegal in California and many other states. The only way it's not already illegal is if pornhub is going to claim it's not meant to arouse (I mean come on... really?) I'm honestly shocked this is even controversial. What's going on here is that the law is actually already being broken in most states, including liberal California; but the state governments are unable to enforce it. The laws in Texas et al make it enforceable and clear, as it should be. I'm not some prude. I don't think these things should be banned outright, but it seems obvious to me that there's every interest in preventing children from viewing it. First of all children under a certain age should never be exposed to this stuff and if they are, it should frankly be investigated. Secondly, it can be harmful to minors to view porn, as evidenced by many studies on the matter.
      - dTal 2y ago
        I agree with you that ideally kids would not be browsing PornHub. I'm not sure that requiring PornHub to de anonymize you is a good or proportionate solution. It seems to me that a major driver of intuition here is whether a website is a "transaction of service", or simply a thing that you can look at if you go to a certain place. PornHub is large and complex and prints t-shirts, and so perhaps intuitively they feel like a "service". But what if I write a silly little piece of erotica and host it as a plain txt file on my pokey little personal website, behind a link that says "click here for my silly piece of erotica (18+ only pls!)". Should I be legally compelled to collect and store people's personal information over that? Should it really be illegal to put arousing material on a public facing webserver?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - choo-t 2y ago
    > It's literally no different False, as interaction on the web and in meatspace are not equivalent. By going to a brick & mortar shop, you already know you have to show your face and have kind of a low expectation of privacy (and its already a problem for some people to go to a sex shop, in part because of the social stigma some religion put on enjoying sex), but you don't have to ID yourself further assuming you look old enough. Checking age in a brick & mortar shop, for anything from alcool to porn, doesn't force you to log your identity in a database. On the contrary, you don't have to show your face to access a website, neither have to ID yourself. By requiring it for porn, even with a convoluted pseudo-privacy-focused way, you're now requiring it for any website that could host porn even if it's not their focus (e.g : reddit, twitter), or pushing said websites to become puritan.
    - anon291 2y ago
      > Checking age in a brick & mortar shop, for anything from alcool to porn, doesn't force you to log your identity in a database. Neither does checking age on the web. The whole 'database' thing is a scare tactic. They have to make sure you're not a minor. That's it. Again, I'm shocked this is controversial. You can be the most pro-porn person on the planet, but surely you don't think children should be exposed to this stuff, right? In many states, children can't even see inside liquor stores (mandated blackout curtains), yet we think it's okay they're watching porn? Come on. Let's just be normal. > you're now requiring it for any website that could host porn even if it's not their focus (e.g : reddit, twitter), or pushing said websites to become puritan. Well... yeah? If you have user generated content, you have to moderate it. Remember during the previous two presidential elections when we demanded every website moderate political speech? And now, it's a porn free for all?
  - eesmith 2y ago
    So you want to prohibit sending pornography by USPS mail until the receiver has identified themselves sufficiently to confirm they are old enough? Because surely that is the more valid comparison than physical stores. United States Postal Service v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. said Hustler had the right to send unrequested copies of the magazine to Congress members. If only they had thought to require people to send a copy of their id first before being allowed to receive porn.
    - anon291 2y ago
      It doesn't matter. If Hustler magazine sends a magazine to a child with the intent to arouse, it's against the law in California (and other states).
      - eesmith 2y ago
        So what? I sincerely doubt Hustler sent the magazine to Congress members with the intent to arouse. In any case, there's no law saying that if I, as an adult, want to get a subscription to the print edition of Hustler magazine, then Hustler is obligated to verify that I am an adult. Not now, not in the 1970s. Why should the internet be any different? It's "literally no different."
        anon291 2y ago
        Transmitting electronic images of nudity to people under 18 years old is already illegal: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223 Why aren't companies being held liable? Pornhub should not have more privileges than everyone else. Look, most states explicitly allow parents showing porn to minors under the guise of education. If you want your kid to view porn... that's your prerogative. But the companies themselves cannot distribute pornography to minors. It is illegal already.
        eesmith 2y ago
