Pornhub blocks Montana and North Carolina as their age verification laws take effect | The website says the states’ ID requirement would put users’ privacy at risk::Montana and North Carolina are the latest to join the list of states with age verification laws for adult platforms.
When the UK was dead set on rolling out verification for porn, wasn’t Mindgeek (Pornhubs parent company) pushing its AgeID technology?
Nothing quite like big government Republicans passing ineffective laws, while trying to claim they are the small government party. This only affects the big sites, the American sites, and the legally aligned sites. But hey, if they want more adults and children exposed to the shadier sides of the internet, so be it.
I’m not trying to defend this law, but I feel like there is a way to do this without invading privacy. Like selling a cryptographic key at stores for a few bucks at a store, which checks your id. IDK? I assume the goal is not actually to keep kids from watching porn but rather to have a chilling effect on it
The question is why. You can’t stop kids from watching it. People get it one way or another. This does nothing than cause mild dips in viewership.
And frankly the kind of stuff on law abiding sites like PH is not doing any noticeable harm anyway. Raising awareness on sexual education if anything.
Most kids begin watching/experimenting around 14. Around 16 is when they should have sex ed and 18 is adulthood anyway. What’s the point?
Not comparable but we are back to the “video games cause violence” nonsense.
Sometimes kids just dont need government protection. This is one of those times.
ACLU v Ashcroft and ACLU v Reno are really interesting to read, if you haven’t already.
Part of the conclusion of the court at that time was (at least regarding the CDA):
In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve
In ACLU vs. Ashcroft, the court ruled that less restrictive measures like Internet filters should be used, rather than the law in question (COPA).
I kind of think an argument exists that a system like what you mentioned with cryptographic keys could be a “less restrictive measures” given today’s technology. But I think we should still be careful, and keep in mind that nearly all pornography (with the exception of obscenity – a very narrowly defined category) is speech that enjoys strong protections under the First Amendment. So any decisions around restricting this free speech, regardless of our good intentions in protecting our children, can have unintended negative consequences around first amendment speech in general.
I assume the goal is not actually to keep kids from watching porn but rather to have a chilling effect on it
Probably a safe assumption. It’s difficult to tend towards other conclusions when the state of Utah has declared pornography a public health crisis, for example. Children are often just a means to an end in laws and public conversation. But don’t forget that most of these kinds of “protect the children” laws are often rooted in some sort of good intentions, so I can’t completely ascribe malice to the actions of these lawmakers. Evil is often wrapped in good intentions.
By the way, part of the Free Speech Coalition’s arguments in Utah was around the impossibility of actually implementing age verification as no system actually exists in Utah to enforce that. Utah’s law essentially ducks the first amendment by outsourcing enforcement to private action rather than government action. Scary stuff.
Fragile conservative white males always shooting themselves in the dicks. The biggest consumers of trans, femboy, and gay porn.
https://medium.com/@AnnaBrianna/the-red-states-watch-the-most-trans-porn-5d432b9f0141
I’m usually all about treating everyone as equally as possible, but I think if you’re talking about something specific to the “race” (say now, how black women’s hair has to be styled differently due to physical differences) then it’s acceptable to mention “race”
If you’re looking at some kind of demographic, it’s also all right to mention it. Idk if it’s true that conservative white dudes like gay/trans porn more than anyone else, but I think it’s ok to mention that. Especially since the consumption of gay/trans porn on it’s own isn’t necessarily a negative (unless there’s anything non-consential going on ir someone is underage). It’s more the hypocracy of it all that gets peeps riled up
(I hate the term “race” which is why I shoved it in between quotation marks)
Agreed, but the sentiment I’ve been seeing is that white people = bad because most of the “rich white dude” politicians are somehow the root of our oppression, and them being white is important apparently. It’s not a “white” thing, but a rich politician thing. Every other color of politician and rich person is fucking us all the same, and the “white” thing is a distraction from what’s important and what matters–that our politicians and government aren’t working for the people, regardless of race. But it’s better for them if we’re all angry at eachother, so here everyone is chasing after somewhere easy to put their hatred. And here it is emerging as racism.
12 down votes so far because I called someone out as racist, who is specifically calling out race for no reason. Why don’t these people respond and try to justify it? Because they can’t.
It’s trendy to hate white people, even nonwhite people acknowledge this these days.
Confused by your messaging, are you suggesting those types of porn are bad? Or attempting to point out their hypocrisy?
They should put the block in place before the law gets written to rally support against it
