State of Kentucky has blocked access to Pornhub.

[bigblueinsanity]

Making it harder for kids to damage themselves with porn makes a difference. It made pornhub block Kentucky. Kentucky didn't block pornhub.

I think it's telling that they blocked KY rather than make it harder for young people to access their site illegally. Just as telling as sites like Fb and the US gov not really going after porn and abuse on social media and elsewhere, while targeting posts about "patriotism" and religious morality or even Bible quotes. I just use it less. They make less money as a result.

I don't see it as gov overreach to try to keep people who already aren't legally able to buy something from accessing it. Enforcing existing rules is the job of govt.

Pornhub blocking Kentucky is pornhub deciding to lose money, right? Wgaf? It's like Disney deciding to double down on trashing the Star Wars franchise. Money saved. Lives unaffected. (THE difference is that fewer kids will commit suicide, fewer people will abuse and be abused, and fewer people will be damaged the longer these businesses ban Kentuckians access. Three cheers for the stupidity of executives at this company.)

When asked wgaf - certainly not me. As i posted before, porn is extremely damaging content especially as the age of the viewer decreases. Morally we're all better off if they all went out of business.

The value to me is in the discussion because the same concept can apply to other matters as well.

When considering state action, i consider

1) is this something where the state should even be involved? Thats easy here, because its the protection of minors who are yet of age to legally make poor decisions.

2) does the action create an unfair burden on another party? This creates no extra burden because it simply makes them do what they are supposed to be doing. Speaks volumes that pornhub sees the better financial decision to just block ips instead of take steps to verify age.

3) does the state action achieve it's stated goals? This is where imo it fails. Kids are very tech savvy. They literally had phones etc in their hands since they were toddlers. Any such attempts to make this harder makes it only marginally so. Plus ok pornhub blocked access but there are literally hundreds of other sites now kids can access anyway.

So imo yes its a worthy effort, no it doesn't unduly burden pornhub, but it is a waste of time because it ultimately will accomplish nothing so it shouldn't be done.

 

[Girthang]

When asked wgaf - certainly not me. As i posted before, porn is extremely damaging content especially as the age of the viewer decreases. Morally we're all better off if they all went out of business.

The value to me is in the discussion because the same concept can apply to other matters as well.

When considering state action, i consider

1) is this something where the state should even be involved? Thats easy here, because its the protection of minors who are yet of age to legally make poor decisions.

2) does the action create an unfair burden on another party? This creates no extra burden because it simply makes them do what they are supposed to be doing. Speaks volumes that pornhub sees the better financial decision to just block ips instead of take steps to verify age.

Agreed.

3) does the state action achieve it's stated goals? This is where imo it fails. Kids are very tech savvy. They literally had phones etc in their hands since they were toddlers. Any such attempts to make this harder makes it only marginally so. Plus ok pornhub blocked access but there are literally hundreds of other sites now kids can access anyway.

Margins matter. If it helps one parent keep their kid(s) away from it, it isnt a fail. If one site blocks Kentucky access, it shows someone that they want to harm their children. Knowing the proven effects this content has on people scientifically and psychologically, plus seeing the reaction of Pornhub, should tell people to stay away from it, and may help someone realize it's predatory in nature. If it does that with one person, I'll take it.

So imo yes its a worthy effort, no it doesn't unduly burden pornhub, but it is a waste of time because it ultimately will accomplish nothing so it shouldn't be done.

Most things the US congress does is half measures and virtue signaling for votes, so this is a very small step in the right direction (I know it's a state ruling). Seeing that Pornhub is inadvertently signaling its predatory nature and intent, they need to turn things up even farther.

Porn is not free speech any more than predatory lending or phone and internet scams are free speech. It never should have been seen as free speech that needs protecting. That was the failure and will remain so until the people stand up against it.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Agreed.



Margins matter. If it helps one parent keep their kid(s) away from it, it isnt a fail. If one site blocks Kentucky access, it shows someone that they want to harm their children. Knowing the proven effects this content has on people scientifically and psychologically, plus seeing the reaction of Pornhub, should tell people to stay away from it, and may help someone realize it's predatory in nature. If it does that with one person, I'll take it.



Most things the US congress does is half measures and virtue signaling for votes, so this is a very small step in the right direction (I know it's a state ruling). Seeing that Pornhub is inadvertently signaling its predatory nature and intent, they need to turn things up even farther.