        Which has squat all to do with the flaw in your earlier analogy. You wrote "It's literally no different than the current laws against selling porn to minors physically." I pointed out that the laws regarding physical stores are different than the laws regarding mail. There is no law requiring me to present identification or other proof of age before I subscribe to a pornographic magazine. You can't cherry pick the analogy that works best for you, without explaining why other (IMO more) reasonable analogies are invalid. You pointed to 47 USC § 223 but didn't read it closely enough to figure out it isn't relevant. It requires "a telecommunications device", but that does not include an interactive computer service. The definitions say "The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section ... does not include an interactive computer service" and "The term “interactive computer service” has the meaning provided in section 230(f)(2) of this title." where "The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server". Internet companies aren't liable under the law you pointed to for the simple reason that the law doesn't apply to them.
  - consteval 2y ago
    It is, because you already can't sell to minors. Your ISP verifies your identity, and that you're an adult, when you purchase service. If parents turn around and then give that good/service to their child, all bets are off. The store clerk doesn't follow you home, do they? I should hope not.
    - anon291 2y ago
      This is a great point. The ISPs should allow an IP lookup of whether or not a particular origin IP / port combination (for VPN) is able to view porn. Parents can then tell their ISP to block porn for the household, if they have kids. Or, if they do have kids and want them to see porn, then they can do nothing. Either way, the responsibility is now on the parents. That would be an acceptable way of doing things.
- krapp 2y ago
  They think they have a pro-Christian anti-Federalist Supreme Court majority on their side. They won't back down.
surfingdino 2y ago
Religious leaders like their own porny, rapey lifestyle, no? Why do they want to ban porn?
- behringer 2y ago
  For the same reason they want to ban abortion. They want complete control over sex and reproduction. If they are in control of these things their church has a reason to exist.
- theshrike79 2y ago
  The rules won't apply to them, just the normal folk. Then they can use the guilt from wanting to watch porn into donations to their tax-exempt churches.
guywithahat 2y ago
I support basically any limits on porn. I’m not religious, but I used to watch a ton of it and it had lasting repercussions on my real sex life. While I would believe religious groups don’t like porn, I think they’re just a part of it
- superkuh 2y ago
  Should we also ban sports because people can be injured? It only happens to a small fraction of the players but the same can be said for people like you that believe they've had "lasting repercussions" serious enough to justify the use of violence against others.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Some sports are banned because of the harms they cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_sports I don't think porn is in this category. I have not seen any real evidence that would justify the concern, and for the most part the indications are the opposite — there is less harm when it's easier to get. But for the sake of argument, if it can be demonstrated that some content is harmful, then a ban is justifiable.
- s5300 2y ago
  [dead]
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Do you think all vices with potential for addiction should be banned, or just yours?
  - superkuh 2y ago
    You're using the wrong word here. The issue of weather pornography is "addictive" has been visited multiple times by multiple DSM committees in recent times and in the latest release DSM-5-TR they have found that pornography cannot and does not cause "addiction". There may be disorders associated with it, but it is not addiction. Using that word allows for framing which justifies the use of violence against people and is, frankly, more damaging than pornography.
leptons 2y ago
>But as that won't fly for first amendment reasons The republican scheme called "Project 2025" calls for criminalizing porn. Where there's a will, there's a way, and that's why republicans must be kept out of office. They don't care about the first amendment or any of the other amendments except maybe the 2nd amendment when it serves their agenda. They've had banning all porn on their platform for years, they'll eventually do it if we stupidly let them.
- ugotsta 2y ago
  Isn't this misinformation? Project 2025 is not a Republican scheme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
  - leptons 2y ago
    "with the aim of promoting a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should Donald Trump win the 2024 presidential election." So you don't think these are Republicans?
  - sys_64738 2y ago
    Quite a few ex-Trump staffers helped draft it. It is the vision for the Republican Party after the next election.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Republican? Debatable. Certainly, it was written by republicans. Maybe you can argue it doesn't speak for all of them, only the very important ones at the Heritage Foundation. Conservative? Absolutely. And I don't think any conservatives would even argue otherwise. I mean, this is their dream.
HereIGoAgain 2y ago
It's even worse than that. Even if these did work, the goal isn't just to make it harder.. These will act as a chilling effect on viewing, the first time there is a security risk, or it become convenient, the information will be out there. Or at least the risk and fear of such.

