Submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world [bot] to technology@lemmy.world
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.
Fragile conservative white males always shooting themselves in the dicks.
Is it okay to call out race when they’re “white”? You’re racist.
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)
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.
Confused by your messaging, are you suggesting those types of porn are bad? Or attempting to point out their hypocrisy?
It’s the latter, obviously.
Thats is unfortunate for those citizens with no access to a VPN.
So those without an android phone?
Iphones can run vpns
For $5 for Mullvad
Or the browser Opera
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.
They should put the block in place before the law gets written to rally support against it
So pornhub would rather let kids watch porn than comply with age verification laws
Please register your id, sexual preferences, and all your financial information with the government. We know from the history of governments this info would never get abused or leaked or used for something horrific.
When has an authoritarian right wing government ever used such information against its citizens? /s
I hate to break it to you, but teenagers have been circumnavigating around any law the government throws at them since the beginning of time.
This law is particularly ridiculous and poorly thought out. It is easily bypassed and only has potential downsides. It is ripe for abuse and it’s insane anyone supports this level of privacy intrusion.
So parents would rather let kids watch porn than comply with age verification laws
FTFY. Pornhub doesn’t have kids, parents and guardians do. Unlike schools, Pornhub has zero in loco parentis rights or responsibilities. All of that? Parents and guardians.
But in Utah and NC, recognizing the futility of being able to comply with the laws as written, Pornhub is OVERCOMPLYING, something that seems to have sailed far above your comprehension.
In those states, Pornhub is ensuring that NO ONE of ANY age watches their content. Yet you write,
So pornhub would rather let kids watch porn than comply with age verification laws
Perhaps you can explain to the rest of us how blocking access to ALL users in a given state is Pornhub expanding access to children in that state, @Gigan@lemmy.world.
(And you’re fooling yourself if you think this has fuck all to do with protecting minors anyway.)
The absolute dumbest of takes.
All anyone has to do is say, “…it’s for the children,” and you just line up, ready to sign away your rights and privacy.
No. They would rather effective age verification that doesn’t negatively impact the privacy and liberties of their users. They want a solution, not just a ham fisted excuse to start building the foundations of a social credit system
While care is required, designing a system that only proves that someone is over a specific age is possible without leaking much additional information.
For example a request for age verification can be generated and signed by the porn site. All it needs is a unique ID and the signature. It should expire quickly and can only be used once.
The person identifying themself can send this request to a certifying party (the government in the EU where we trust governments, or I guess some terrible for profit company in the USA because they privatize everyday). The certifying party can sign the request, since they know how old the person is.
The person then returns this verification to the porn site.
In this scenario the porn site never learns anything about the user other than that they are above a given age. The certifying party only knows that the person has gotten an age verification, but not why or where.
There is still possible collusion between the porn site and the verifying party, but in that case the system is not really needed at all. Also metadata tracking is possible (like when a person gets a request and has network traffic to a porn site), but can be mitigated if a user is concerned.
No they’d rather people not have to upload copies of their photo ID to porn sites or participate in a system where such preferences will be easily stored in a government database. It opens the door for privacy violation, extortion, public humiliation, etc for engaging in legal but socially stigmatized behavior in the privacy of their own homes.
Even that would not be enough to protect Pornhub, too. Some kid gets on their parents’ account? Bam, lawsuit. Even the total ban is not enough. Some kid uses a VPN to access the site? Lawsuit.
It is not physically possible to comply with these laws. (The NC one at least.)
What are you talking about? They are blocking access in those states. They are literally doing the opposite of what you are suggesting.
It is not Pornhubs fault that the kids access the net unsupervised.
were you never a teenager?
Apparently the dumbest one ever
What is with this fucking dumbass, disingenuous campaign on Lemmy? And I recently saw some dumb cunt arguing that blue states are taking gun rights away from black people, too.
You fucktards really expect people to think that you care about kids or black people?
I assure you, we are not the idiots.
You do not start to watch porn at 18 , every adolescent watch porn stop with this "protect kid " bullshit
You know they are not doing it for the kids, they want to know if you are gay. By associating people ID to content type they know what YOU watch.
It’s partly but not just that. They want blackmail and they want enforced sexual modesty for all adults. Porn is against their religion and they believe their primary duty is to force others to follow their religion’s rules. And it creating sexually frustrated prudish adults is a plus to them.
I’m just not an authoritarian. I don’t like the government spying on us as it is. Why would I volunteer to give up even more privacy? Consider installing cameras in your home and give the government access to them if you want. Totes just to make sure the kids aren’t doing anything wrong. I’ll skip.
Party of small government!
Get off of Lemmy, moron. You’re bringing down the average IQ of the entire platform.
Did your parents not have IDs when you were a kid? O.o
lol
When the UK was dead set on rolling out verification for porn, wasn’t Mindgeek (Pornhubs parent company) pushing its AgeID technology?
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
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, though I hesitate to overly ascribe malice. Still, it’s difficult to tend towards other conclusions when the state of Utah has declared pornography a public health crisis, for example. In my mind, children are just a means to an end. One 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.
Thanks for the reply. It did help add some context for me.
Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m in a neighboring state and it’s about 50/50 that my ISP gives me an IP address that geolocates to NC. So right now I’m blocked from the site. I don’t go there often but it’s lame.
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It also works the other way. A lot of people in state are going to have IP addresses that appear out of state.
All in all, using IP to establish a physical address is VERY imperfect. Especially if you’re targeting people over cellular networks or networks in larger commercial properties.
I look forward to watching people try to sue porn sites that are actively trying to block access to a state.
This is going to be a shit show. It’s a law passed by people who don’t understand the underlying tech.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
How exactly would they have cause to sue? “I wasn’t able to wank, so I was harmed.”
Unless these are paying customers? But in that case, the ToS likely explicitly says PH has the right to pull access for any reason, or a specific list of reasons.
A company like PH has lawyers, guaranteed. They wouldn’t be making these moves if they weren’t absolutely certain they were covered legally. It’s not like it’s a mom and pop porn shop.
RagingRobot@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Complain to your isp
Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I can barely get them to provide basically adequate service that doesn’t meet the FCC definition of broadband. They won’t care, lol.
JustUseMint@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I understand you shouldn’t have to do this but Its insanely easy to use a vpn nowadays. Download and run , paid and unpaid