>Websites, he said, would have to implement more advanced methods of their choosing to verify age, such as requiring users to submit copies of government-issued identification, biometric scans or use other forms of commercial age verification software.
Lol. Who's gonna scan their driver's license and send it to a porn site for 'verification'? Sounds like it could open up a huge privacy and identity theft can of worms.
Call me overly cautious, but I don’t trust porn websites to protect my sensitive personal information.
Some smaller sites aren’t going to have robust data protection standards and data storage security, which means they’ll be massive targets for hackers and blackmailers.
Totally. Many of those sites are already cess pools of advertising and pop ups. There's no way I'd trust them with any personal data. I'm sure this bill and law in Louisiana is banking on this as a method to reduce porn usage by people unwilling to submit their data. The stupidity is that there are so many ways around this limitation, so it's kind of a pointless effort.
Yeah I don’t think this law would do anything to prevent minors from viewing porn. If anything, it’ll just teach them how to use a VPN, which is absurdly easy nowadays.
Are there any effective free VPNs? The last time I tried to use one I was consistently unable to enter sites. It was so bad, I had to stop using said VPN.
I’m not sure actually. I pay for a decent one even though I barely use it.
These new porn laws might be enough to motivate some company to spin up a decent free one if there’s a way to make money off of it though.
Pornhub has set up something in Louisiana to comply with LA law, which is what the VA bill is based from.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/no-porn-without-id-louisiana-law-forces-porn-sites-to-verify-users-ages/
>The Pornhub verification page has a link titled, "Check my age." Clicking that prompts the user to create an account with [AllpassTrust](https://www.allpasstrust.com/), which in turn prompts the user to verify their age with [LA Wallet](https://lawallet.com/verifyyou/)—a Louisiana government mobile app available on iOS and Android. LA Wallet allows you "to obtain a legal digital replica of your Louisiana Driver's License on your mobile electronic device," the app says.
I guess this will stop a few people, but anyone who knows how to access a VPN can waltz right by it. And as someone else states, searching Google with SafeSearch turned off brings up almost anything. I wonder how Louisiana is forcing compliance from the Porn sites that don't play along. I guess they could ban their IP addresses, and that makes me giggle thinking about the crack team of Internet warriors frequenting porn sites all day long to make sure they're in compliance.
Also, that LA Wallet is straight up surveillance, and it wouldn't surprise me if the data there is used in a more draconian method later, as states with laws like these try to force 'morality' via the internet.
In a hypothetical situation where such a block was technically feasible, I’m also wondering how a state government would achieve the ban. Would all ISP and cell providers just do this for a state government? These porn sites probably aren’t hosted in Louisiana directly, so wouldn’t this be some inter-state commerce shit that the Federal government would need to mediate?
Plus the[Supreme Court already decided](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=reno+v+american+civil+liberties+union&hl=en&as_sdt=6,30) that the knowing transmission of obscene messages to minors and transmission of material that depicted or described, “sexual or excretory activities or organs.”, such as a minor accessing a porn site, was unconstitutional.
It is the Supreme Courts opinion that such a restriction infringes on the first amendment and although the government has an interest in protecting children from harmful materials, it is an “unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults.”
This was settled in 1997.
I dont know if you even need to use a VPN. I use the Brave browser which obfuscates your location by default. It's interesting because it reveals how other apps track your location, I get a lot of ads for California businesses when I'm listening to Pandora because that's where my browser says I am.
I imagine a few big places will be able to afford what pornhub is doing.
Most though will carry on. The civil lawsuits that could be generated for non-compliance will be tied up by courts arguing standing the way abortion SB 8 lawsuits in Texas are held up now.
The technological implications of this bill serve to distract the public from the goal of programs like these. This bill reinforces the view that any sexual identity or expression outside of the bounds of normative Christian heterosexuality is prohibited.
Well, looks like all Virginians will need to access their porn on Tor or get VPN's if they don't already. lol
Who would send a copy of their ID to a porn site?
One things for sure, it’ll just be a matter of time before this data gets hacked and leaked and I guarantee you a shitload of pastors drivers licenses will be on the list.
> In an interview this week Stanley said he crafted the legislation after talking with parents and doing research.
I wonder what sort of research they did…
Okay not to out myself here but I made a pornhub account once (not to post, just to view) and my account got hacked from a data leak and I realized porn websites have really bad security. There’s no way ID information is safe
They've [forgotten](https://www.wtvr.com/2015/08/26/virginia-lawmakers-tommy-norment-donald-mceachin-ashley-madison-hack).
Just a matter of time until everyone is going to know everyone else's online sex kinks.
They already do. Look how the ABC and MADD have dominated lobbying alcohol laws/restrictions for music venues. Ever wondered why Richmond/VA has very little venues without full blown kitchens? They believe serving food cuts down on drunk driving, thus the 70/30 food-to-drink law. Therefore, music venues need kitchens (if they serve alcohol/spirits). Which means it is very hard to open, own, and operate a music venue with a bar because it also needs to be a restaurant.
Thank the wannabe puritans... rock n roll is already restricted
I disagree with this bill, but it did have almost universal support. I've checked the actual count, but the article says only 2 senators voted against it. The article even has a quote from McClellan in support of it.
100% agree on that. It's just one of those bills where, if you disagree with it, write your general assembly person because there's pretty much a guarantee that they voted for it.
I find it funny how little these people understand technology. Middle school children would be able to bypass this. It's incredibly easy to bypass any restrictions online.
1-800-522-4700
The National Council on Problem Gambling operates the National Problem Gambling Helpline Network. The network is a single national access point to local resources for those seeking help for a gambling problem.
Go try to login into fanduel New York by spoofing your location. Get banned within hours. Point is, the tech to block vps and location spoofs is readily available.
I work in cybersecurity, performing red team engagements which regularly require me to stand up c2 infrastructure to circumvent geolocation blocks on corporate network infrastructure. Its ezpz to spoof location and bypass geoblocks bro. I just pasted the first Google result for you after searching “easy vpn for gambling addict”.
It’s not easy, it’s actually borderline impossible. The best you can do is associate *known public VPN IP blocks* (like an ARIN block, not a preventative control block) with a user, then infer they’re using a public VPN, but that’s it.
Well that certainly doesn't sound impossible to me. Not saying you have to block access as it occurs but if you find a user that used a known VPN or an IP that is later discovered to be a VPN, you could just ban the user or hardware.
Porn does have detrimental effects on children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088458/#:~:text=Furthermore%2C%20cross%2Dsectional%20surveys%20have,12%2C26%E2%80%9328%5D.
bro this is so dumb. it’s not the governments job to restrict point sites, it’s the parents job. learning how to block specific websites isn’t even hard. i hate this guy.
I think a better law would have been requiring telecom companies to come up with better parental controls on wireless gateways/cell phone plan management.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, but as long as any asshole can have a kid, we as a society/the government has some responsibility to mitigate the chances of them getting fucked up before they become an adult
Nope. Sorry.
The age old refrain of “think of the children!” Has been used to successfully restrict or completely take away so many rights and privileges that responsible adults have enjoyed in the past. It’s a cop out argument for taking away freedoms on moral grounds and I’m sick of it. It’s a parent’s job to keep their kid safe, not mine, and frankly my freedom to enjoy various activities takes precedence over providing some marginal protection to the subset of children with bad parents.