sneed_chucker 2y ago

VPNs make short work of these blocks in Texas just as they do in large parts of the Middle East and Eastern Asia where porn is illegal. Assuming you're an adult and are able to pay for and set up a VPN. That aside, I'm not convinced unfettered access to all varieties of hardcore pornography is a good thing for society, especially kids.

echelon 2y ago
The reason they want this is so they can (1) eliminate it and (2) publicly shame those that use it when details are leaked or the zeitgeist swings even further in their favor. The solution is for parents to be mindful of their children and not allow them to use the internet without supervision. We shouldn't become a nanny state or a spy state because of bad parenting.
- PessimalDecimal 2y ago
  I'm generally sympathetic to not allowing negligent parenting to encourage "nanny state" regulations to be put into place. But the meat space equivalent to the age verification here seems to be something like age verification for buying alcohol, tobacco, or a firearm. Would we not want to verify a potential purchaser's age because "the solution is for parents to be mindful of their children and not allow them to buy firearms/tobacco/booze without supervision"? My guess is fewer people would be onboard with that. What's the difference?
  - janetmissed 2y ago
    The difference is showing my id to a minimum wage liquor store worker for a few seconds vs giving my id to a company and trusting them to store it indefinatly and tying my internet presence to my actual identify all for a law that would be at best a minor hinderance for underaged people wanting to access pornography
    - PessimalDecimal 2y ago
      Many state issued IDs are now machine readable. I've had my ID scanned when I went to buy some beer before. I assume I trusted them to store it indefinitely, tying my real-world presence to my actual identity to comply with a law that is a minor hindrance to underage people wanting to access alcohol. (I don't know if the person who scanned my ID made minimum wage, though. Probably.)

whycome 2y ago

> According to Kekesi, every single piece of content uploaded to Pornhub is now manually reviewed by a human being. That's ...a job. > Device-based age verification This seems like something Apple will inevitably get into. It could be enough pressure to deter device-sharing. edit: and I don't mean they'll be forced to do it. They'll just use it as an opportunity. Eg, pornhub will work in Texas for 'age-verified devices" -- no ID upload required. (At least not to the site in question). Texans won't need to futz with a VPN, they'll just use iPhone. Parents will want to get their kids devices that have the verification.

surfingdino 2y ago
Not just Pornhub, but OpenAI, and all social media sites too.
qingcharles 2y ago
I don't know about PornHub specifically, but I've seen the upload system in play on other major sites and it happens near-instantaneously. I've asked some of the developers about it and they won't comment about what is happening on the backend, but if I had to take a guess it is some kind of Mechanical Turk system that simply shows a snapshot of the media to someone's screen and gets them to confirm it looks like the person on the ID card for the account, and makes sure it isn't something fucked up like CSAM. The major sites that I know also run AI over all uploads to check there aren't other persons in the media (outside those authorized to be in there, with release forms). On the upload side, these sites seem to run a tight ship these days. These are the legit ones who are now getting cut off in the ban. Not the rogue sites running out of Kazakhstan.
- bloopernova 2y ago
  I've read about the PTSD that human content reviewers suffer from, the job sounds like hell. You're exposed to the most upsetting images humanity can produce, and you're supposed to view thousands of pictures a day. I was wondering if many measures to reduce the trauma are already in place? You could show a small thumbnail, or black out most of the picture, or maybe blur everything except a small part of the image. Definitely a difficult job, I wish they were better treated.

benreesman 2y ago

Lot of fucking luck Texas et al, there’s no way this sticks. I have no idea what the new status quo will be, VPNs becoming as common as web browsers would be one amusing future, but it won’t be that these laws get complied with, that is zero percent going to happen ever.

qingcharles 2y ago
This is the reality in the Middle East. Every home has a shared VPN account that even the kids have the login for, to get around all the bans that are in place, that make the Internet really annoying.
Avshalom 2y ago
They're absolutely fine with that, because then they can prosecute anyone for it whenever they want. Especially once they expand the definition of porn to include any lgbtq+ content like they're already trying to.
- benreesman 2y ago
  Seems a pretty shortsighted move for a would be digital fascist unless they really strongly believe they can get VPNs outlawed or backdoored. The powers that be have been pretty careful to not drive all communication onto Signal for example.
- falcolas 2y ago
  They're not trying, they are just more successful with books. They've re-defined obscenity for the books, and there's no real reason it won't carry over to the rest of the media.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Can you give an example of books that have had obscenity redefined?
    - 2y ago

spacecadet 2y ago

Meanwhile you can go on Amazon, without signing in, and search various terms that return all variety of products depicting "porn".

twiclo 2y ago
[flagged]
falcolas 2y ago
Or Google. Or Bing. Or DDG. Some of them even optimize for showing you porn.

twiclo 2y ago

[flagged]

ProfessorZoom 2y ago

[flagged]

BLKNSLVR 2y ago

What does the research say regarding the negative effects of social media on children? Social media seems far more pervasive amongst young people than porn. Social media ain't never going to be banned though.

puppycodes 2y ago

Laws written by grandparents is whats going on here. Sure... legislate away the hormones of a teenager lol good luck.