Porn is not free speech any more than predatory lending or phone and internet scams are free speech. It never should have been seen as free speech that needs protecting. That was the failure and will remain so until the people stand up against it.

I don't think it shows they intentionally want to harm children. Just shows they value money over the additional steps. Thats splitting hairs but still a very viable difference.

Scotus disagrees on the free speech argument. So porn is here to stay from a legal standpoint. From a consumer viewpoint, its an absurdly high percentage of total internet usage, so no amount of moral argument is going is going to change anything either.

 

[PopesReignOverCardinals]

3) does the state action achieve it's stated goals? This is where imo it fails. Kids are very tech savvy. They literally had phones etc in their hands since they were toddlers. Any such attempts to make this harder makes it only marginally so. Plus ok pornhub blocked access but there are literally hundreds of other sites now kids can access anyway.

So imo yes its a worthy effort, no it doesn't unduly burden pornhub, but it is a waste of time because it ultimately will accomplish nothing so it shouldn't be done.

I think there is a difference between stated goals and desired effects. The bill doesn't state goals, but it does establish accountability for the websites.

Minors still know how to gain access to cigarettes and alcohol, but the burden is on the distributor.

 

[KAB Cats]

lol. Everyone flying around on magic carpets chasing unicorns.

You got them! Porn is harder to access than ever!

Now I want one of you to go to Google, type “big tits” and see how hard it is to find porn.

This bill has not stopped anything.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I think there is a difference between stated goals and desired effects. The bill doesn't state goals, but it does establish accountability for the websites.

Minors still know how to gain access to cigarettes and alcohol, but the burden is on the distributor.

Its rare bills ever state an intent. You have to research their history, drafting, etc to find anything resembling a statement of intent.

This is different from those examples for three important reasons 1) neither cigarettes nor alcohol have express first amendment protection 2) sufficient technology already exists to reliably accomplish the age verification in those industries 3) the difficulty is high in getting these items around the current process whereas in porn its literally as easy as going to another of the thousands of sites.

So you literally accomplish nothing even though it sounds good on paper.

Another interesting angle is the business/marketing decision by pornhub to be "legitimate". Did it increase traffic/ad revenue by a sufficient amount to offset the costs of now being the lightning rod for an entire industry of people that follow no rules?

 

[Bill Cosby]

This bill has not stopped anything.

The largest player in the industry has stopped providing age restricted content with no verification of age.

 

[KAB Cats]

The largest player in the industry has stopped providing age restricted content with no verification of age.

It's not like it's a limited market where you don't have access to competitors. How do you think people found Pornhub? It wasn't word of mouth.

Im not saying this to be argumentative, but the answer to that question is the core reason this legislation is fruitless.

And what Im getting at is.....

Do you want Search Engines to be responsible for moderating content? And if the goal is to limit access to pornography, why are search engines, Twitter & social media not part of the legislation?

 

[Bill Cosby]

It's not like it's a limited market where you don't have access to competitors. How do you think people found Pornhub? It wasn't word of mouth.

Im not saying this to be argumentative, but the answer to that question is the core reason this legislation is fruitless.

And what Im getting at is.....

Do you want Search Engines to be responsible for moderating content? And if the goal is to limit access to pornography, why are search engines, Twitter & social media not part of the legislation?

Quite the contrary with search engines, I don’t think they should do any content moderation and think they should be liable for harm caused by their decisions to moderate content and artificially push certain chosen content towards users.

The goal isn’t to limit access to pornography per se. The goal is to have businesses that are serving age restricted content and products to users ensure the people they’re serving to are of legal consuming age.

And Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, etc. should all have higher age restrictions and be subject to the same laws as porn.

 

[KAB Cats]

Quite the contrary with search engines, I don’t think they should do any content moderation and think they should be liable for harm caused by their decisions to moderate content and artificially push certain chosen content towards users.

This is why Im skeptical of this legislation. I think moderation of search engines & social media, quite likely by legislation, is really the only solution I see to actually curbing the access to pornography.

People keep skating over that and that's why Im saying this is smoke and mirrors legislation. I actually really like the idea, but in practice, what I see is an eventual creep into legitimate censorship and that's on top of the fact that anyone can still access pornography via a simple search term.

 

[Bill Cosby]

This is why Im skeptical of this legislation. I think moderation of search engines & social media, quite likely by legislation, is really the only solution I see to actually curbing the access to pornography.