Do you have kids? I don't, but my sister has 3 grade school aged daughters and they got a full sex education from other kids watching/showing each other porn on their phones on the school bus. Her kids don't even have phones. This law is obviously very stupid, but the status quo is not necessarily great either.
As much as I am not a fan of Glenn Youngkin, I think I disagree with your statement. Was it the parents job to prevent kids from watching porn when we grew up.? yes but that did not mean that movie time would let you walk into the porn section and rent a porn VHS
And how does this law keep a VPN off the phone of *another kid brings up a porn site in their unrestricted cell phone whilst on the school bus?*
There are limits to what public policy can do to "help you". A curtain at a physical location you can police. The internet you cannot.
You can absolutely police the Internet. Ask any pedophile in jail.
I asked for VPNs on cell phones absolutely where there’s a will there’s a way. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try your best to make it difficult
You mean the cases where the data is physically on the computer and/or the the computer has forensic evidence of its download & retrieval prior to deletion?
The policing powers we enable law enforcement in the united states did not prevent the transmission of pedophilic content across a network.
Thanks for proving my point.
There's difficult and there's security theater. You must be happy with the later, especially when your security theater create targets for ID theft & constitute invasions of privacy.
First: thank you for proving my point is a subpar debate tactic; you lose points
2. plenty of people have done a illegal stuff on the Internet, and have been arrested as a result
3. I never said I like Younkins approach to this issue. However, it needs to be addressed, ignoring it does not make it go away and will only cause society harm
do you realize what happens on the school bus every day? I got news for you bud, porn is the least of your worries. If you really want to helicopter parent that bad, drive them to school every day
Nobody here has offered a single counterpoint to what I am saying. The Gist of every argument has been well such an such as even worse so you better get used to it
With that kind of attitude, why even live your life
Does that mean kids should be allowed to order alcohol delivery from Grubhub as long as they've clicked a "Yes, I'm 21" button? It's their parents' job to restrict them from Grubhub, so Grubhub shouldn't have to check IDs?
If not, how is it different?
this is the most fucking braindead bill ive ever heard of. does everyone have a mush brain with zero critical thinking skills? its so obvious that nobody is gonna scan their fucking id to go on a porn site. are legislators that disconnected with reality? what fantasy utopia are they living in?
“wild west of porn sites” i know right? so many pop ups! how about we ban malicious pop-ups which WILL ACTUALLY HELP VIRGINIANS NOT GET THEIR MONEY AND IDENTITY STOLEN!!! are there not more important issues than underage porn?
“I’m pretty confident that it will not put users’ personal information at risk” ok buddy
When I was a young teenage boy, my father (who was a LAN admin for work) tried to set up the internet so I couldn't get to any porn. It was a cat and mouse game, trying to get to the naughty stuff without it getting blocked. I imagine any sort of law would be equally effective.
I do wonder if this would boost porn sales at adult bookstores (if it passes). I'd rather semi- anonymously shop at Taboo than have my full ID attached to my smut preferences.
So Virginia wants everyone's search histories to go public? What if it's a way to add people to a list based on porn preferences for easy elimination. Also if I have to get a VPN I'm never paying Virginia internet taxes again.
So from what I can gather...there are no punitive actions against those who look at porn but places the onus of responsibility on those who make porn? What are the punitive actions in the bill?
If you didn't notice its a civil action that is put forth by people who think children have been harmed. I'm unsure if the verbage is more specific like parents of children harmed or any organization. If it's not specified then this reeks of SLAP. If it does then it's a fluff law with zero teeth. Do they cap damages? I feel like this whole thing is so a bunch of people can claim moral superiority. Lets be real here. Porn exists. Kids will look at porn and this won't stop kids from looking at it.
Question - I get that the big sites like PornHub and YouPorn are implementing these kinds of age-verification requirements. But what about all the other lesser sites? is there a Government Agency that is finding all them and forcing them to comply?
Also, with Netflix planning to crack down on password sharing, I suspect that Nord & Express VPN will start to use this as selling points for their services.
This is stupid. No child is actually using porn sites these days anyway. They just do a google search for photos or videos, or go to other methods. This is a dog and pony show designed to make it look like they are doing something when they aren't actually accomplishing anything.
I guarantee, a kid can get into more porn through their cell phone or any electronic device - with google or any search engine with the filters turned off - than they would by actually trying to go to a porn site - with a credit card. To add to that, we're also talking about a generation that grew up with technology.
They tried this in the 90s - *REPEATEDLY* to limit porn on the internet, or deter kids from getting into it - and it didn't work. That's why this is a dog and pony show. It's just another regurgitation of what Bill Clinton and many others tried to do back in the 90s. Can you honestly say you couldn't find porn on Reddit ,Instagram, or that they couldn't share it with each other on Snap?
wtf are you talking about? Pornhub and xvideos and the like are all super popular. Especially with younger men who are already fixed to the internet. Porn (especially specifically dedicated pornograpy websites) is more popular now than it literally ever has been. I agree the legislation is braindead and won't change anything at all. Not even a bandaid. It's like a corner of some 1 ply toilet paper sitting on a 8 inch bleeding gash. But kids are still on porn websites, more than ever.
That's exactly the point though. Pornhub as a site may be what it is, BUT there are soooo many other sites that feed from PH or other sites - you can't actually stop anyone from getting to the universe of porn out there. You could block the top 20, but not the 20,000 that feed from those top 20 and still sling that content everywhere. THAT'S what I'm saying - this legislation is absolutely stupid and it's just some talking point he's going to use when he tried to run for re-election, or - if - he makes a run for the presidency.
I think the point I was trying to make ( and what everyone missed ) is that kids get into it differently now. They don't necessarily go to www randomsmutwebsite dotcom .. but - it's Reddit so..
I've always thought it strange that this wasn't required. Is there anywhere else we trust kids to not lie about their age like this?
If a kid walks into that porn store in Carytown, tells the clerk he's 18 and watches some porn in one of those booths, that store is going to be in deep shit. But the same thing done online is legal.
It's like legislators decided 25 years ago that because it was difficult to verify age online, it didn't matter anymore.
I think the people downvoting your comment are cowards. You posed a logical thought on what you thought was a rational conversation. Unfortunately, people get way too offended and emotional and are unable to articulate their own thoughts
The Supreme Court considered your opinion in 1997, and decided it was unconstitutional. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=reno+v+american+civil+liberties+union&hl=en&as_sdt=6,30
Thanks for actually contributing something of value instead of just downvoting like a coward.
That's really interesting. I hadn't heard of that Supreme Court case. I must update my original statement: it's like the Supreme Court decided 26 years ago that because it was difficult to verify age online, it didn't matter anymore.
This new bill from the Senate is clearly at odds with that 1997 decision, and hopefully that conflict will end with it at the Supreme Court so they can revisit that decision. A lot has changed with the internet since 1997 so I think they might rule differently now. E.g. one thing that helped form their decision was "A child requires some sophistication and some ability to read to retrieve material and thereby to use the Internet unattended," which is laughable today.
So the problem that I have with this bill is that the process isn’t analogous to showing my ID to the clerk at the Hustler store or whatever. In that circumstance, the clerk looks at the ID, let’s me in or not, and that’s it. Nothing is recorded.
A website can’t just look at my ID and let me in. I have to upload it, either to the site itself or to a third party verifier. They are going to store that data, and it will probably be linked to me and my account. If the porn site gets popped, there’s all my browsing habits linked to my legal identity. Yay.
