September 1st: Texans, Fire Up Your VPNs, or Present Your Government-Issued ID to View Porn Online

[ztejas 44228]

4 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Porn has always had age restrictions.  Even movies at your local AMC theatre have age restrictions.  Those liberties have always been restricted.

And kids have always viewed porn anyways. You admitted to as much in your post. 

Also - if I go to Cindie's or whatever and buy a dildo I'm guessing they wouldn't even card me, and if they did they aren't keeping my ID on file. 

Are we going to start digitally carding people for rated R movies on Netflix? Or liveleak videos? Or websites talking about drug experiences or Japanese experiments in WW2? 

Stuff like this is silly. We're through the looking glass - there isn't any turning back unless you want to go full one-party police state like China (which may be the direction the world is headed in anyways) - and even then there are plenty of Chinese getting around all of that firewall shit anyway.

i.e. we're all fucked and entering the age of transhumanism - so what's the point of shit like this? To annoy people and detract from cybersecurity in the process without actually fixing anything? 

Kids are just going to do the same stuff to get around restrictions like this that the rest of us will. I was more than smart enough at 13 or 14 to use a VPN or find a porn site that isn't restricted. 

[sidis 10016]

i think all these stepsons, stepmoms, stepsisters, stepdaughters, stepdaughter's friends shoudl all have to show id to prove they are step-related.

that has been the most fucking bizarre development in the world of porn over the last ten years that i will never understand.

[Pam Cummings 9868]

I actually kinda agree that young kids being able to just look at google and see any type of porn possible probably isnt a good thing. When i was young seeing boobs took real work. And i definitely did not ever see any hardcore stuff until probably 7th grade when my friend found a porno in his uncle's closet. But i doubt this is the answer, i doubt it will be effective, and i doubt that "stopping kids from watching porn" is the real intention of this legislation.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[Shaggy3.0 1695]

Guys, don't be so damn lazy.  Just hit hit the local sleaze XXX video shop and rub it out in a privacy room.  Or better yet, take a partner and have at it on those cushion seats watching pron.  I'd advise you to not jump into those video booths. You'll have to step over splooge puddles.  

[Dahobbs 18318]

9 minutes ago, royiv said:

Does AMC collect and retain a copy of your ID that can then later be audited by the state? Asking because I don't see movies at AMC and have never been asked to show my ID at the theater my wife and I go to several times a month.

No. But, also, even if AMC asks for your ID, it is doing so based on corporate policy and not a law. 

This will almost certainly end for Texas the same way it did for Utah and North Carolina, Pornhub blocking the entire state because it doesn't want the headache or liability of collecting and maintaining IDs. 

Also, I really have no idea what it means for material to be "harmful to minors" or how anyone would apply the definition in the statute. It all seems impermissibly vague to me. This is how the statute defines it:

Quote

 

 (6)  "Sexual material harmful to minors" includes any

 material that:

                    (A)  the average person applying contemporary

 community standards would find, taking the material as a whole and

 with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to or pander to the

 prurient interest;

                    (B)  in a manner patently offensive with respect

 to minors, exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of

 descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated displays or

 depictions of:

                          (i)  a person's pubic hair, anus, or genitals

 or the nipple of the female breast;

                          (ii)  touching, caressing, or fondling of

 nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals; or

                          (iii)  sexual intercourse, masturbation,

 sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory

 functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act; and

                    (C)  taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,

 artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

 

So, now we have to figure out each of these means:

1.  "prurient interest"  
2. "patently offensive with respect to minors" (what if it is offensive, but not patently so? Where is the line?)

Oh, and the whole thing gets to be a moving target based on "contemporary community standards." You may rightfully asked, who decides which community and what the standards of the community are, and my answer would be fuck if I know. Shit, if someone liked pornhub showed data indicating that 50+% of the Texas population watched step-mother/daughter/sister porn (Hi Ted Cruz), could it argue that such material is embraced by the community and thus not prurient?

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

2 hours ago, BearSchlong said:

Can the state compel my wife to agree to sex on demand and make her act like she’s having a great time?

If someone can get a case in front of the Supreme Court I bet they would take care of that for you

[ztejas 44228]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, I really have no idea what it means for material to be "harmful to minors" or how anyone would apply the definition in the statute. It all seems impermissibly vague to me.

Right. I'm sure minors can find a site somewhere with instructions on how to make napalm in your garage. 

Better just cut off internet access for the whole state. 