People keep skating over that and that's why Im saying this is smoke and mirrors legislation. I actually really like the idea, but in practice, what I see is an eventual creep into legitimate censorship and that's on top of the fact that anyone can still access pornography via a simple search term.

No one banned pornography. Pornhub stopped operating in KY because they didn’t want to comply with age verification laws.

What I see is an eventual creep towards technology that allows for better age verification on harmful social media platforms and content, or parental controls embedded in devices. Pornhub is even suggesting better methods than what this law puts in place, which is great.

People are waking up to the damage that’s been done to a generation of American children by uninhibited access to porn and social media.

Highly suggest the Anxious Generation as a good read/listen.

 

[KAB Cats]

No one banned pornography. Pornhub stopped operating in KY because they didn’t want to comply with age verification laws.

What I see is an eventual creep towards technology that allows for better age verification on harmful social media platforms and content, or parental controls embedded in devices. Pornhub is even suggesting better methods than what this law puts in place, which is great.

People are waking up to the damage that’s been done to a generation of American children by uninhibited access to porn and social media.

Highly suggest the Anxious Generation as a good read/listen.

Im aware of what Pornhub did and the circumstance.

We all agree kids should not be able to access porn. I can't stress that enough.

However, the government is not going to fix this problem. Anyone approaching it that way is deceiving themseelves.

What this will lead to, if taken to the Nth degree, is force Google, Bing, Twitter, Facebook, to censor content. Notice, however, that they are exempt in all current legislation. Why is that? Conversely, if included in such legislation, does that introduce a slippery slope into moderation of other content? Is that not a contradiction with social media & search engines making no judgement of content?

And even then, as long as demand exists, users will find a work around. Just like they did with Napster, Limewire, Torrents, etc. etc. etc.

Parenting is the only solution. Hard cold reality the way I see it. It's the world we live in.

 

[KAB Cats]

More specifically:

GIVEN: that the United States federal government (and each state) has no power to enforce who can create a website and no regulatory authority to limit what URL a user may enter into their browser
AND GIVEN: Adult material is legal, but restricted by age
AND GIVEN: That search engines are an aggregation of the entire accessible internet across all countries indexed by webcrawlers
AND GIVEN: That in the case of social media, the content is submitted by end-users (not the social media site itself)
THEN: Then the solution to preventing under age access to pornography is the selective display of Seach results, images & video
AND: Social media companies moderating all posts for any post of pornography

 

[Bill Cosby]

More specifically:

GIVEN: that the United States federal government (and each state) has no power to enforce who can create a website and no regulatory authority to limit what URL a user may enter into their browser
AND GIVEN: Adult material is legal, but restricted by age
AND GIVEN: That search engines are an aggregation of the entire accessible internet across all countries indexed by webcrawlers
AND GIVEN: That in the case of social media, the content is submitted by end-users (not the social media site itself)
THEN: Then the solution to preventing under age access to pornography is the selective display of Seach results, images & video
AND: Social media companies moderating all posts for any post of pornography

Are you saying that’s the status quo? Google, Reddit, X makes you opt in I’m pretty sure, etc. etc. already selectively display and filter content. It’s just easy to opt in without true age verification.

I’ve have very big concerns about government censorship of content, but those are generally coming from Federal coercion or threat, not a state legislature requiring porn websites to verify they’re serving their content to legal recipients, just like all bars, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. that serve alcohol.

 

[RunninRichie]

Im aware of what Pornhub did and the circumstance.

We all agree kids should not be able to access porn. I can't stress that enough.

However, the government is not going to fix this problem. Anyone approaching it that way is deceiving themseelves.

What this will lead to, if taken to the Nth degree, is force Google, Bing, Twitter, Facebook, to censor content. Notice, however, that they are exempt in all current legislation. Why is that? Conversely, if included in such legislation, does that introduce a slippery slope into moderation of other content? Is that not a contradiction with social media & search engines making no judgement of content?

And even then, as long as demand exists, users will find a work around. Just like they did with Napster, Limewire, Torrents, etc. etc. etc.

Parenting is the only solution. Hard cold reality the way I see it. It's the world we live in.

WE WANT SMALLER GOVERNMENT! DRAIN THE SWAMP!=We want smaller government for ourselves, not for anyone else.

 

[RunninRichie]

A lot of confusion from people in this thread about the difference between state government actions, and federal government actions.

