best of all, this strategy isn't going to decrease viewership, probably increase it. it's also going to increase the usage of vpn's.
VPNs will be their next target. This isn't an accident. They are setting up the framework for China like internet censorship laws, but they are going to take this way fucking farther than China ever has. They are building a system for state laws to establish interstate autocracy on the foundation of abortion and trans panic.
So it's bodily autonomy, identity, sexuality, privacy that's on the chopping block...
Seems like democracy is going to be pretty hollow without at least a little free expression.
It's likely just going to drive it off to the less centralized websites that won't block anyway because they are just so used to ignoring the requests. The only reason PornHub has to pay heed is because they try to go at it the "legal" route.
Hell, there's a shitload of porn on Reddit and Lemmy that isn't geofenced or age restricted.
This is just a silly waste of resources.
The most effective regulation here is from payment handlers.
I guess even that's not very effective since PornHub is obviously still in business. I wonder what their numbers looked like before and after.
Pornography access seems very close to people's heart in here but the claim "it won't decrease viewership, probably increase it" has zero chance of being true.
However insignificant it might be, any amount of faff will lower participation and there isn't a single person in the world thinking "I don't watch pornography or allow my children to watch pornography but now the gubbermint is involved we're going to do nothing else but watch smut".
There are so many shit takes in this thread that I have to assume they're from children upset about their pornography being cut off.
Those who want porn will get it. It’s a need, like alcohol and tobacco. It being illegal will make teens even more interested.
It’s a need, like alcohol and tobacco
Two things that demonstrably haven't grown more popular when they've been made less accessible, despite those restrictions not having 100% success rate.
And although I don't fundamentally object to any of them, calling alcohol, tobacco and pornography a "need" just makes you sound like even more of a child.
Maybe participation would be lowered, just not to the extent "they" hoped for. I have personal experience with this - we had some major social media sites blocked, and for a lot of people that was a final push to learn to avoid censorship, even if not in the best way (by sketchy free VPNs). So if you take away something very important, it might turn a person from someone who didn't go to blocked sites into someone who isn't bothered by blocking.
Its not about blocking it, its about making it criminal so they can eventually loop in certain people who partake in it.
I think one legislator even said so brazenly this is all about limiting access to LGBT people.
best of all, this strategy isn't going to decrease viewership, probably increase it. it's also going to increase the usage of vpn's.
VPNs will be their next target. This isn't an accident. They are setting up the framework for China like internet censorship laws, but they are going to take this way fucking farther than China ever has. They are building a system for state laws to establish interstate autocracy on the foundation of abortion and trans panic.
So it's bodily autonomy, identity, sexuality, privacy that's on the chopping block...
Seems like democracy is going to be pretty hollow without at least a little free expression.
It's likely just going to drive it off to the less centralized websites that won't block anyway because they are just so used to ignoring the requests. The only reason PornHub has to pay heed is because they try to go at it the "legal" route.
Hell, there's a shitload of porn on Reddit and Lemmy that isn't geofenced or age restricted.
This is just a silly waste of resources.
The most effective regulation here is from payment handlers.
Not sure what eventually became of this, but MasterCard shitcanned PornHub a few years ago. See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52543508
I also see a statement from 2022 reinforcing that decision. https://www.mastercard.com/news/press/2022/august/mastercard-statement-reinforcing-adult-content-standards/
I guess even that's not very effective since PornHub is obviously still in business. I wonder what their numbers looked like before and after.
Pornography access seems very close to people's heart in here but the claim "it won't decrease viewership, probably increase it" has zero chance of being true.
However insignificant it might be, any amount of faff will lower participation and there isn't a single person in the world thinking "I don't watch pornography or allow my children to watch pornography but now the gubbermint is involved we're going to do nothing else but watch smut".
There are so many shit takes in this thread that I have to assume they're from children upset about their pornography being cut off.
Those who want porn will get it. It’s a need, like alcohol and tobacco. It being illegal will make teens even more interested.
Two things that demonstrably haven't grown more popular when they've been made less accessible, despite those restrictions not having 100% success rate.
And although I don't fundamentally object to any of them, calling alcohol, tobacco and pornography a "need" just makes you sound like even more of a child.
Maybe participation would be lowered, just not to the extent "they" hoped for. I have personal experience with this - we had some major social media sites blocked, and for a lot of people that was a final push to learn to avoid censorship, even if not in the best way (by sketchy free VPNs). So if you take away something very important, it might turn a person from someone who didn't go to blocked sites into someone who isn't bothered by blocking.
Its not about blocking it, its about making it criminal so they can eventually loop in certain people who partake in it.
I think one legislator even said so brazenly this is all about limiting access to LGBT people.