[Brisketexan 106889]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No. But, also, even if AMC asks for your ID, it is doing so based on corporate policy and not a law. 

This will almost certainly end for Texas the same way it did for Utah and North Carolina, Pornhub blocking the entire state because it doesn't want the headache or liability of collecting and maintaining IDs. 

Also, I really have no idea what it means for material to be "harmful to minors" or how anyone would apply the definition in the statute. It all seems impermissibly vague to me. This is how the statute defines it:

So, now we have to figure out each of these means:

1.  "prurient interest"  
2. "patently offensive with respect to minors" (what if it is offensive, but not patently so? Where is the line?)

Oh, and the whole thing gets to be a moving target based on "contemporary community standards." You may rightfully asked, who decides which community and what the standards of the community are, and my answer would be fuck if I know. Shit, if someone liked pornhub showed data indicating that 50+% of the Texas population watched step-mother/daughter/sister porn (Hi Ted Cruz), could it argue that such material is embraced by the community and thus not prurient?

If this isn't the damned cover page on every brief filed by a porn site contesting the Texas law, they are missing a golden opportunity:

[Poe It Up 126]

4 or more sessions makes you a mass shooter. 

[UT_OB1 2266]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Shit, if someone liked pornhub showed data indicating that 50+% of the Texas population watched step-mother/daughter/sister porn (Hi Ted Cruz), could it argue that such material is embraced by the community and thus not prurient?

I have to actually defend Cruz here because for some stupid fucking reason this has taken over all the sites. Doesn’t matter what genre it’s in, just toss step in the title. Don’t even bother feeding the titles. Step is probably there. And lol at tatted up 35 year old step-whatevers. 

[Deej 77813]

Do they realize they are limiting the income of Texas State grads?

[freyguy 4368]

what dark times these are, where 8-tentacles going after a Manga cat-girl are now deemed tame...

[atomheartbevo 90642]

6 hours ago, sidis said:

i think all these stepsons, stepmoms, stepsisters, stepdaughters, stepdaughter's friends shoudl all have to show id to prove they are step-related.

that has been the most fucking bizarre development in the world of porn over the last ten years that i will never understand.

 

  

6 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

When I was 12 in 1989, I learned about sex from Playboy or Hustler.  Maybe I caught Hardbodies on TV.  Maybe I got really lucky and got the see the pizza guy fuck some hot chick on VHS.

5 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

When i was young seeing boobs took real work. And i definitely did not ever see any hardcore stuff until probably 7th grade when my friend found a porno in his uncle's closet. But i doubt this is the answer, i doubt it will be effective,

I had to rely on the porn fairy leaving porn mags behind convenience stores, in the false/drop ceilings of the boys bathrooms at school, in a box in the little crawlspace underneath a friend's parents' waterbed, in a shoe box tucked inside of a box labeled electronics or light bulbs or something, hidden under clothes and sandwiched between a wall and a large suitcase in my dad's closet.

[hobbes2702 13471]

6 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

When I was 12 in 1989, I learned about sex from Playboy or Hustler.  Maybe I caught Hardbodies on TV.  Maybe I got really lucky and got the see the pizza guy fuck some hot chick on VHS.

Nowadays a kid goes to pornhub and the most popular videos are all borderline incest or violence.  Usually abusing the shit out of a woman.  Its not people "trying to see boobs."  Its fucked up.   I don't think adults should be restricted from watching whatever they want to watch - and making them log in is a way of shaming them - but damn I don't want my kids learning from that shit and thinking that's normal sex.

Yeah, yeah, up to the parent to teach their kids about sex.  Whatever.  No one in history has really learned about sex from their parents.

I'm sure this isn't the answer.  I'm sure this is easily worked around.  But I wish there was an answer.

Lulz. What exactly is “normal sex”?

[atomheartbevo 90642]

5 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

I actually kinda agree that young kids being able to just look at google and see any type of porn possible probably isnt a good thing.

6 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

Yeah, yeah, up to the parent to teach their kids about sex.  Whatever.  No one in history has really learned about sex from their parents.

I'm sure this isn't the answer.  I'm sure this is easily worked around.  But I wish there was an answer.

 

My kids have locked-down iPads.  When my son hits junior high, instead of a phone, I'll get him an Apple Watch with cell phone functionality. I also have the ability to block certain things on their devices from my router (which I block YouTube on both their devices because fucking A, I'm sick of them trying to watch unboxing videos or kids playing with toys videos).  The computer he uses is in the living room and fairly locked down.

