161–170 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if they did something I don't get that. Why would it be good? Why should it ever be a webpage's responsibility?
Why should an alcohol vendor be responsible for not selling booze to children?
1FA issues get trumped by secondary agreements you agreed to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if they did something I don't get that. Why would it be good? Why should it ever be a webpage's responsibility?
Because it's literally illegal for children to view porn. The fact they've gotten away with doing nothing this long is ridiculous. Ultimately parents will need to be more involved but the idea that it's just ok to have a free for all on this stuff is ridiculous. There's lots of things children aren't legally allowed to access but I can't think of any of them that do absolutely nothing to meet those legal requirements…
Is this actually even true? So if my underage son finds a porn magazine in my house, it's "illegal" for him to look at it? That doesn't sound right.
>Imagine if a liquor store just decided it was fine to let kids come in and purchase liquor and you said "Why is it the liquor store's responsibility to not sell booze to kids?"
Imagine comparing going to a physical location with no easy digital trace and buying something that is basically 100% socially acceptable to digitally tracking what kind of taboo and private porn someone wants to watch.
In other news, VPN subscription sales explode in Utah! easy sales opportunity
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you arguing allowing children to view sexual acts is legally protected? Should we open up strip clubs and brothels for kids?
> Are you arguing allowing children to view sexual acts is legally protected? Yes. I'm pretty sure the entire reason porn is legal is it's considered a 1FA issue in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...
[flagged]
This is eventually going to hit even Hacker News if the law is actually effective. Is HN going to jump through the hoops of complying with the law or just block Utah?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are some people who believe that access to certain services should be age-gated. Thus follows that a web page offering the service should handle this age gating, in the same way that alcohol sellers are responsible for checking that their customers are of drinking age. In the Real World(TM) this is a fairly uncontroversial idea. The Internet is very wild west on these things and that has lead to interesting out…
The analogy breaks down when you remember that everything you do on a networked computer is effectively public information. In a physical store, you can show the clerk your ID, they'll verify the birthdate, sell you the "secret item", and then forget your name & face the instant they move to the next customer. But to do the same thing online, you are associating your name & face with the "secret item" to literally ev…
This is not exactly correct. The clerk might, but not the database the card was scanned into. Depending on the secret item such as certain OTC medications, alcohol, tobacco, the information is not forgotten but kept for an extended time, and is stored and correlated in a centralized DB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't. RESTRICT empowers the federal government to enforce website bans, and provides for enforcement against efforts to evade those bans. This is a[1] Utah state law, and a voluntary ban set up by Pornhub itself to comply. Just not relevant. Mind you, RESTRICT is a bad bill, and those provisions are vague, and the EFF is right to be screaming about it. But it doesn't do what you think it does. [1] Hilarious…
> Hilariously and depressingly unconstitutional. Good grief. How is it unconstitutional? I don't know the ins and outs.
In Utah, it's clear that there would be less-restrictive ways to achieve the supposed goals of the law. For instance, jail parents whose minor children view pornography. That would not be a content-based restriction on speech.
Since there is no way for a website to know the age of its visitors, the Utah law is a de facto ban on certain speech.
For those who think this is just a Utah peculiarity, it's not. There have been attempts in Europe: - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-porn-ban-digital-economy-... - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/germany-porn-laws-age-checks And its quite related to other pushes for age verification for social media services, as Utah and states like California have proposed: - https://www.axios.com/2022/09/16/california-law-websit…
The funny thing is the minors know how to use a VPN to get around this law whereas the many older users don't! So, in Utah the minors will be able to access porn and many of the adults will not! Good job Utah!