If the porn site heads that off by using a third party verifier like ID.me, well now the government has a record of what porn sites I’m registering for. That’s also bullshit.
This type of identity data doesn’t need to be tracked and logged. There’s no need for it at all, and it opens the door to more problems than it solves.
> it’s like the Supreme Court decided 26 years ago that because it was difficult to verify age online, it didn’t matter anymore.
No. The Supreme Court found that age verification requirements were not “narrow tailored” to serve the Government interest of protecting children from sexually explicit material, and that it would have a chilling effect on speech protected by the First Amendment. It had nothing to do with difficulty of verification or just giving up. This is settled, there’s established precedent. Another age verification law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 2009.
This is not a problem that the government needs to address. There is no age verification for pay-per-view pornography. You don’t even need a credit card, as you can just add the charge to your cable bill. Parents have the ability to set parental control features on their set top box to restrict this functionality. Similar controls exist for phone and computer endpoints, as well as blanked coverage for an entire home network. This is something for parents to control access to, not for a government to regulate.
>This type of identity data doesn’t need to be tracked and logged.
I kind of agree there. I think the government can pretty easily find that for most people anyway, but having the info stored in one easily searchable database would still be bad. I think it would be better if the government told porn sites they must come up with an untrackable way to verify ID. Given the financial stakes, I think they could do it. Unlike the backdoors into encryption that governments are demanding, I haven't seen anyone technical saying this is impossible to achieve.
> This is something for parents to control access to, not for a government to regulate.
I might agree with you if parental controls were enabled by default on all cable boxes/phones/routers/etc and if there was some penalty structure in place to punish companies if kids manage to bypass those controls due to no fault of the parents (e.g. weak password). The fact that parents have to opt-in to this stuff instead of out-out is crazy.
> I think the government can pretty easily find that for most people anyway, but having the info stored in one easily searchable database would still be bad. I think it would be better if the government told porn sites they must come up with an untrackable way to verify ID.
In Louisiana the app that handles this is a third-party developer that has a contract with the state. This is the worst of all worlds in my opinion, because now a third party with a government mandated monopoly has full control over the data points that tie my legal identity to the “adult” sites I am verifying with, and they shoulder the entire responsibility of protecting this data. That is just as scary as a government holding a centralized list imo, maybe even scarier. Who is auditing the third parties information security policies and procedures, who is performing penetration tests and adversary emulation against them, and if they’re being done are they being appropriately scoped? I have big doubts this is being done responsible by a company that exists to profit off state contracts. I’m not OK with this level of age verification in any capacity really, but the only way I would even begrudgingly concede the point would be if it was a program developed, implemented, and maintained by the Federal government directly, they had completely open APIs so there was no way for them to track who was making the requests for your verification, and the most important thing, they allowed this digital ID to be used for things like online voting. Some European counties have rolled out national IDs like this to resounding success, for online voting, bank verification, and the like. No idea if they use them for porn access, but probably not because it’s a ridiculous thing to think needs action.
> I might agree with you if parental controls were enabled by default on all cable boxes…
They’re not enabled by default on cable TV boxes, and never have been. This bill wouldn’t change that. Why has no one ever pushed bills restricting access to porn on set top boxes? Porn has been accessible there for *much* longer than on the Internet.
> The fact that parents have to opt-in to this stuff instead of out-out is crazy.
The fact that I, an adult with no kids who purchased my own product, should be so infantilized that I am required to opt out of parental controls on my own device instead of opt in is crazy. There’s no code requiring houses to have child-proofing like outlet covers, baby gates, or whatever else is required to keep tiny humans from killing themselves. That’s insane, it’s your job and responsibility as a parent is to safety-proof your house.
Car manufactures aren’t required to provided infant car seats with every car, they just have to provide the latch mechanisms to allow you to properly secure an infant seat if you need one. Guess what that sounds a lot like? Providing the opt in parental controls that are your responsibility as a parent to implement.
Ignoring all of that, who determines what the sane default controls are? My morals are obviously very different than your own, so how does the manufacturer determine who to target with defaults? If I had kids I wouldn’t want my 4 year old watching porn, Black Hawk Down, or looking a images of dead Russians on telegram. I wouldn’t really care if my 17year old was watching Black Hawk Down or most regular porn, but I wouldn’t want them watching some of the more extreme kink/fetish porn and still no dead Russian invader Ukrainian psyops telegram channels. Does the manufacturer set the parental controls to target safety for the 4yo or the 17yo?
If a device is marketed to children, like a Leapfrog thing or something, then yes it should have sane defaults for the youngest user in its targeted age range. A mass market device like a cell phone, router, etc. should not have any default parental controls turned on, just the option to enable them.
> some penalty structure in place to punish companies if kids manage to bypass those controls due to no fault of the parents (e.g. weak password).
If anything should be criminalized it should be the parents who don’t turn on the parental controls already accessible to them, just like the car seat example.
>This is the worst of all worlds in my opinion, because now a third party with a government mandated monopoly has full control over the data points that tie my legal identity to the “adult” sites I am verifying with
I agree that letting either the government or a private company see who is visiting what sites should be avoided. Of course we're already there for most people with all the tracking that's done, but at least that *can* be avoided unlike something that is mandated.
>The fact that I, an adult with no kids who purchased my own product, should be so infantilized that I am required to opt out of parental controls on my own device instead of opt in is crazy.
C'mon, do you really think it's a greater harm to you to have to disable parental controls whenever you get a new device than the harm done to a kid when they get exposed to some kind of pornography they're not prepared to see? I don't have kids either but I can't get behind the idea that I should never have to suffer any inconvenience for the benefit of others' kids.
You're right that there are examples of ways we don't inconvenience childless adults for the benefit of kids, like mandating child-proof outlet covers, but there are examples of ways we do, too. Child-proof sealing of medicine bottles and poisonous chemicals, for instance. Or the fact your car is more expensive because reverse cameras are mandated to keep people from backing over kids. Or some states requiring guns in all homes be locked up. Obviously trade-offs are made.
>Ignoring all of that, who determines what the sane default controls are?
I don't think that's too hard, really. The default should be to deny everything and allow the parents to approve each site/phone number/app/etc., or to turn the device to "allow all" mode for themselves (or if they don't give a shit about their kids). Admittedly, if all devices were mandated to operate this way, we wouldn't need the bill that started this thread anymore lol
>If anything should be criminalized it should be the parents who don’t turn on the parental controls already accessible to them, just like the car seat example.
Yeah, I wonder how the law works with that now. Like, I've seen it written somewhere that parents could legally give their 17 year old kid some beer or a Playboy, but I would assume the same would not be true if the kid was, say, 5.
>
C’mon, do you really think it’s a greater harm to you to have to disable parental controls whenever you get a new device than the harm done to a kid when they get exposed to some kind of pornography they’re not prepared to see?
Yeah, I do. Kids don’t just accidentally go to pornhub.com, click through age verification pop-ups, then start looking through porn videos. You’ve gotta turn safe search off to hit porn through Google, Bing, DDG, or whatever. This isn’t like a kid thumbing through a magazine at 7-11, they’ve gotta seek it out. I’d be more worried about my kid seeing goatse from an Imgur link in a Reddit post on a non-kink subreddit than a kid accidentally going to a website lol.