I can't completely stop them from accidentally seeing something they shouldn't, but I can also make sure they aren't hitting these sites within our household.  And given how much of a history I have with online porn, going back to spending minutes upon minutes waiting for one fucking little image to download from a BBS, I feel fairly confident I can keep that stuff shutdown for them at home.  Plus they have enough distractions - lots of stuff they still want to watch on various streaming services, Minecraft, Pokemon, Nintendo Switch games, etc.  

At school, their devices can and are monitored/audited all the time, and teachers can see what any of them are doing at any time on a device.

There will be a point at which they are going to have to get The Talk, and when that time comes, I'll tell my wife to talk to them.

[TwiceHorn 32077]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

No. But, also, even if AMC asks for your ID, it is doing so based on corporate policy and not a law. 

This will almost certainly end for Texas the same way it did for Utah and North Carolina, Pornhub blocking the entire state because it doesn't want the headache or liability of collecting and maintaining IDs. 

Also, I really have no idea what it means for material to be "harmful to minors" or how anyone would apply the definition in the statute. It all seems impermissibly vague to me. This is how the statute defines it:

So, now we have to figure out each of these means:

1.  "prurient interest"  
2. "patently offensive with respect to minors" (what if it is offensive, but not patently so? Where is the line?)

Oh, and the whole thing gets to be a moving target based on "contemporary community standards." You may rightfully asked, who decides which community and what the standards of the community are, and my answer would be fuck if I know. Shit, if someone liked pornhub showed data indicating that 50+% of the Texas population watched step-mother/daughter/sister porn (Hi Ted Cruz), could it argue that such material is embraced by the community and thus not prurient?

Most of that is the common-law obscenity test with the "minor stuff" engrafted onto it, I suppose with the intention of creating law that when minors are involved, the obscenity test can be relaxed a little bit.

But yeah, it's vague as hell in this context and will be difficult to enforce, just like the dildo laws and other "adult obscenity" laws.  It might pass constitutional muster, though.

[atomheartbevo 90642]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Lulz. What exactly is “normal sex”?

Missionary position between a 19 year-old step-son and his 26 year-old step-mother?

[atomheartbevo 90642]

5 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

and i doubt that "stopping kids from watching porn" is the real intention of this legislation.

The group behind this legislation (and same group behind Louisiana's and some of the other states legislation) are out to ban porn any way they can, and they do not hide that fact.  It's also about control, and down the road, the data is there if somebody wants to see who is looking at porn (whether that be a government entity or a commercial database building profiles on people). I'm honestly surprised that VPNs didn't come up, but they are after low-hanging fruit right now.

 

[atomheartbevo 90642]

One extremely frustrating thing, and it shows the hypocrisy, and without going CR, the group(s) behind this legislation are also against sex-ed in schools, and when you look at where maybe @Don Johnson and @Rimbo others are coming from (that things are really bad and easy to get), and by the way, I agree that there is stuff out there that obliterates the occasional Playboy or Penthouse we came across as kids, I kinda hope that maybe this will spur a discussion about sex-ed in school. Those Playboys, Penthouses, etc., gave us distorted views of women and sex to an extent, sure, but the stuff kids see now gives them distorted views of everything about sex.

We are have crossed the Rubicon in terms of the problem that unsupervised kids can get access to all the porn they ever could imagine and then some. This legislation does not address that, nor does it address the fact that we've had 10 or so years worth of kids in high school or even junior high sexting each other. Nobody is going to take smartphones away from teens, and all it takes is one or two unsupervised kids downloading porn and passing it around (just like we all passed crusty ripped-out pages of Playmates around) to circumvent a lot of the safeguards that are available.

I'm not saying we have sex-ed classes where the teacher says "no, it's not okay for you to bang your step-mom", but that is one avenue that we should all try and get on the same page on, whether it's the "don't do anything" crowd or the "ban it all crowd".

Edited July 6, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Don’t get your hopes up. Half this stupid country thinks the statue of David is pornographic.

[Gil Bang 26235]

1 minute ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Don’t get your hopes up. Half this stupid country thinks the statue of David is pornographic.

That same half wishes they were hung as well as David

[Nice Guy Eddie 13729]

Following the direction of Louisiana or Mississippi can’t be the right move in any scenario.

