Assuming this is a positive development, I wonder where else xHamster is also blocking access - what about large parts of the Middle East and Africa?
Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
11–20 of 123 posts
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#12Assuming this is a positive development, I wonder where else xHamster is also blocking access - what about large parts of the Middle East and Africa?
Shouldn't we all hold US to higher standards than MENA, etc.?
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#13I can't see this having a big impact on law makers. Is porn in limited supply now?
It seems to be aimed more at pushing constituents into action than law makers.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#14The lack of self-awareness is pretty funny. Setting aside moral judgements, consider: a state passes a law based on traditional religious morality, and a company that violates traditional religious morality then refuses to do business in it as "punishment". At some level, I guess it's good. The Big Sort continues apace.
It may seem like a lack of self-awareness at first, but I'm almost sure this is because NC is one of the states where lesbian porn is among the top searches, according to PornHub's annual map[0].
So really, it's more just xHamster trying to cut down on hypocrisy.
[0]: https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/rolfkdrqf5pg2...
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#15I can't see this having a big impact on law makers. Is porn in limited supply now?
It's about raising awareness by generating headlines just like this one. Porn is a taboo-ish topic, so the news loves to cover it. More coverage of and negative pressure on these reprehensible laws is only a good thing.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#16Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#17Would be more fun if xhamster required a certificate of sexual orientation before allowing you to switch to straight or gay porn.
What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#18Would be more fun if xhamster required a certificate of sexual orientation before allowing you to switch to straight or gay porn.
What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.
The standard should be "who gives a fuck what's in the pants of the person in the next stall?"
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#19Would be more fun if xhamster required a certificate of sexual orientation before allowing you to switch to straight or gay porn.
What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.
We already have laws against harassment. What are you trying to prevent from happening? Why are those laws insufficient?
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean the porn. It seems like a non sequitur to withhold something ideologically compatible and inessential, plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.
Why is the notion of pornographers fighting for equality a joke? XHamster seems to have a pretty progressive corporate view towards sexuality. Obviously not all the content on the site is that way, but you seem to be implying pornography is inherently bad? Besides, you're naive if you think the Republican lawmakers who push this type of legislation are actually so wholesome that this is totally irrelevant.
I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad. Enough has been written and said about it, so I'll leave that to you to sort out.
I think though that for one of several dozen companies to shut down services just means that people will get it elsewhere, republican or not.
They're just trying to look progressive, but real progress is fundamentally incompatible with their business.