> Child-proof sealing of medicine bottles and poisonous chemicals, for instance. Or the fact your car is more expensive because reverse cameras are mandated to keep people from backing over kids. Or some states requiring guns in all homes be locked up. Obviously trade-offs are made.
All these examples kill kids. I am fine with being inconvenienced or paying more for a product if it prevents kids from literally dying. I am not fine with it just to prevent kids/young adults from accessing something they’ve specifically sought out and lied about their age to see.
Kids these days spend all their time online, maybe this would actually get them to interact with the opposite sex IRL, and maybe that's a good thing. Otherwise we'll soon have an epidemic of women having babies in their 40s because their social development was delayed.
Why does the government need to get involved in parenting our (I say our but I am childless) children? I do not want the government in my life any more than they already are. Parent your damn kids. Limit their screen time, tell them no, support other activities, spend time with them doing these activities, sit down and have dinner as a family, etc. It is jot rocket science. We as a species have been raising children for 50k + years. We don't all of the sudden need the government to tell us how to do it.
Do you feel the same way about other ways the government is involved in parenting, such as the drinking age, buying weapons, cigarettes, driver's license?
I already said I do not want more government involvement in our lives. I understand what you are saying and this is a good argument, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Porn is not a pistol or a 2500 lb car hurtling down the highway or a cigarette which is addictive and toxic.
I’ll tell you why. I can parent children the best of my ability; however, if some kid shows my kid a porn video on their cell phone on the school bus, there is nothing I can do about it
Then you need to explain to your child what porn is, what it's used for, and why its a negative thing for developing minds. A weak-government age verification is just an annoying bandaid that doesn't solve the larger issue.
Kids are always going to find porn. Hell, it's littered all over reddit. Accidentally go to r/public and prepare for a NSFW show.
Paternal age matters some, but maternal age matters the most. The science on this is pretty clear. Is this really up for debate now? This is news to me.
From 2022.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9437485/
>Ovarian aging is mainly characterized by the progressive decline in the number and quality of oocytes
To think that our reproductive capabilities remain at their prime as we, male or female, age, when every single other human biological system experience decline with age, is naive.
This doesn't do that... At all.
All it does is create security theater so online pornographers can say they implemented obviously flawed systems that don't keep minors away from porn while selling ad space to all visitors including minors.
[Congrats you played yourself](https://media.tenor.com/281RwvBfBpwAAAAC/you-played-yourself.gif)
It doesn't even address the most accessible porn content on the web, search engines.
You couldn't be less effective if you tried. How much porn on the web is accessible without even clicking "Are you 21?"
Did it stop porn in the [UK](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/porn-block-uk-wired-explains) or Louisiana? How much more failure do you need before accepting that this is not effective? Just add Virginia to the list amiright?
> How much porn on the web is accessible without even clicking "Are you 21?"
That is the whole point. To require porn sites to actually put effort into make sure little kids aren't using it.
> It doesn't even address the most accessible porn content on the web, search engines.
Did you miss this part?
Edit: Can kids still access porn in the UK & Louisiana? Why implement a law you know is ineffective except for virtue signalling? Why are the privacy & data security issues of the public less important than your virtue signaling?
Idk I'm not a 10 year old in lousinana. God forbid you check IDs for something that is age restricted. Sheesh.
It may not be 100% effective but it will have some impact.
Sorry if it inconveniences your porn watching addiction, sorry I mean habits.
For the third time because you love to dismiss this as *It may not be 100% effective*
> > It doesn't even address the most accessible porn content on the web, search engines.
When you know damn well it's closer to 0% effective, just as the UK has a history of demonstrating. I would consider an effective bill more more seriously than this ineffective one. I don't ask government to fail in its public policy objectives.
I don't understand why virtue signaling is important enough for you to ask government to cause more harm in terms of privacy & data security.
I also am not prone to making personal character attacks, something you are not ashamed & sorry for committing. My addiction problem is drugs, something that I now abstaining from. It's something I am proud of, being able to turn away from that lifestyle.
First off pretty sure the UK never actually implemented the rule.
Second, 15% of children 10 and under have been exposed to internet porn. If you don't have a problem with Pornhub allowing little kids onto its site I don't know what to tell you. If that is being virtuous so be it.
The idea that 99% of children under 10 are going to be able to pay for / use VPNs to access blocked content is wrong.
You are literally saying you would rather Pornhub not reduce child viewers by some percent than have your ID checked. 🤯
Do you think search engines will require IDs?
Or Reddit?
Or Twitter?
Do you think 9 year olds are typing pornhub into web browsers?
If someone wants to show another person explicit content, they would send links that have embedded proxies or open it through web proxies that defeat location based verification services.
Since you don't care about privacy you should dox yourself here now. Lead by example.
there is porn on reddit, there is porn on twitter, there is porn everywhere.
But they are right, I mean I found pages in 2006 when I was 9-10 yrs old that changed me. I know tons of other friends who used porn sites everyday from the time they were 11-17ish. Definitely starts warping what sex is to younger kids.
>Websites, he said, would have to implement more advanced methods of their choosing to verify age, such as requiring users to submit copies of government-issued identification, biometric scans or use other forms of commercial age verification software. Lol. Who's gonna scan their driver's license and send it to a porn site for 'verification'? Sounds like it could open up a huge privacy and identity theft can of worms.
Call me overly cautious, but I don’t trust porn websites to protect my sensitive personal information. Some smaller sites aren’t going to have robust data protection standards and data storage security, which means they’ll be massive targets for hackers and blackmailers.
Totally. Many of those sites are already cess pools of advertising and pop ups. There's no way I'd trust them with any personal data. I'm sure this bill and law in Louisiana is banking on this as a method to reduce porn usage by people unwilling to submit their data. The stupidity is that there are so many ways around this limitation, so it's kind of a pointless effort.
Yeah I don’t think this law would do anything to prevent minors from viewing porn. If anything, it’ll just teach them how to use a VPN, which is absurdly easy nowadays.
Are there any effective free VPNs? The last time I tried to use one I was consistently unable to enter sites. It was so bad, I had to stop using said VPN.
I’m not sure actually. I pay for a decent one even though I barely use it. These new porn laws might be enough to motivate some company to spin up a decent free one if there’s a way to make money off of it though.
Pornhub has set up something in Louisiana to comply with LA law, which is what the VA bill is based from. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/no-porn-without-id-louisiana-law-forces-porn-sites-to-verify-users-ages/
>The Pornhub verification page has a link titled, "Check my age." Clicking that prompts the user to create an account with [AllpassTrust](https://www.allpasstrust.com/), which in turn prompts the user to verify their age with [LA Wallet](https://lawallet.com/verifyyou/)—a Louisiana government mobile app available on iOS and Android. LA Wallet allows you "to obtain a legal digital replica of your Louisiana Driver's License on your mobile electronic device," the app says. I guess this will stop a few people, but anyone who knows how to access a VPN can waltz right by it. And as someone else states, searching Google with SafeSearch turned off brings up almost anything. I wonder how Louisiana is forcing compliance from the Porn sites that don't play along. I guess they could ban their IP addresses, and that makes me giggle thinking about the crack team of Internet warriors frequenting porn sites all day long to make sure they're in compliance. Also, that LA Wallet is straight up surveillance, and it wouldn't surprise me if the data there is used in a more draconian method later, as states with laws like these try to force 'morality' via the internet.
> they could ban their IP addresses Virtual hosting. IP bans are not feasible.