[atomheartbevo 90642]

So this is who we are joining

• Louisiana
• Utah
• Mississippi
• Virginia
• Arkansas (July 31st)
• Texas (Sep 1)
• Montana (Jan 1, 2024)

Good article about what's being done to fight it (recent lawsuits against Louisiana, etc.), why it's bad, etc.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/free-speech-group-backs-pornhub-in-fight-against-state-age-verification-laws/

This was interesting:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/pornhub-protests-age-verification-law-by-blocking-all-access-in-utah/

Quote

According to Pornhub, Utah's law mandating age verification differs from Louisiana's law in at least one meaningful way. In Louisiana, the state government created a digital wallet that Pornhub could access to securely verify state IDs. Because Utah has no such technology, Axios reported, Pornhub said it had no choice but to make "the difficult decision to completely disable access to our website" in Utah.

Of course, nobody wants a digital wallet created/maintained by the state to track what they are doing.

[52-80 19377]

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

We are have crossed the Rubicon in terms of the problem that unsupervised kids can get access to all the porn they ever could imagine and then some. This legislation does not address that, nor does it address the fact that we've had 10 or so years worth of kids in high school or even junior high sexting each other. Nobody is going to take smartphones away from teens, and all it takes is one or two unsupervised kids downloading porn and passing it around (just like we all passed crusty ripped-out pages of Playmates around) to circumvent a lot of the safeguards that are available.

well, if they end up banning the real porn sites, kids are going to have to start looking at washing machine catalogs again. 

[52-80 19377]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Following the direction of Louisiana or Mississippi can’t be the right move in any scenario.

what about this one w.r.t. govt involvement in social media ruled by LA

https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf

 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3510]

16 hours ago, BearSchlong said:

Can the state compel my wife to agree to sex on demand and make her act like she’s having a great time?

They are probably working for that one next Legislative session, under his eye of course

 

[Don Johnson 4847]

On a different note, seems like pornhub's strategy here is incredibly dumb from a business perspective.  Completely cutting off a large block of customers.

What's their end goal here?  

[52-80 19377]

8 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

On a different note, seems like pornhub's strategy here is incredibly dumb from a business perspective.  Completely cutting off a large block of customers.

What's their end goal here?  

im spitballing here but it could simply be a publicity stunt.  keep in mind that they are owned by a parent company (mindgeek) that essentially owns 80% of the porn on the web.  pornhub and brazzers are their 2 brands that often cross into mainstream through virality.  that, and the fact they operate any alternate website that pornhub users would go to, means no net loss of business.

[atomheartbevo 90642]

5 hours ago, 52-80 said:

well, if they end up banning the real porn sites, kids are going to have to start looking at washing machine catalogs again. 

I’m partial to the late 80s

http://www.wishbookweb.com/the-catalogs/

But they go back to the 1940s

[ztejas 44228]

21 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

On a different note, seems like pornhub's strategy here is incredibly dumb from a business perspective.  Completely cutting off a large block of customers.

What's their end goal here?  

Pornhub prints money. I'm guessing Utah is significantly less than just 1% of their revenue. 

[Don Johnson 4847]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

Pornhub prints money. I'm guessing Utah is significantly less than just 1% of their revenue. 

Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, Mississippi....

[Hefeweizen 5444]

23 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

On a different note, seems like pornhub's strategy here is incredibly dumb from a business perspective.  Completely cutting off a large block of customers.

What's their end goal here?  

Their bet is that publicizing it will result in people finding it through other methods.  It’s smart marketing.  Unlikely to make much difference to their bottom line.

Just now, Don Johnson said:

Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, Mississippi....

Why are you worried about their revenue?  I’m pretty sure they have a plan…

[Goredho 17652]

You Texans:

Me in Colorado:

[Pam Cummings 9868]

30 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

On a different note, seems like pornhub's strategy here is incredibly dumb from a business perspective.  Completely cutting off a large block of customers.

What's their end goal here?  

They've probably gotten some people to do some math, and the math probably says that spending money to do age verification is more costly than just cutting those states out. When or if that math changes, they will do age verification.

 

They've probably also figured that those states have no way of enforcing this, and that people are going to use whatever they need to access the site anyway. This way they can at least escape any legal recourse by saying hey, we blocked the site in your state. Not our fault people are getting around it.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[Don Johnson 4847]

2 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Why are you worried about their revenue?  I’m pretty sure they have a plan…

Worried?  Its a discussion.

[Hefeweizen 5444]

2 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Worried?  Its a discussion.

I would assume a multi billion dollar operation that is as distributed as they are have a plan.  Maybe even with some contingencies for dipshit political games.