Federal law already prohibits distribution of pornography to minors.

KY wants internet companies to verify their users are not minors before serving them pornographic content.

Pornhub decided they’d rather not verify the age of their users, so they will not operate in KY.

Move to Ohio or Tennessee if you so desperately want children to have access to pornhub.

Why does it matter where it's coming from? State or fed. Government over reach, is government over reach.

Lol, nice moral crusade. Did I say children should have access to porn? No. The issue is, it's not the governments place to police that. It's on the parents.

They stopped because they see it as a privacy violation. And it is. Are you ready for your ID to be leaked. When the 3rd party company doing this, is breached?


What is it you call yourself? An independent? Why not be honest. You're a Neo-Puritan.

How long until this law starts applying to websites that aren't porn sites but have porn, like reddit? Then the government can force you to give up your anonymity to make a reddit account.


I do believe most people would want to restrict access to porn for children. The issue is that as I've said, there is no good way to do it on the Internet without infringing on rights or otherwise.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Why does it matter where it's coming from? State or fed. Government over reach, is government over reach.

Lol, nice moral crusade. Did I say children should have access to porn? No. The issue is, it's not the governments place to police that. It's on the parents.

They stopped because they see it as a privacy violation. And it is. Are you ready for your ID to be leaked. When the 3rd party company doing this, is breached?


What is it you call yourself? An independent? Why not be honest. You're a Neo-Puritan.

If you don’t understand the difference between federal actions and state actions already, there’s no sense in explaining it to you. Baseline knowledge of our government, and a slight understanding of why people may be OK with state governments acting in circumstances they’d oppose the federal government is just table stakes for any debate.

We’ve spent decades with suppliers of age restricted products - alcohol, tobacco, rental cars, porn, etc. - verifying age at point of supply, and now you people can’t fathom why people would expect those supplying internet based porn for profit be required to determine they aren’t supplying it to children.

I’m an independent. I’m not anti-porn, anti-alcohol or anti-tobacco. I am opposed to supplying those products to children for profit, which you seemingly so desperately want the ability to do.

 

[RunninRichie]

If you don’t understand the difference between federal actions and state actions already, there’s no sense in explaining it to you. Baseline knowledge of our government, and a slight understanding of why people may be OK with state governments acting in circumstances they’d oppose the federal government is just table stakes for any debate.

We’ve spent decades with suppliers of age restricted products - alcohol, tobacco, rental cars, porn, etc. - verifying age at point of supply, and now you people can’t fathom why people would expect those supplying internet based porn for profit be required to determine they aren’t supplying it to children.

I’m an independent. I’m not anti-porn, anti-alcohol or anti-tobacco. I am opposed to supplying those products to children for profit, which you seemingly so desperately want the ability to do.

Not having kids exposed to porn is the parent's job. Don't give your kid unrestricted internet access, problem solved. No kid needs a personal iphone or an ipad, if they want to watch youtube videos or whatever they can do that on their parent's device, where their activity can be monitored and controlled.

As I said before: ''I do believe most people would want to restrict access to porn for children. The issue is that as I've said, there is no good way to do it on the Internet without infringing on rights or otherwise.''.

The issue with this is of course, the slippery slope. First it's the porn sites. Ok no big deal. Then they come for social media, that isn't a porn site. But allows for porn. Then, you have to have an ID to make a twitter or reddit account.

 

[KAB Cats]

If you don’t understand the difference between federal actions and state actions already, there’s no sense in explaining it to you. Baseline knowledge of our government, and a slight understanding of why people may be OK with state governments acting in circumstances they’d oppose the federal government is just table stakes for any debate.

We’ve spent decades with suppliers of age restricted products - alcohol, tobacco, rental cars, porn, etc. - verifying age at point of supply, and now you people can’t fathom why people would expect those supplying internet based porn for profit be required to determine they aren’t supplying it to children.

I’m an independent. I’m not anti-porn, anti-alcohol or anti-tobacco. I am opposed to supplying those products to children for profit, which you seemingly so desperately want the ability to do.

Whether this at the federal or state level, it’s the exact same principle. If we are saying the federal level is irrelevant, you’re basically giving carte blanch ability to override the bill of rights and constitution.

Media is not the same as alcohol. It’s not a good comparison. It doesn’t fit and I’ve enumerated several examples of why that is.