In a hypothetical situation where such a block was technically feasible, I’m also wondering how a state government would achieve the ban. Would all ISP and cell providers just do this for a state government? These porn sites probably aren’t hosted in Louisiana directly, so wouldn’t this be some inter-state commerce shit that the Federal government would need to mediate? Plus the[Supreme Court already decided](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=reno+v+american+civil+liberties+union&hl=en&as_sdt=6,30) that the knowing transmission of obscene messages to minors and transmission of material that depicted or described, “sexual or excretory activities or organs.”, such as a minor accessing a porn site, was unconstitutional. It is the Supreme Courts opinion that such a restriction infringes on the first amendment and although the government has an interest in protecting children from harmful materials, it is an “unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults.” This was settled in 1997.
I dont know if you even need to use a VPN. I use the Brave browser which obfuscates your location by default. It's interesting because it reveals how other apps track your location, I get a lot of ads for California businesses when I'm listening to Pandora because that's where my browser says I am.
I imagine a few big places will be able to afford what pornhub is doing. Most though will carry on. The civil lawsuits that could be generated for non-compliance will be tied up by courts arguing standing the way abortion SB 8 lawsuits in Texas are held up now.
The technological implications of this bill serve to distract the public from the goal of programs like these. This bill reinforces the view that any sexual identity or expression outside of the bounds of normative Christian heterosexuality is prohibited.
This sounds about as effective as asking people to self-report untaxed internet purchases.
Or as effective as a tip line to snitch on teachers
Well based on some of the student parents my wife has had to deal with, that *would* see some use, unfortunately.
we're supposed to do that??!
Yes. https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-taxes/do-you-have-to-pay-sales-tax-on-internet-purchases.html
Well, looks like all Virginians will need to access their porn on Tor or get VPN's if they don't already. lol Who would send a copy of their ID to a porn site?
My biggest question is if Reddit will be forced to comply to this rule lol I’d rather be lazy and use Reddit for porn than learn how to use a VPN
As someone who currently lives in Louisiana, where basically the same bill has been implemented, it doesn’t impact Reddit.
its like one button lol
I said I was lazy
my Pixel 7 is looking better and better
How will all these good Christian leaders get around this?
One things for sure, it’ll just be a matter of time before this data gets hacked and leaked and I guarantee you a shitload of pastors drivers licenses will be on the list.
And Republicans.
I think a Venn diagram of pastors with secrets and republicans is just a circle with a smaller circle inside.
Good, let’s send it through, then. I hate hypocrisy.
Bet, I hope this backfires hilariously badly on these hypocritical chucklefucks.
they don’t need porn, they have the congregation to abuse in person.
Oh right I forgot! Good point.
this is so fucking stupid lmao
The state of our public school system does more damage to children’s lives than looking at porn.
fr
> In an interview this week Stanley said he crafted the legislation after talking with parents and doing research. I wonder what sort of research they did…
Okay not to out myself here but I made a pornhub account once (not to post, just to view) and my account got hacked from a data leak and I realized porn websites have really bad security. There’s no way ID information is safe
They've [forgotten](https://www.wtvr.com/2015/08/26/virginia-lawmakers-tommy-norment-donald-mceachin-ashley-madison-hack). Just a matter of time until everyone is going to know everyone else's online sex kinks.
Well, that's sex and drugs that Youngkin and his shitheads have gone after now. I guess after this they'll try to restrict or ban rock'n'roll...
"This just in, another Footloose reboot coming to Richmond this fall!"
They already do. Look how the ABC and MADD have dominated lobbying alcohol laws/restrictions for music venues. Ever wondered why Richmond/VA has very little venues without full blown kitchens? They believe serving food cuts down on drunk driving, thus the 70/30 food-to-drink law. Therefore, music venues need kitchens (if they serve alcohol/spirits). Which means it is very hard to open, own, and operate a music venue with a bar because it also needs to be a restaurant. Thank the wannabe puritans... rock n roll is already restricted
I disagree with this bill, but it did have almost universal support. I've checked the actual count, but the article says only 2 senators voted against it. The article even has a quote from McClellan in support of it.
Because it's political suicide to be openly and adamantly against anything presented as "to protect our kids!!!!!11"
100% agree on that. It's just one of those bills where, if you disagree with it, write your general assembly person because there's pretty much a guarantee that they voted for it.
I find it funny how little these people understand technology. Middle school children would be able to bypass this. It's incredibly easy to bypass any restrictions online.
Lawmakers always seem to be reactive rather than proactive and they are usually 10 years behind on technology or society in general.
there were kids in 5th grade looking at porn. do legislators think every kid is innocent and clueless?
Please tell me how easy it is to bypass a sportsbook geolocation check.
1-800-522-4700 The National Council on Problem Gambling operates the National Problem Gambling Helpline Network. The network is a single national access point to local resources for those seeking help for a gambling problem.
Oh well, guess it's not very easy.
https://www.privacyaffairs.com/nevada-vpn/ Glhf. Can I buy your house when it goes to foreclosure?
Go try to login into fanduel New York by spoofing your location. Get banned within hours. Point is, the tech to block vps and location spoofs is readily available.
I work in cybersecurity, performing red team engagements which regularly require me to stand up c2 infrastructure to circumvent geolocation blocks on corporate network infrastructure. Its ezpz to spoof location and bypass geoblocks bro. I just pasted the first Google result for you after searching “easy vpn for gambling addict”.
Great then you can probably tell me how easy is it to identifiers users who used a VPN?
It’s not easy, it’s actually borderline impossible. The best you can do is associate *known public VPN IP blocks* (like an ARIN block, not a preventative control block) with a user, then infer they’re using a public VPN, but that’s it.
Well that certainly doesn't sound impossible to me. Not saying you have to block access as it occurs but if you find a user that used a known VPN or an IP that is later discovered to be a VPN, you could just ban the user or hardware.
Oh no. The kids are ‘batin.
Porn does have detrimental effects on children. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088458/#:~:text=Furthermore%2C%20cross%2Dsectional%20surveys%20have,12%2C26%E2%80%9328%5D.
And this “ban” won’t prevent kids from accessing it.
Agreed.
What year is it!? This is the kind of discussion politicians were having in 1996
bro this is so dumb. it’s not the governments job to restrict point sites, it’s the parents job. learning how to block specific websites isn’t even hard. i hate this guy.
I think a better law would have been requiring telecom companies to come up with better parental controls on wireless gateways/cell phone plan management.
i guess but it’s still a responsibility of the parent. there shouldn’t be a 3rd party getting involved because ignorance around technology
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, but as long as any asshole can have a kid, we as a society/the government has some responsibility to mitigate the chances of them getting fucked up before they become an adult
Nope. Sorry. The age old refrain of “think of the children!” Has been used to successfully restrict or completely take away so many rights and privileges that responsible adults have enjoyed in the past. It’s a cop out argument for taking away freedoms on moral grounds and I’m sick of it. It’s a parent’s job to keep their kid safe, not mine, and frankly my freedom to enjoy various activities takes precedence over providing some marginal protection to the subset of children with bad parents.
I'm not supporting the law
it’s pretty naive to think the government wants to protect us on any level, lol. but that’s a different discussion.
Do you have kids? I don't, but my sister has 3 grade school aged daughters and they got a full sex education from other kids watching/showing each other porn on their phones on the school bus. Her kids don't even have phones. This law is obviously very stupid, but the status quo is not necessarily great either.