[Dahobbs 18318]

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

On a different note, seems like pornhub's strategy here is incredibly dumb from a business perspective.  Completely cutting off a large block of customers.

What's their end goal here?  

I honestly don't understand how those sites make money generally. It is not like they have mainstream, large corporate advertisers. And I assume only like 10% of their site visitors purchase a subscription. Does that 10% pay for everything? If so, I think it would also be safe to assume that the 10% that pay would find a VPN workaround and continue to pay. So, really, maybe not losing out on that much and willing to trade some short term pain for long term avoidance of a costly identification system that opens you up to additional liability? 

[Don Johnson 4847]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I honestly don't understand how those sites make money generally. It is not like they have mainstream, large corporate advertisers. And I assume only like 10% of their site visitors purchase a subscription. Does that 10% pay for everything? If so, I think it would also be safe to assume that the 10% that pay would find a VPN workaround and continue to pay. So, really, maybe not losing out on that much and willing to trade some short term pain for long term avoidance of a costly identification system that opens you up to additional liability? 

Would the 10% that pay be willing to find a workaround?  Maybe

IMO, the 10% that pays would also be the subset willing to give ID.  They already have.

If pornhub relies on the 10% that pay, seems like they risk running off the valuable customers who likely don't care about providing ID.  

[Dahobbs 18318]

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

Would the 10% that pay be willing to find a workaround?  Maybe

IMO, the 10% that pays would also be the subset willing to give ID.  They already have.

If pornhub relies on the 10% that pay, seems like they risk running off the valuable customers who likely don't care about providing ID.  

The 10% that pay are already running on a VPN. I don't think those folks are going anywhere. 

[Murfdogg21 4563]

Don’t blame me, I voted libertarian  for Kodos  

Edited July 6, 2023 by Murfdogg21

[CooterBrown 18288]

Just an FYI, Reddit has subreddits for every kink you can imagine. My understanding is that since it’s not a porn site by definition, those subreddits won’t be blocked.

[Nivek 17409]

Have a surly lawyer find ted cruz and ken paxton’s credentials and share that. Ted is a sick sick man.

[956 Worldwide 35592]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I honestly don't understand how those sites make money generally. It is not like they have mainstream, large corporate advertisers. And I assume only like 10% of their site visitors purchase a subscription. Does that 10% pay for everything? If so, I think it would also be safe to assume that the 10% that pay would find a VPN workaround and continue to pay. So, really, maybe not losing out on that much and willing to trade some short term pain for long term avoidance of a costly identification system that opens you up to additional liability? 

Volume.

 

[Macklemore 2945]

With the legislation Congress passed that led to the shut down of Backpage and craiglist ads, and no more Houston Press hard copy ads, finding a whore has become a mess with scammers far exceeding legitimate providers. It’s no longer an enjoyable hobby as it once was. I predict the quality of porn to suffer if PornHub blocking access to entire states becomes the norm.

[52-80 19377]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I honestly don't understand how those sites make money generally. It is not like they have mainstream, large corporate advertisers. And I assume only like 10% of their site visitors purchase a subscription. 

“Its just 10% of porn traffic how much money could it be”

[tokamak 6687]

This affects websites where more than 1/3 of the content is "sexual material". For every real video on PornHub, they should just upload two blank videos, title them "DONT WATCH THIS SHIT LOL", and suppress them in search results. Problem solved.

[Parliament 14594]

On 7/6/2023 at 11:42 AM, Macklemore said:

With the legislation Congress passed that led to the shut down of Backpage and craiglist ads, and no more Houston Press hard copy ads, finding a whore has become a mess with scammers far exceeding legitimate providers. It’s no longer an enjoyable hobby as it once was. I predict the quality of porn to suffer if PornHub blocking access to entire states becomes the norm.

...so you've been told?

[wildcat09 29579]

Lol, never change, Icono.

[UTGrad98 2332]

11 hours ago, tokamak said:

This affects websites where more than 1/3 of the content is "sexual material". For every real video on PornHub, they should just upload two blank videos, title them "DONT WATCH THIS SHIT LOL", and suppress them in search results. Problem solved.

Does the math check out ok on surly?

[Js1 87179]

On 7/6/2023 at 11:42 AM, Macklemore said:

With the legislation Congress passed that led to the shut down of Backpage and craiglist ads, and no more Houston Press hard copy ads, finding a whore has become a mess with scammers far exceeding legitimate providers. It’s no longer an enjoyable hobby as it once was. I predict the quality of porn to suffer if PornHub blocking access to entire states becomes the norm.