Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

kslnewsradio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#241

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

xyzzy4747 wrote: post #37
aflag wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious. What's in between nothing and checking id?

Just my own thoughts: there could theoretically be an identity system that simply replies "Yes/No" if someone is underage or not. But nothing like this exists to my knowledge.

This exists, it's called IRMA. [0]

The problem is, every data provider has to get on board first. For instance, the city you live in can verify if you're over eighteen. If their IT can handle setting the bit 'over eighteen' in the IRMA app, you can securely and verifiably show this bit of information, and only this piece of information, to the party asking to verify this information. They have to support IRMA too though.

But even then, if I'm under age and just borrow your phone...

[0] https://privacybydesign.foundation/en/

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#242

Post by Eisenstein »

theclansman wrote: post #209
berkes wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is pornography dangerous for minors? Has it been researched? What "dangers" are there? Do these apply to all age groups of "minors"?

I feel like in our society we're always beta testing everything before researching its effects, shouldn't we research the effects of internet pornography in kids before allowing them unlimited access to it? I think the same thing should be done with social media. There's obviously a thin line where you have to use common sense (where do we start and where do we stop?) but the consensus has always been that this is ad…

> shouldn't we research the effects of internet pornography in kids before

How do you propose we do that ethically?

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#243

Post by conro1108 »

basisword wrote: post #227
taylodl wrote: post #190

An identity provider can make verified age one of the claims on an OAuth token. It removes anonymity, but at least you don't have to provide your personal details to everybody on the internet demanding age verification. You provide those details to your trusted identity provider, they provide the claim of your age to the website. With that in place we can easily make beer, liquor, marijuana and tobacco sales on the i…

Where are you based? I can purchase alcohol from Amazon UK with no obvious age checks. Deliveroo require that riders verify your age but in reality they just ask you to type it in. And the major grocery stores deliver alcohol without any obvious checking too. I imagine teenage drinking is much easier these days thanks to the above :)

In the Bay Area I’m also easily able to order alcohol on all the big delivery services, but they all seem pretty consistent about scanning your ID for age verification before they drop it off.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#244

Post by brookst »

Marsymars wrote: post #199
brookst wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws restricting speech must pass strict scrutiny, which means they are the lightest restrictions on speech that meet the government's interests. 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…

> For instance, jail parents whose minor children view pornography. Does this seem at all practical to you? To me, this seems akin to dropping ID requirements at liquor stores and bars, and instead enacting a law to jail the parents of minors who drink liquor.

Well, we jail parents who abuse their children. And if viewing pornography is so dangerous to children that it justifies restricting speech for everyone, surely that is such a compelling interest that we should punish parents who allow it to happen.

Which is all to say, no. None of this is workable because none of this is about protecting children from life-altering harm.

This law is intended to create a liabikity trap to attack companies a religious state deems immoral.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#245

Post by temp23443223443 »

theclansman wrote: post #187
wesleywt wrote: post #39

[flagged]

The porn industry exploits vulnerable women and ruins their lives, forces them to do stuff they never signed for and much more. You trying to paint this issue as a white and black political thing makes you dismiss all the victims from this industry. You're basically dismissing it as "if you're part of this specific political team you should support/be against this"

[flagged]

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#246

Post by Eisenstein »

Myrmornis wrote: post #226
ActorNightly wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except despite the vast amounts of counter-evidence, people still are somehow dumb enough to think that hiding stuff from kids works (drugs, guns, porn, e.t.c). Porn is absolutely fine for kids to watch as long as the parents properly contextualize it. The issue is that somehow societally accepted that its taboo to talk to your kid about sex at an early age, and plenty of otherwise normal parents are embarrassed to d…

What age would you suggest having these conversations so that the kids' porn-viewing sessions can commence?

Puberty age sounds logical.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#248

Post by berkes »

afavour wrote: post #217
berkes wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is pornography dangerous for minors? Has it been researched? What "dangers" are there? Do these apply to all age groups of "minors"?

I suspect any academic study proposing to show pornography to minors is going to get shut down pretty quickly. In my own anecdotal experience I’d say it definitely can be dangerous and depends on a variety of factors, a key one IMO being what kind of pornography we’re even talking about. In my youth we discovered a friends dad nudie mag stash. Lots of glamour photography of topless women, some full nudity too but alw…

> I suspect any academic study proposing to show pornography to minors is going to get shut down pretty quickly.

I highly doubt this, because it's both important and relevant. 16y/o will consume pornography. I know I did, and I was 16 way before internet. Young adults will have had exposure before engaging in actual sex. This is important because it might be problematic. Because it changes behavior. But also because the right nudges, education and context probably make the difference between this growing into problematic behavior or healthy, normal, human behavior.

I know this is a difference between Europe and the US. Where the US (or any society under pressure of religious extremists, really) tries to simply forbid such research or knowledge. And hope (and pray) that by not knowing how this is shaping generations, it might simply go away. I'm pretty sure it won't just go away by praying hard and forbidding research. I'm pretty sure academics in this area know this very well too.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#249

Post by ericmay »

afavour wrote: post #206
theclansman wrote: post #182

Just the fact that pornography is being taken seriously as something that's dangerous for minors is a good thing really.

You’ll get some angry responses to this but I think it’s very worthwhile to say. Yes , ID verification in order to watch pornography is deeply Orwellian and terrifying (which is the aspect places like HN tend to focus on) but the bulk of the public support for these measures isn’t because people want government surveillance, it’s because they want to look out for children. Are they misguided? Perhaps. But you can’t w…

Just to be clear that:

> but the bulk of the public support for these measures isn’t because people want government surveillance

Does not mean the majority of the public supports those measures, though perhaps those who do support those measures do so because of reasons other than explicitly wanting the government to surveil them.

I don't think you are implying that the majority of the public supports those measures but I did want to make it clear that this was still an open question.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#250

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

themitigating wrote: post #198
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically this is what Utah wants. Only 60% of Utah residents are Mormon, but 85%+ of their elected state representatives and senators are Mormon. They are happy to force the rest of society to carve out a space "just for them", which is pretty much in line with their entire history anyway.

What about people in Utah who don't want this? You don't like porn don't use it. You don't want your kids to watch it, stop them. Restricting the freedom of everyone is unacceptable

> You don't like racism and homophobia then don't visit these sites. Restricting the freedom of everone is unacceptable

Nno no no bros, not like that. (I'll show myself out.)

Post reply on HN