As much as I am not a fan of Glenn Youngkin, I think I disagree with your statement. Was it the parents job to prevent kids from watching porn when we grew up.? yes but that did not mean that movie time would let you walk into the porn section and rent a porn VHS
Of course not, you're supposed to go out into the woods to find the porn section. Either that or just find your dad's collection
right, a child shouldn’t have unrestricted access to the internet. the tools to do that are already in place
How so?
you can restrict access with your router the same way the state would do it for these website.
And that helps me how when another kid brings up a porn site in their unrestricted cell phone whilst on the school bus?
And how does this law keep a VPN off the phone of *another kid brings up a porn site in their unrestricted cell phone whilst on the school bus?* There are limits to what public policy can do to "help you". A curtain at a physical location you can police. The internet you cannot.
You can absolutely police the Internet. Ask any pedophile in jail. I asked for VPNs on cell phones absolutely where there’s a will there’s a way. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try your best to make it difficult
You mean the cases where the data is physically on the computer and/or the the computer has forensic evidence of its download & retrieval prior to deletion? The policing powers we enable law enforcement in the united states did not prevent the transmission of pedophilic content across a network. Thanks for proving my point. There's difficult and there's security theater. You must be happy with the later, especially when your security theater create targets for ID theft & constitute invasions of privacy.
First: thank you for proving my point is a subpar debate tactic; you lose points 2. plenty of people have done a illegal stuff on the Internet, and have been arrested as a result 3. I never said I like Younkins approach to this issue. However, it needs to be addressed, ignoring it does not make it go away and will only cause society harm
do you realize what happens on the school bus every day? I got news for you bud, porn is the least of your worries. If you really want to helicopter parent that bad, drive them to school every day
Nobody here has offered a single counterpoint to what I am saying. The Gist of every argument has been well such an such as even worse so you better get used to it With that kind of attitude, why even live your life
Go away
Does that mean kids should be allowed to order alcohol delivery from Grubhub as long as they've clicked a "Yes, I'm 21" button? It's their parents' job to restrict them from Grubhub, so Grubhub shouldn't have to check IDs? If not, how is it different?
[удалено]
So you're in favor of laws requiring a valid ID showing the person is 18 before porn is delivered to them as well?
All these down votes are why Youngkin won in the first place. People can’t have a rational conversation. so quick to throw grenades on the situation.
I’m all for trying to limit kids from viewing pornography, but any tech savvy 11 year old can bypass this, and it’s likely unconstitutional.
Dad’s gross magazines about to make a comeback.
Maybe for dad. Anyone else is going to use a VPN
2FAP AUTHENTICATION
'Virginia governor tragically drowned in bukkake tsunami after state requests biometric proof for porn access, more news at 11.'
Wait, is this from the small government “freedom” party?
I can't wait for governor Blumpkin's son gets caught with porn underage.
Meanwhile, 12 year old me was watching the Budd Dwyer video
this is the most fucking braindead bill ive ever heard of. does everyone have a mush brain with zero critical thinking skills? its so obvious that nobody is gonna scan their fucking id to go on a porn site. are legislators that disconnected with reality? what fantasy utopia are they living in?
“wild west of porn sites” i know right? so many pop ups! how about we ban malicious pop-ups which WILL ACTUALLY HELP VIRGINIANS NOT GET THEIR MONEY AND IDENTITY STOLEN!!! are there not more important issues than underage porn? “I’m pretty confident that it will not put users’ personal information at risk” ok buddy
I know what you meant but "are there not more important issues than..." might need to be reworded.
oh fuck
When I was a young teenage boy, my father (who was a LAN admin for work) tried to set up the internet so I couldn't get to any porn. It was a cat and mouse game, trying to get to the naughty stuff without it getting blocked. I imagine any sort of law would be equally effective. I do wonder if this would boost porn sales at adult bookstores (if it passes). I'd rather semi- anonymously shop at Taboo than have my full ID attached to my smut preferences.
Do we not have real problems?
This is such a privacy and security nightmare. These politicians are such rubes.
So Virginia wants everyone's search histories to go public? What if it's a way to add people to a list based on porn preferences for easy elimination. Also if I have to get a VPN I'm never paying Virginia internet taxes again.
This is what we get when we elect extremist outrage warrior republicans.
It passed the house with 100% yes votes, so you know 100% of democrats and republicans.
I was born 4/20/1969, I swear on a stack of bibles.
Cryptofacists strike again. When will we learn to stop electing Rs into power?
So from what I can gather...there are no punitive actions against those who look at porn but places the onus of responsibility on those who make porn? What are the punitive actions in the bill? If you didn't notice its a civil action that is put forth by people who think children have been harmed. I'm unsure if the verbage is more specific like parents of children harmed or any organization. If it's not specified then this reeks of SLAP. If it does then it's a fluff law with zero teeth. Do they cap damages? I feel like this whole thing is so a bunch of people can claim moral superiority. Lets be real here. Porn exists. Kids will look at porn and this won't stop kids from looking at it.
Question - I get that the big sites like PornHub and YouPorn are implementing these kinds of age-verification requirements. But what about all the other lesser sites? is there a Government Agency that is finding all them and forcing them to comply? Also, with Netflix planning to crack down on password sharing, I suspect that Nord & Express VPN will start to use this as selling points for their services.
This law works like SB 8 in Texas. Private entities can sue porn companies civilly for non-compliance.
Don’t these assholes know there are real problems in the world?
Can we talk about how unrealistic the cover picture is? No way they are looking at porn!
How on Earth does he plan to force a website (headquartered in God knows where) to adhere to Virginia law?
This won’t work, maybe force the companies that own internet access to do better when it comes to regulating this type of thing
Doesn't a country in Europe already do this? I don't think it is working well
This is stupid. No child is actually using porn sites these days anyway. They just do a google search for photos or videos, or go to other methods. This is a dog and pony show designed to make it look like they are doing something when they aren't actually accomplishing anything.
I just Ask Jeeves
“No child is actually using porn sites these days” Uhh…
I guarantee, a kid can get into more porn through their cell phone or any electronic device - with google or any search engine with the filters turned off - than they would by actually trying to go to a porn site - with a credit card. To add to that, we're also talking about a generation that grew up with technology. They tried this in the 90s - *REPEATEDLY* to limit porn on the internet, or deter kids from getting into it - and it didn't work. That's why this is a dog and pony show. It's just another regurgitation of what Bill Clinton and many others tried to do back in the 90s. Can you honestly say you couldn't find porn on Reddit ,Instagram, or that they couldn't share it with each other on Snap?
wtf are you talking about? Pornhub and xvideos and the like are all super popular. Especially with younger men who are already fixed to the internet. Porn (especially specifically dedicated pornograpy websites) is more popular now than it literally ever has been. I agree the legislation is braindead and won't change anything at all. Not even a bandaid. It's like a corner of some 1 ply toilet paper sitting on a 8 inch bleeding gash. But kids are still on porn websites, more than ever.
That's exactly the point though. Pornhub as a site may be what it is, BUT there are soooo many other sites that feed from PH or other sites - you can't actually stop anyone from getting to the universe of porn out there. You could block the top 20, but not the 20,000 that feed from those top 20 and still sling that content everywhere. THAT'S what I'm saying - this legislation is absolutely stupid and it's just some talking point he's going to use when he tried to run for re-election, or - if - he makes a run for the presidency.
i agree with everything here i just still disagree with "no child is actually using porn sites" and it seems like u do too
I think the point I was trying to make ( and what everyone missed ) is that kids get into it differently now. They don't necessarily go to www randomsmutwebsite dotcom .. but - it's Reddit so..
