From reading about the law it sounds like they are trying to take a page from CA’s overreaching prop 65 law that effectively labels everything a potential carcinogen. Based on the data the main beneficiary of this are a handful of law firms. I wouldn’t be surprised if this law is backed by a few law firms who smell easy money.
I’m pretty disturbed by the attitude of lot of the comments on this thread. While this law is probably not going in the right direction, this knee jerk reaction of calling any regulation of porn “puritanical” and an infringement of your rights is crazy to me. I feel like access to internet porn is not a fundamental human right, and it’s not puritanical to maybe want to prevent kids from being unwittingly exposed to a shitload of porn at a young age.
Regulations that require you to expose your personal data for no benefit are all those things and more.
Educating children about sex so they can consume porn in a healthy manner (because spoiler alert: these laws do nothing to stop them watching it) is 100 times more productive and positive than invading the privacy of law abiding adults. But that would actually require time and money which none of these law makers want.
It’s never about protecting children or making the world a better place. It’s about moral posturing and pretending you’re doing something so you can get votes.
I’m all for educating children about sex, and I’m also sympathetic to the plight of data privacy.
However, I also feel like the internet right now is a pretty bad place for minors. Like, there’s so much porn and other harmful content that’s so easily accessible, to the point that it’s easy to find yourself stumbling into it on complete accident. And with the speed that the internet evolves, it seems pretty unreasonable to me to just kinda expect parents just to be able to fully keep up with it.
I don’t think I support this law in particular, but I also don’t know what could possibly be done to any real effect.
Of course kids would still try to access porn, there’s always ways around walls on the internet. Just like how banning guns wouldn’t prevent everyone from accessing guns, and banning sale of alcohol to minors doesn’t make minors stop getting drunk.
In that sense, I do suspect that if there were more boundaries to accessing porn, children would watch it less, and would maybe be less likely to be exposed to it without their consent.
No, what Pornhub denounces is mandating that thousands of sites across the internet are being legally mandated to collect citizens private, identifiable information, and correlate it with their porn watching habits. It’s a prime example of government overreach. Y’all should stop using the “protect the children” excuse for your facist policy and actually develop a rational, logical argument.
People can just not visit the site if they don’t wanna look at porn. That also works, lol. There are things that I think are morally repugnant that I just ignore.
fuck porn