I’ll sum up why I dislike this legislation for two simple reasons.

1) It’s not going to work given current technologies
2) For it to work, it will require significant investment from the private sector, and in addition require much more aggressive legislation that I believe will lead to more aggressive encroachment of 1st amendment rights.

My take away, which I think is interesting, is that from a more entrepreneurial and startup perspective, there is significant opportunity in operating systems, browsers and third party solutions to provide better tooling to prohibit content for children. That to me is where the solution is.

 

[RunninRichie]

Whether this at the federal or state level, it’s the exact same principle. If we are saying the federal level is irrelevant, you’re basically giving carte blanch ability to override the bill of rights and constitution.

Media is not the same as alcohol. It’s not a good comparison. It doesn’t fit and I’ve enumerated several examples of why that is.

I’ll sum up why I dislike this legislation for two simple reasons.

1) It’s not going to work given current technologies
2) For it to work, it will require significant investment from the private sector, and in addition require much more aggressive legislation that I believe will lead to more aggressive encroachment of 1st amendment rights.

My take away, which I think is interesting, is that from a more entrepreneurial and startup perspective, there is significant opportunity in operating systems, browsers and third party solutions to provide better tooling to prohibit content for children. That to me is where the solution is.

I agree with this as well. That's where you start. Every device that can access the internet should have parental controls. That are easy and simple to find and set up. I'm sure some new software could be worked on as well. To have more expanisve options to restrict porn. For parents that have children with devices.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I'm taking you off ignore for a moment to say stop. You've chased me around the Paddock quoting me for the last few years and you say the exact same thing trying to get an argument going between us. Whenever I read a thread that I've posted in while not logged in, you're there, behind me, quoting me like whatever you think this is is personal. I haven't posted in the political thread in a long while and mainly post in the wrestling thread now and you've even done a couple troll posts there in the past trying to get my attention.

Stop being gd weird and obsessive and take a hint.

No. You chastise your opponents for getting upset with things when you disagree and don’t chastise when you agree. I don’t have to stop pointing out your hypocrisy. You are the political that you attack and attempt to shame.

And, hall monitor, there is no one more politically redundant than you in threads you perceive as political.

 

[KAB Cats]

I agree with this as well. That's where you start. Every device that can access the internet should have parental controls. That are easy and simple to find and set up.

Right I could see it almost as crash test ratings. If I’m Microsoft or even Google, there really is a good deal of opportunity. Some of that is parental education and knowing it exists.

Makes my startup senses tingle… there’s money there

 

[Bill Cosby]

I agree with this as well. That's where you start. Every device that can access the internet should have parental controls. That are easy and simple to find and set up. I'm sure some new software could be worked on as well. To have more expanisve options to restrict porn. For parents that have children with devices.

You’ve guys have finally stumbled upon something reasonable.

And once you, with the help of your beloved pornhub, can convince apple, Samsung, google and Microsoft to do it, you can have get pornhub back in KY.

 

[RunninRichie]

You’ve guys have finally stumbled upon something reasonable.

And once you, with the help of your beloved pornhub, can convince apple, Samsung, google and Microsoft to do it, you can have get pornhub back in KY.

I don't watch porn (It is poisionous to your mind). I just believe in limited government and personal freedom.

 

[KAB Cats]

You’ve guys have finally stumbled upon something reasonable.

And once you, with the help of your beloved pornhub, can convince apple, Samsung, google and Microsoft to do it, you can have get pornhub back in KY.

Aw, you really think we couldn’t access pornhub if we wanted?

 

[Bill Cosby]

I don't watch porn. I just believe in limited government and personal freedom.

But you’re fully on board with age restrictions for access to porn?

You just don’t want companies to have to verify they’re selling products in compliance with the laws?

Or you oppose age restrictions on access to porn for the sake of personal freedom?

 

[RunninRichie]

But you’re fully on board with age restrictions for access to porn?

You just don’t want companies to have to verify they’re selling products in compliance with the laws?

Or you oppose age restrictions on access to porn for the sake of personal freedom?

I think options for restricting porn from children. Should fall onto the parents. Who can use new software technologies to restrict what their children can view. After all, children are under the watch and control of their parents. The government should not take the place of a parent. This retains personal freedom and rights for adults who want to view porn, while also restricting it from children.

Simple, really.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Porn for adults and children is unhealthy. Adults should have the right to determine that fact for themselves, as few who engage in porn see the harm done, until they do. Children should be protected from that harm in anyway possible.