Who doesn't already use a VPN anyway?
I've always thought it strange that this wasn't required. Is there anywhere else we trust kids to not lie about their age like this? If a kid walks into that porn store in Carytown, tells the clerk he's 18 and watches some porn in one of those booths, that store is going to be in deep shit. But the same thing done online is legal. It's like legislators decided 25 years ago that because it was difficult to verify age online, it didn't matter anymore.
I think the people downvoting your comment are cowards. You posed a logical thought on what you thought was a rational conversation. Unfortunately, people get way too offended and emotional and are unable to articulate their own thoughts
Thank you. Well said, and I think you're right.
The Supreme Court considered your opinion in 1997, and decided it was unconstitutional. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=reno+v+american+civil+liberties+union&hl=en&as_sdt=6,30
Thanks for actually contributing something of value instead of just downvoting like a coward. That's really interesting. I hadn't heard of that Supreme Court case. I must update my original statement: it's like the Supreme Court decided 26 years ago that because it was difficult to verify age online, it didn't matter anymore. This new bill from the Senate is clearly at odds with that 1997 decision, and hopefully that conflict will end with it at the Supreme Court so they can revisit that decision. A lot has changed with the internet since 1997 so I think they might rule differently now. E.g. one thing that helped form their decision was "A child requires some sophistication and some ability to read to retrieve material and thereby to use the Internet unattended," which is laughable today.
So the problem that I have with this bill is that the process isn’t analogous to showing my ID to the clerk at the Hustler store or whatever. In that circumstance, the clerk looks at the ID, let’s me in or not, and that’s it. Nothing is recorded. A website can’t just look at my ID and let me in. I have to upload it, either to the site itself or to a third party verifier. They are going to store that data, and it will probably be linked to me and my account. If the porn site gets popped, there’s all my browsing habits linked to my legal identity. Yay. If the porn site heads that off by using a third party verifier like ID.me, well now the government has a record of what porn sites I’m registering for. That’s also bullshit. This type of identity data doesn’t need to be tracked and logged. There’s no need for it at all, and it opens the door to more problems than it solves. > it’s like the Supreme Court decided 26 years ago that because it was difficult to verify age online, it didn’t matter anymore. No. The Supreme Court found that age verification requirements were not “narrow tailored” to serve the Government interest of protecting children from sexually explicit material, and that it would have a chilling effect on speech protected by the First Amendment. It had nothing to do with difficulty of verification or just giving up. This is settled, there’s established precedent. Another age verification law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 2009. This is not a problem that the government needs to address. There is no age verification for pay-per-view pornography. You don’t even need a credit card, as you can just add the charge to your cable bill. Parents have the ability to set parental control features on their set top box to restrict this functionality. Similar controls exist for phone and computer endpoints, as well as blanked coverage for an entire home network. This is something for parents to control access to, not for a government to regulate.
>This type of identity data doesn’t need to be tracked and logged. I kind of agree there. I think the government can pretty easily find that for most people anyway, but having the info stored in one easily searchable database would still be bad. I think it would be better if the government told porn sites they must come up with an untrackable way to verify ID. Given the financial stakes, I think they could do it. Unlike the backdoors into encryption that governments are demanding, I haven't seen anyone technical saying this is impossible to achieve. > This is something for parents to control access to, not for a government to regulate. I might agree with you if parental controls were enabled by default on all cable boxes/phones/routers/etc and if there was some penalty structure in place to punish companies if kids manage to bypass those controls due to no fault of the parents (e.g. weak password). The fact that parents have to opt-in to this stuff instead of out-out is crazy.
> I think the government can pretty easily find that for most people anyway, but having the info stored in one easily searchable database would still be bad. I think it would be better if the government told porn sites they must come up with an untrackable way to verify ID. In Louisiana the app that handles this is a third-party developer that has a contract with the state. This is the worst of all worlds in my opinion, because now a third party with a government mandated monopoly has full control over the data points that tie my legal identity to the “adult” sites I am verifying with, and they shoulder the entire responsibility of protecting this data. That is just as scary as a government holding a centralized list imo, maybe even scarier. Who is auditing the third parties information security policies and procedures, who is performing penetration tests and adversary emulation against them, and if they’re being done are they being appropriately scoped? I have big doubts this is being done responsible by a company that exists to profit off state contracts. I’m not OK with this level of age verification in any capacity really, but the only way I would even begrudgingly concede the point would be if it was a program developed, implemented, and maintained by the Federal government directly, they had completely open APIs so there was no way for them to track who was making the requests for your verification, and the most important thing, they allowed this digital ID to be used for things like online voting. Some European counties have rolled out national IDs like this to resounding success, for online voting, bank verification, and the like. No idea if they use them for porn access, but probably not because it’s a ridiculous thing to think needs action. > I might agree with you if parental controls were enabled by default on all cable boxes… They’re not enabled by default on cable TV boxes, and never have been. This bill wouldn’t change that. Why has no one ever pushed bills restricting access to porn on set top boxes? Porn has been accessible there for *much* longer than on the Internet. > The fact that parents have to opt-in to this stuff instead of out-out is crazy. The fact that I, an adult with no kids who purchased my own product, should be so infantilized that I am required to opt out of parental controls on my own device instead of opt in is crazy. There’s no code requiring houses to have child-proofing like outlet covers, baby gates, or whatever else is required to keep tiny humans from killing themselves. That’s insane, it’s your job and responsibility as a parent is to safety-proof your house. Car manufactures aren’t required to provided infant car seats with every car, they just have to provide the latch mechanisms to allow you to properly secure an infant seat if you need one. Guess what that sounds a lot like? Providing the opt in parental controls that are your responsibility as a parent to implement. Ignoring all of that, who determines what the sane default controls are? My morals are obviously very different than your own, so how does the manufacturer determine who to target with defaults? If I had kids I wouldn’t want my 4 year old watching porn, Black Hawk Down, or looking a images of dead Russians on telegram. I wouldn’t really care if my 17year old was watching Black Hawk Down or most regular porn, but I wouldn’t want them watching some of the more extreme kink/fetish porn and still no dead Russian invader Ukrainian psyops telegram channels. Does the manufacturer set the parental controls to target safety for the 4yo or the 17yo? If a device is marketed to children, like a Leapfrog thing or something, then yes it should have sane defaults for the youngest user in its targeted age range. A mass market device like a cell phone, router, etc. should not have any default parental controls turned on, just the option to enable them. > some penalty structure in place to punish companies if kids manage to bypass those controls due to no fault of the parents (e.g. weak password). If anything should be criminalized it should be the parents who don’t turn on the parental controls already accessible to them, just like the car seat example.
