Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

Post by TurdF3rguson » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 3:40 AM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #183

abraham wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You wrote this in the passive voice I used the language of the link. > The explicit tube site Pornhub is now blocked in 25 U.S. states I had assumed that the states were blocking Pornhub but reading between the lines in the linked article it does imply it's not the states are not applying technical blocks.

The states have applied intentionally onerous requirements onto these sites with full knowledge that would most likely not comply making them de facto blocks. You wouldn't be fooled if a gangster said "that's some nice kneecaps you got there, it would be a shame if something happened to them" so I don't know why we are acting so naive about Texas and co.

Post by tzs » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 4:21 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #184

tzs wrote: post #173

I took a quick look at the Texas law. Like a few other such laws it allows sites to use an external service to do the check, as long as the service uses a "commercially reasonable" method of doing that. That basically means it has to be based on government ID or by inference based on certain types of transaction records they can get access to (e.g., if you have a mortgage they can reasonably infer you are an adult).…

> Even better would be for a trusted non-profit to run this, like the EFF or the ACLU. You're seriously proposing that organizations along the same general lines as the EFF or ACLU would be okay with being the implementing partner of a "papers, please" identify verification regime? I highly doubt their leadership would entertain the idea for even the briefest moment.

Post by odo1242 » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 4:40 AM UTC

wildzzz wrote: post #163

odo1242 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's kinda the whole idea of having an "adult content" tld; it's so you can block all .xxx domains instead of having to create a blocklist of sites. Like an opt-in nsfw flag for the internet, basically.

Sure but that doesn't really work with the existing age verification laws. Unless .xxx is requiring domains to implement age verification or there's some sort of global redirect to a verification portal, that site is back in the same legal jeopardy of having Texas confiscate their domain again.

Post by arvid-lind » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:17 AM UTC

ImJamal wrote: post #202

MyMemoryfails wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, I didn't even considered this angle. Lot's 18+ items dont actually require age verification online. Yet porn/socials are being subjected to it. Just shows what priorities are.

Items require payments which usually would be a credit card. Kids cannot get a credit card on their own as far as I know so the parents have to be involved in some way. (Obviously there are alternatives like paypal, prepaid debit cards, etc but it is quite a bit harder to actual get the item).

Post by laughing_man » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:57 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #172

LoganDark wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you see, guns aren't harmful to small children. It's that damn pornography. Seeing a gun doesn't traumatize you for life, but man, seeing a private area? Life ruined. Of course, once the number of years since you were born reaches exactly 18, your brain automatically shuts off the part of you that is impossibly traumatized by private areas, so it's suddenly completely okay and normal. Oh, and when you reach exact…

It also makes complete and total sense that you can sell your body by joining the Marines as an 0311 MOS rifleman/grunt on your 18th birthday, but you're going straight to hell if you have an alcoholic drink before you're 21. I don't know if I've ever met a European who doesn't think the US's alcohol age laws are weird.