 

[Bill Cosby]

I think options for restricting porn from children. Should fall onto the parents. Who can use new software technologies to restrict what their children can view. After all, children are under the watch and control of their parents. The government should not take the place of a parent. This retains personal freedom and rights for adults who want to view porn, while also restricting it from children.

Simple, really.

Does that same logic apply to alcohol and tobacco? Should those selling the product not be required to verify age? Just left up to the parents?

 

[RunninRichie]

Does that same logic apply to alcohol and tobacco? Should those selling the product not be required to verify age? Just left up to the parents?

If a person wishes to consume alcohol or tobacco, that is between them and them (and a parent or guardian if they are underage). If they wish to procure alcohol or tobacco, that is between them and the seller. So yes, it should be left up to the parents. If a child goes behind the parent's backs. To purhcase beer/cigs/whatever. The parent should then be allowed to punish the child. And set up restrictions so they can't do it again. Taking away license, grounding, etc etc. Because parents are in control of a child. And since children cannot consent (to buying things like beer and cigs). They have no arguments for saying their parents are restricting their liberty.


This is personal freedom vs big government.

 

[Bill Cosby]

If a person wishes to consume alcohol or tobacco, that is between them and them (and a parent or guardian if they are underage). If they wish to procure alcohol or tobacco, that is between them and the seller. So yes, it should be left up to the parents. If a child goes behind the parent's backs. To purhcase beer/cigs/whatever. The parent should then be allowed to punish the child. And set up restrictions so they can't do it again. Taking away license, grounding, etc etc. Because parents are in control of a child. And since children cannot consent (to buying things like beer and cigs). They have no arguments for saying their parents are restricting their liberty.


This is personal freedom vs big government.

To clarify, restaurants, bars, liquor stores, etc. should NOT be required to card at time of purchase, it’s up to parents to ensure their children, and young adult offspring, aren’t purchasing alcohol while under age?

 

[RunninRichie]

To clarify, restaurants, bars, liquor stores, etc. should NOT be required to card at time of purchase, it’s up to parents to ensure their children, and young adult offspring, aren’t purchasing alcohol while under age?

Yes. But that doesn't mean they should be free of consequences. They can still be arrested for underage drinking or smoking. And they can still be punished by parents.


This is what I mean. There's no hard and fast way to restrict things for children without infringing on adult's liberty and freedom. No matter how moral and good-natured those restrictions may be.

Let parents control this. Not the government, period.


You're not going to agree with me here. I'm a libertarian, you're auth-right. And that's fine. We disagree on how this should be approached. You think the answer is government. I think it's better parenting.


Software solutions for expansive pornography restriction for children, should be created. And given to parents with details on how to use them.

Using the government only infringes on the liberty of consenting adults who want to view such things.

 

[MegaBlue05]

Here’s my issue with “save the children” type legislation like when they tried to ban vaping in few states several years back. Same for age verification for porn now.

I’m an adult. I don’t like when my freedoms and decision making are limited to protect kids that ain’t mine. I DGAF ablut your kids. They’re your responsibility, not mine. Parent them.

I do find it funny the limited government types want the state to nanny their children because this issue is something they agree with.

Furthermore, I get why PH pulled out (lol) of states like Kentucky. The state’s solution is for me to upload my GD driver’s license with full name, street address and license number to a porn site to prove I’m old enough?

I’m not necessarily comfortable with faptube.com storing my personal information because first it’s uploading my PII to a porn site, then there’s a data breach, then the world knows MegaBlue05 is into busty lesbians scissoring.

There’s gotta be a better way that can limit underage consumption without asking consumers to upload their personal info to a server sitting somewhere offshore.

 

[RunninRichie]

Here’s my issue with “save the children” type legislation like when they tried to ban vaping in few states several years back. Same for age verification for porn now.

I’m an adult. I don’t like when my freedoms and decision making are limited to protect kids that ain’t mine. I DGAF ablut your kids. They’re your responsibility, not mine. Parent them.

I do find it funny the limited government types want the state to nanny their children because this issue is something they agree with.

Furthermore, I get why PH pulled out (lol) of states like Kentucky. The state’s solution is for me to upload my GD driver’s license with full name, street address and license number to a porn site to prove I’m old enough?

