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.

  • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    11 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 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.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          I meant that the state is going to be in court with PornHub, because PornHub is not able to fully comply with their dumb law.

      • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 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

  • GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

      • rosymind
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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)

        • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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.

      • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

          • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            This is basically the answer. It caught on somewhere and the people doing it are too stupid to realize that it’s a matter of economic and political “class” oppression, not “race” oppression. But let’s keep hating white people even though most of them are as helpless and economically destitute as every other race.

            • systemglitch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              It’s amazing how much people don’t want to acknowledge this, as evidenced by the downvotes. A real disconnect from reality.

  • RecallMadness@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    When the UK was dead set on rolling out verification for porn, wasn’t Mindgeek (Pornhubs parent company) pushing its AgeID technology?

  • poejreed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    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

    • hughesdikus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

    • Dempf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

  • Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    273
    ·
    11 months ago

    So pornhub would rather let kids watch porn than comply with age verification laws

    • EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      117
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      92
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • Alteon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.)

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The total ban should protect from lawsuits for vpn use. It’s a case of “we deny service to anyone who logs in from your jurisdiction. This individual logged in from outside that jurisdiction and there’s no way for us to tell that they aren’t” the vpn theoretically could get in trouble though

          • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I look forward to the courts being very normal about that argument.

            The law in NC (not sure about the Utah one) doesn’t care about where the login is coming from. It only cares about where the user is located. The user concealing that information, on purpose or by accident, does not mean the website can ignore its requirements under the law.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah but it’s well established that states don’t have the right to prohibit transactions outside their borders. There will be legal questions about several aspects of this, but the worst I expect federal judges to rule on this is to declare a level of effort they need to put in to verify the viewer’s location. But at the end of the day, a reasonably good faith effort to deny service to those states should be sufficient in part because those states almost certainly don’t have the right to unilaterally force every other state to not get to use VPNs for sexually graphic materials

    • TugOfWarCrimes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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

    • CodeName@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      11 months ago

      What are you talking about? They are blocking access in those states. They are literally doing the opposite of what you are suggesting.

    • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • felykiosa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You do not start to watch porn at 18 , every adolescent watch porn stop with this "protect kid " bullshit

    • HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      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!

    • VieuxQueb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

    • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      What kind of a parent are you if you’re not blocking access to these kinds of sites on the devices of your kids?

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Get off of Lemmy, moron. You’re bringing down the average IQ of the entire platform.