• circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      5 months ago

      Unfortunately they’ll go after that next.

      I’m legitimately surprised at the number of pro-government control comments in this thread, though. We are truly doomed because of the people in the back.

      • TehPers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        5 months ago

        I find it funny that the same people who are against government regulations and giving more power to the state are the ones voting for this. They also seem to be so poorly informed that they think it’ll stop anyone from watching this content lol.

        • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, well that’s the thing: they like the idea of being against government regulations, but if it is presented to them as a moral issue, they eat it up.

          Case in point: a comment in this thread loosely trying to pose PH’s response as being against states’ rights – in this case, due to the states tacitly regulating morality. I’m sure if the issue was e.g. raising state taxes, all of a sudden states’ rights wouldn’t matter.

          The right wing learned a while ago that if you can pose anything as morality, there is a whole class of people that will simply lick the boot.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          There’s gotta be a solution that leverages their unwavering support for the 4th amendment here. I mean a penis is basically a naturally occurring gun, already. You could almost certainly get a congressman to endorse porn in schools this way.

      • Buttons@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        There’s also websites hosted in countries that don’t care about US law. We can access those even without a VPN, for now…

    • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      In addition, the porn business is hot right now! So many people just got cut off and are now paying for content.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      As a Virginian, I hadn’t subscribed to a VPN until our legislators decided to pull this shit.

  • along_the_road@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    5 months ago

    Over the past year, Pornhub had to make the difficult decision to block access to users in numerous American states due to newly passed Age Verification laws (Texas, Utah, Arkansas, Virginia, Montana, North Carolina, Mississippi). In July 2024, we will unfortunately be blocking several more states who are introducing similar laws. (Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky and Nebraska.)

  • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s basically the idea behind these laws.

    Conservatives want to make porn illegal, which isn’t easy under traditional means, so they’re taking the “Putin” approach as I put it, make viewing porn hard, unattractive or even dangerous and make delivering porn to people hard, unattractive and dangerous.

    Requiring an ID from the government to view porn means the government can tell who is watching what. If one of those people happens to run for office or get a little too campaigny, their porn history can be named and shamed.

    And porn providers know this, and know that will drive people away from their sites, and on top of this implementing this will likely be bureaucratic and likely expensive, so they’ll stop serving an area.

    And when this is applied to non porn sites that have porn like Reddit or twitter or Tumblr, well guess what’s going to happen, those sites will ban porn from their site.

    It’s basically banning porn by making it impossible to get porn in a way that doesn’t end up with you getting blackmailed. Children have nothing to do with it.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      *human porn.

      Google can’t even block yiff with safe search, lol. AI has incredible difficulty with evaluating furry porn. Which means that Mitch McConnell is going to live out his final days looking at anthropomorphic hyenas that could benchpress a fridge and have 11 inches of freedom, lmao.

      Generations of southerners and people in the central US are going to be looking at considerable amounts of yiff if conservatives have their way.

    • Empathy [he/him]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Easiest solution IMO if you’re already using CloudFlare, even the free version: you can filter out certain countries. Otherwise, there’s probably other alternatives, even open source ones. Good terms to search for with your cloud provider or self hosted software may be middlewares, firewalls, serverless, edge functions, etc.

  • danhab99@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    TBH I kinda agree with the states here… I started watching porn waaayyyy too early and it’s fucking me up… without a doubt… I shouldn’t have seen all the things I looked for and now I gotta put up with it.

    But I also agree with PornHubs decision. There is no way to verify age without exposing your identity. There isn’t even a way to trust a 3rd party to verify someone’s age.

    There really isn’t a middle ground, the only way to protect kinds (like little me) is to block the porn. But websites go on and offline every few minutes, VPNs and Tor are free and hard to blacklist.

    How do we censor internet porn?? ¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

    • tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      107
      ·
      5 months ago

      How about less “control everyone else” and more “control your own damn kids”.

      My daughter didn’t get unsupervised access until she proved responsible enough to trust. I want to say around 13.

      Just because “I grew up with it unsupervised and it ruined me” doesn’t immediately equal “everyone will have this experience”. Sorry your parents didn’t understand what you were doing. Sorry you saw stuff that bothered you. Don’t punish everyone else for it.

      I’m far from a helicopter parent… Instead, my kid has come to me for help in resolving uncomfortable or problematic interactions. We’ve always been clear and honest about why we’ve asked her to avoid certain things. Even when it made us uncomfortable. Especially then.

      She’s 20 now. Most cheerful kid I’ve ever met. No idea how that happened directly, but I know I can trust her.

      • God_Is_Love@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think the part these points miss is that a lot of kids don’t have good or involved parents, and they shouldn’t have to suffer disproportionately because of it

        • tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          57
          ·
          5 months ago

          You are still removing others rights over a hypothetical. It doesn’t miss this, it directly focuses on the point of blame. Punish the parents for exposing their kids. Irresponsibility is not excuse for harm… If a parent leaves hardcore porn laying around for a child to find and harm occurs, don’t punish the uninvolved adult up the street.

          Another form of media doesn’t magically absolve parents from parental responsibility. Stop trying to play the “poor adults have no control over their kids!” Card.

          The “but think of the children!!!” trope is tired and over abused to remove rights and privacy. Move along.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      84
      ·
      5 months ago

      the only way to protect kinds (like little me) is to block the porn.

      This is false.

      Parents have a number of options available to them that do no need to involve the state.

        • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          Healthy parenting would go a long way. See some of the other comments in this thread.

          You can also have settings on your local network. If you’re afraid of your kid casually finding something inappropriate, you can set that up stuff locally without involving the government. A determined kid will still find a way to get stuff, so this is more a safeguard against accidental discovery.

          Investing in quality education would also benefit everyone.

    • TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      5 months ago

      The issue here, I’m sorry to say, is that your parents dropped the ball. They were the ones responsible for your health and the safety of your environment.

    • azalty@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’ll never be able to properly block it

      You can just go to Reddit instead. Same thing.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      There isn’t even a way to trust a 3rd party to verify someone’s age.

      It depends what you mean by this. If you mean in terms of a way to trust that the third party is doing its job correctly, that’s as simple as using the government itself to do the verification after seeing some proof of age.

      If you mean in terms of privacy, you can’t protect the privacy of the fact that someone got verified, but you can protect the privacy of their browsing after the fact. It’s a neat cryptographic trick called blind signatures. The end result is a token that the user holds which they can hand over to websites that tells the website “a trusted third party has verified I’m over 18” but would not have to reveal any more information about them than that. But even if the government was that trusted third party, and they asked the websites to hand over all their logs, the government would still not be able to trace your views back to you, because the token you hold is one they never saw.

      This is, in my opinion, still a bad idea. I am in no way advocating for this policy. There’s still the mere fact that you have to go up to someone and basically register yourself as a porn viewer, which is fucked up. Maybe if these tokens were used in other ways, like instead of showing your licence at bars, it could be less bad (though there are other practical reasons I don’t think that would work) because the tokens could be less directly associated with porn. But it’s still an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Not to mention the cost that adding all this would put on the government—or, if they charge for these tokens, the people using it—for what actual gain, exactly?

      I’m merely pointing out that from a purely technical perspective, this is quite different from when governments request back doors into chat encryption. This actually can be done. It just shouldn’t, for non-technical reasons.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    Pornhub is only pulling out to punish the states for trying to stand up to them. In classic American monopoly fashion they go on the attack as soon as any legislation targets them.

    Pornhub claims the reason is because they dont to collect government ID but Pornhub collects user data and understands who their customers are. Adding government ID to their data would hardly be anymore of a privacy invasion and it’s not like they are forced to store it.

    • Sina@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      5 months ago

      Adding government ID to their data would hardly be anymore of a privacy invasion

      Are you listening to yourself?

      • IllNess@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        Lets put name to the IP address. Yup, that is the same as just the IP address that can be shared by multiple devices.

    • hanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      5 months ago

      Imo this law is actually in a way pushing for a porn monopoly, if you by law need to provide an id, are you gonna trust some random site with that info or the big one everyone uses

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        5 months ago

        OP’s claim here is just BS. PornHub is in no way a monopoly or even close. It reads like someone who has literally never searched for porn on the internet. Astroturf.

        • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          5 months ago

          PornHub is a monopoly. They own xnxx, redtube, xhamster, and several production companies such as brazzers. Their categorization system has also had some ranging impacts on actresses’ ability to get work after they turn 22. I highly recommend listening to The Butterfly Effect by Jon Ronson.

          ALSO so we’re clear, I’m not a fan of this legislation because its dumb as fuck and doesn’t help anyone, least of all sex workers. When people lose easy access to porn it usually results in WORSE conditions for sex workers because suddenly there’s more demand in places without safety infrastructure.

          • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            Can you define what part of PornHub owning a lot of other porn sites makes them a monopoly? Part of being a monopoly is being anticompetitive. What has PornHub done in terms of lobbying or other anticompetitive practices which makes it more difficult for a new company sharing porn to take hold? Because there is a ton of porn online which is unrelated to PornHub.

            I’m all for calling out monopolies, but I legit don’t see one here. I’m open to being wrong.

            I don’t believe that the thing about actresses getting work after 22 is reliant on PornHub. Porn has worked that way for 50+ years my dude.

            • veroxii@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah I was just in Utah for business and didn’t even realise there was a block. I didn’t go to pornhub but all my regular sites just worked. 🤷‍♂️🍆

              • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                With other industries, owning 5, 10, 15 other sites might be indicative of a monopoly. But there is a metric fuckton of porn online.

                Edit: pardon me, a *metric fucktonne

            • Zagorath@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Part of being a monopoly is being anticompetitive

              No it’s not. Being hit with antitrust laws requires first being a monopoly, but the monopoly state exists merely by virtue of size within the industry.

              Edit: to be clear the only point I am making here is in relation to that definition you provided. Nothing more.

          • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Owning a dozen or so websites doesn’t make them a monopoly when there are tens of thousands of porn sites available.

            There are countless models over the age of 22 making bank in the porn industry. The only difference is that they have talent.

      • Fizz@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Law maker enacts legislation towards a company. The company is able to comply but instead the company pulls the service or severelyndegrades it. Then when users are pissed off the company will point to the law maker and say “they forced us to do this”. The law maker then suffers the blacklash of companies service withdrawal.

        Apple tried this with the EU usb c but eventually backed down. John deer tried this with right to repair. There are many cases where companies use these tactics to try and bully law makers away from regulating them and I think i know it’s legal and their right to do so but I find it gross.

        I don’t think the law makers should be solving the “problem” this way but I also don’t think pornhub should deny service from an entire state because they want an an ID check implemented.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          5 months ago

          Apple tried this with the EU usb c but eventually backed down

          Umm, what? Apple was always going to move to USB-C. The EU regulations at most hastened that by a couple of years. Their tablets and even laptop computers were using USB-C before the EU even enacted that legislation. It was only a matter of time.

          But back on the subject at hand, this is nothing like that sort of bullying. This is a company being asked to build more infrastructure at their own expense, and then use that infrastructure to place its own users at risk. They’ve made a simple calculation that it’s better for their bottom line and their reputation to choose not to comply, and instead pull out of a few small markets.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yep, people sadly are bad at extrapolating how restrictions on something they dislike can be cross-applied to limit things they don’t dislike, by others.