I’m not necessarily comfortable with faptube.com storing my personal information because first it’s uploading my PII to a porn site, then there’s a data breach, then the world knows MegaBlue05 is into busty lesbians scissoring.

There’s gotta be a better way that can limit underage consumption without asking consumers to upload their personal info to a server sitting somewhere offshore.

Bingo! It's a massive privacy concern.

You start changing this. By educating parents on the dangers of pornography, think TV ads, social media ads, etc etc. And develop software solutions. To counter porn access. Make it harder for kids to bypass it. Give these solutions to parents with details on how to use them. Once parents are educated on the dangers of pornography, they can then use these solutions to stop their kids from viewing it. Children don't see it and adult's freedom and privacy is not infringed.


The current ''solution'' is slapping a band-aid on a sinkhole.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Here’s my issue with “save the children” type legislation like when they tried to ban vaping in few states several years back. Same for age verification for porn now.

I’m an adult. I don’t like when my freedoms and decision making are limited to protect kids that ain’t mine. I DGAF ablut your kids. They’re your responsibility, not mine. Parent them.

I do find it funny the limited government types want the state to nanny their children because this issue is something they agree with.

Furthermore, I get why PH pulled out (lol) of states like Kentucky. The state’s solution is for me to upload my GD driver’s license with full name, street address and license number to a porn site to prove I’m old enough?

I’m not necessarily comfortable with faptube.com storing my personal information because first it’s uploading my PII to a porn site, then there’s a data breach, then the world knows MegaBlue05 is into busty lesbians scissoring.

There’s gotta be a better way that can limit underage consumption without asking consumers to upload their personal info to a server sitting somewhere offshore.

I don’t want the state to nanny my children. I have a nanny, private school, great family and loving wife to help with that.

What I want is the state of Kentucky to nanny the kids who don’t have that because there’s a mental health crisis destroying a generation of children. And even for the parents who want to do what’s right, the current societal pressures on children are overwhelming.

 

[RunninRichie]

I don’t want the state to nanny my children. I have a nanny, private school, great family and loving wife to help with that.

What I want is the state of Kentucky to nanny the kids who don’t have that because there’s a mental health crisis destroying a generation of children. And even for the parents who want to do what’s right, the current societal pressures on children are overwhelming.

Very valid concerns. I just don't think the answer is the government. The current societal pressures are largely an issue of.....wait for it.....bad parenting. If more parents restricted access to social media and pornography. There wouldn't be such pressures that exist.


I think we can both agree. Social media and pornography are very bad for anybody. For children it's even worse/amplified due to brain development still going on. The research is pretty clear on that.

 

[Irish Beck]

If any of the proponents of this bill can show me where it effectively prevents children from accessing porn, I'll change my tune. All this legislation does is remove the largest (and often most moderated) adult content providers from the equation so a child would merely have to scroll a half page to access porn.

Meanwhile, it further risks privacy for every legal adult consuming this content.

Excellent idea.

 

[Bill Cosby]

If any of the proponents of this bill can show me where it effectively prevents children from accessing porn, I'll change my tune. All this legislation does is remove the largest (and often most moderated) adult content providers from the equation so a child would merely have to scroll a half page to access porn.

Meanwhile, it further risks privacy for every legal adult consuming this content.

Excellent idea.

At some point the largest player in the industry will probably stop shutting off access in states to avoid age verification regulations and start working with states to implement much more reasonable, privacy protecting age verification procedures.

And hopefully that will also spread to other social media and harmful internet content.

More likely to help than thinking parents are all of the sudden going to decide to collectively change - that’s why they elected the representatives in government to help.

 

[KAB Cats]

At some point the largest player in the industry will probably stop shutting off access in states to avoid age verification regulations and start working with states to implement much more reasonable, privacy protecting age verification procedures.

What do you mean at some point? That’s literally what we are taking about.

 

[RunninRichie]

At some point the largest player in the industry will probably stop shutting off access in states to avoid age verification regulations and start working with states to implement much more reasonable, privacy protecting age verification procedures.

And hopefully that will also spread to other social media and harmful internet content.

More likely to help than thinking parents are all of the sudden going to decide to collectively change - that’s why they elected the representatives in government to help.

''I'm not auth-right bro''. So now you support, having to show ID to make a social media account. Will you willfully fork over your ID. To keep using twitter to look at GOP news?


How about making you show ID to use your computer or phone? ''Harmful internet content'' could be accessed on that device.