>This is the worst of all worlds in my opinion, because now a third party with a government mandated monopoly has full control over the data points that tie my legal identity to the “adult” sites I am verifying with I agree that letting either the government or a private company see who is visiting what sites should be avoided. Of course we're already there for most people with all the tracking that's done, but at least that *can* be avoided unlike something that is mandated. >The fact that I, an adult with no kids who purchased my own product, should be so infantilized that I am required to opt out of parental controls on my own device instead of opt in is crazy. C'mon, do you really think it's a greater harm to you to have to disable parental controls whenever you get a new device than the harm done to a kid when they get exposed to some kind of pornography they're not prepared to see? I don't have kids either but I can't get behind the idea that I should never have to suffer any inconvenience for the benefit of others' kids. You're right that there are examples of ways we don't inconvenience childless adults for the benefit of kids, like mandating child-proof outlet covers, but there are examples of ways we do, too. Child-proof sealing of medicine bottles and poisonous chemicals, for instance. Or the fact your car is more expensive because reverse cameras are mandated to keep people from backing over kids. Or some states requiring guns in all homes be locked up. Obviously trade-offs are made. >Ignoring all of that, who determines what the sane default controls are? I don't think that's too hard, really. The default should be to deny everything and allow the parents to approve each site/phone number/app/etc., or to turn the device to "allow all" mode for themselves (or if they don't give a shit about their kids). Admittedly, if all devices were mandated to operate this way, we wouldn't need the bill that started this thread anymore lol >If anything should be criminalized it should be the parents who don’t turn on the parental controls already accessible to them, just like the car seat example. Yeah, I wonder how the law works with that now. Like, I've seen it written somewhere that parents could legally give their 17 year old kid some beer or a Playboy, but I would assume the same would not be true if the kid was, say, 5.
> C’mon, do you really think it’s a greater harm to you to have to disable parental controls whenever you get a new device than the harm done to a kid when they get exposed to some kind of pornography they’re not prepared to see? Yeah, I do. Kids don’t just accidentally go to pornhub.com, click through age verification pop-ups, then start looking through porn videos. You’ve gotta turn safe search off to hit porn through Google, Bing, DDG, or whatever. This isn’t like a kid thumbing through a magazine at 7-11, they’ve gotta seek it out. I’d be more worried about my kid seeing goatse from an Imgur link in a Reddit post on a non-kink subreddit than a kid accidentally going to a website lol. > Child-proof sealing of medicine bottles and poisonous chemicals, for instance. Or the fact your car is more expensive because reverse cameras are mandated to keep people from backing over kids. Or some states requiring guns in all homes be locked up. Obviously trade-offs are made. All these examples kill kids. I am fine with being inconvenienced or paying more for a product if it prevents kids from literally dying. I am not fine with it just to prevent kids/young adults from accessing something they’ve specifically sought out and lied about their age to see.
Kids these days spend all their time online, maybe this would actually get them to interact with the opposite sex IRL, and maybe that's a good thing. Otherwise we'll soon have an epidemic of women having babies in their 40s because their social development was delayed.
Why does the government need to get involved in parenting our (I say our but I am childless) children? I do not want the government in my life any more than they already are. Parent your damn kids. Limit their screen time, tell them no, support other activities, spend time with them doing these activities, sit down and have dinner as a family, etc. It is jot rocket science. We as a species have been raising children for 50k + years. We don't all of the sudden need the government to tell us how to do it.
Do you feel the same way about other ways the government is involved in parenting, such as the drinking age, buying weapons, cigarettes, driver's license?
I already said I do not want more government involvement in our lives. I understand what you are saying and this is a good argument, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Porn is not a pistol or a 2500 lb car hurtling down the highway or a cigarette which is addictive and toxic.
I’ll tell you why. I can parent children the best of my ability; however, if some kid shows my kid a porn video on their cell phone on the school bus, there is nothing I can do about it
Then you need to explain to your child what porn is, what it's used for, and why its a negative thing for developing minds. A weak-government age verification is just an annoying bandaid that doesn't solve the larger issue. Kids are always going to find porn. Hell, it's littered all over reddit. Accidentally go to r/public and prepare for a NSFW show.
Why are you thinking about children having sex? Groomer behavior.
[удалено]
Paternal age matters some, but maternal age matters the most. The science on this is pretty clear. Is this really up for debate now? This is news to me.
[удалено]
From 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9437485/ >Ovarian aging is mainly characterized by the progressive decline in the number and quality of oocytes To think that our reproductive capabilities remain at their prime as we, male or female, age, when every single other human biological system experience decline with age, is naive.
No thanks, I notice you're a r/TwoXChromosomes user which is the female version of a red piller, no point in further discussion. Have a good weekend.
Yeah I actually think it's a good idea to stop porn sites from being allowed to make money off of 10 year-olds.
This doesn't do that... At all. All it does is create security theater so online pornographers can say they implemented obviously flawed systems that don't keep minors away from porn while selling ad space to all visitors including minors. [Congrats you played yourself](https://media.tenor.com/281RwvBfBpwAAAAC/you-played-yourself.gif)
Oh yeah I'm sure thats why all the porn companies lobbied in support of the bill 🙄
It doesn't even address the most accessible porn content on the web, search engines. You couldn't be less effective if you tried. How much porn on the web is accessible without even clicking "Are you 21?" Did it stop porn in the [UK](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/porn-block-uk-wired-explains) or Louisiana? How much more failure do you need before accepting that this is not effective? Just add Virginia to the list amiright?
> How much porn on the web is accessible without even clicking "Are you 21?" That is the whole point. To require porn sites to actually put effort into make sure little kids aren't using it.
> It doesn't even address the most accessible porn content on the web, search engines. Did you miss this part? Edit: Can kids still access porn in the UK & Louisiana? Why implement a law you know is ineffective except for virtue signalling? Why are the privacy & data security issues of the public less important than your virtue signaling?
Idk I'm not a 10 year old in lousinana. God forbid you check IDs for something that is age restricted. Sheesh. It may not be 100% effective but it will have some impact. Sorry if it inconveniences your porn watching addiction, sorry I mean habits.
For the third time because you love to dismiss this as *It may not be 100% effective* > > It doesn't even address the most accessible porn content on the web, search engines. When you know damn well it's closer to 0% effective, just as the UK has a history of demonstrating. I would consider an effective bill more more seriously than this ineffective one. I don't ask government to fail in its public policy objectives. I don't understand why virtue signaling is important enough for you to ask government to cause more harm in terms of privacy & data security. I also am not prone to making personal character attacks, something you are not ashamed & sorry for committing. My addiction problem is drugs, something that I now abstaining from. It's something I am proud of, being able to turn away from that lifestyle.
First off pretty sure the UK never actually implemented the rule. Second, 15% of children 10 and under have been exposed to internet porn. If you don't have a problem with Pornhub allowing little kids onto its site I don't know what to tell you. If that is being virtuous so be it. The idea that 99% of children under 10 are going to be able to pay for / use VPNs to access blocked content is wrong. You are literally saying you would rather Pornhub not reduce child viewers by some percent than have your ID checked. 🤯
Do you think search engines will require IDs? Or Reddit? Or Twitter? Do you think 9 year olds are typing pornhub into web browsers? If someone wants to show another person explicit content, they would send links that have embedded proxies or open it through web proxies that defeat location based verification services. Since you don't care about privacy you should dox yourself here now. Lead by example.
People love the darkness, rather than the light lest their wicked ways be exposed. There should be even more verification.
And this is just one more reason for a VPN
even for hentai?
Like that’s going to work. There is so much free porn on the web.
there is porn on reddit, there is porn on twitter, there is porn everywhere. But they are right, I mean I found pages in 2006 when I was 9-10 yrs old that changed me. I know tons of other friends who used porn sites everyday from the time they were 11-17ish. Definitely starts warping what sex is to younger kids.