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

E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

foxcarolina.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#111

Post by maxbond »

shadowgovt wrote: post #101
maxbond wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to hand. That's my belief from my observation. I looked for statistics for about 10 minutes, but didn't really find good information. I suspect this area is under researched. Happy to look at any sources you want to link. Both of these can be true, however. I imagine most adults sometimes drink alcohol too. Personally I might go weeks or months without watching porn, it's not something I generally do everyday. Pe…

You know, the organizations most likely to have that information are the ones with the big data on access and source IP address, who could make an educated guess on the scale and variety of consumers of pornography. ... In other words, PornHub.

Do you think anonymous surveys wouldn't work here? (Genuinely asking and not being snarky, I expected to find lots of people doing surveys in this area but didn't readily find it, so I'm open to there being something I'm not understanding.)

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#112

Post by ttymck »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #39
mjevans wrote: post #14

What if you had to show Government ID whenever you entered a grocery store, a library, a movie theater? What if you were tracked each time you consumed a video, a still image, an audio clip, or even a text message? What if the government kept a record of any or all of those checks? What if they arranged for third parties to commercialize that data so they could 'legally' end-run any restriction on domestic spying wit…

While I strongly disagree with this NC law, and others, your analogy is a bad one. As a society I think we've accepted that some things (cigarettes, alcohol, sex, etc.) should be restricted from children. That's a far cry from requiring ID every time I go to the grocery store. But, as long as I've been alive, you have had to show ID to purchase alcohol, and the sky hasn't fallen. Again, I think these types of laws ar…

You don't have to show ID if you look about 40 years old, generally.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#113

Post by lilboiluvr69 »

JasonFruit wrote: post #96

[flagged]

I am going to say something that is not popular to say but has been on my mind for a while.

Why is it bad for our kids to see two humans have sex?

When you say porn is bad for kids, I think you mean that mainstream porn can be misogynistic, addictive (like most pleasurable things), and give people unrealistic body standards and expectations about what sex is like. All of which I agree with.

Okay, so, if I had a website that just showed consensual sexual relationships between a husband and wife in a committed relationship, just doing normal sex like people do, would that be okay for kids to see? Would it be okay for me to show my kid if they were curious about what sex was like? What if that was something I /wanted/ my teenager to jerk off to as opposed to something I wasn't curating? Wouldn't it be better for me to be able to say "Here's what normal human sex looks like, you'll experience this yourself when you're older and ready for it, but I was a young teen and I know young teens get horny too, just don't spend all day masturbating to it" rather than letting them stumble onto whatever they find on PornHub? I mean we educate kids about every other aspect of human existence, but sexuality is some weird taboo...

I'm just confused here, I mean, are we saying that young people are irreparably harmed by visual exposure to the human reproductive system? If so, why would we as a species have evolved that way? And if not, then how can we justify a blanket ban on young people seeing all forms of recorded sexual activity?

If you look at my comment history you'll see I'm not a normal person, and I don't really understand 'normal' views on human sexuality. Maybe it's because I lived so long in a clothing optional community...I don't really understand why it's okay for parents to show their kids extremely violent media but showing two people having sex, even if it's educational, is considered some form of abuse. But then again, as I said, maybe I'm just mentally ill or something...

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#114

Post by brucethemoose2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99
schneems wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> yes “I want to be governed by a fascist dictator” and “maybe we shouldn’t destroy the environment completely” are pretty close Eh, the American far left and right are both obsessed with policing language in surprisingly-similar ways. The left’s inability to cohere is largely what protects us from it meaningfully mobilising.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#115

Post by hatenberg »

cf1241290841 wrote: post #92
harry8 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What if you had to show Government ID whenever you entered a grocery store, a library, a movie theater? What if you were tracked each time you consumed a video, a still image, an audio clip, or even a text message? 1) entered a grocery store - No, at least not since peak-pandemic. Face recognition? 2) a library - Yes, to borrow books or on demand from security. Needed govt. id to get a library card. 3) movie theatre…

>A Turnkey totalitarian state exists, who is going to turn that key? A totalitarian that will be recognized as such. The plausible deniability of the status quo is worth quite a bit.

Oh I think a certain presidential candidate is running under the “let’s stop pretending” thing. So in half a year we’ll know.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#116

Post by shadowgovt »

maxbond wrote: post #111
shadowgovt wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, the organizations most likely to have that information are the ones with the big data on access and source IP address, who could make an educated guess on the scale and variety of consumers of pornography. ... In other words, PornHub.

Do you think anonymous surveys wouldn't work here? (Genuinely asking and not being snarky, I expected to find lots of people doing surveys in this area but didn't readily find it, so I'm open to there being something I'm not understanding.)

I have no idea. Broadly speaking, I don't trust self-reporting on anything taboo even when it's anonymous; people both lie to themselves and have justified paranoia about precisely how anonymous any collected data is.

... But it's real hard to fake the actual server requests and human sourced usage patterns to the service provider at scale.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#117

Post by TylerE »

dc3k wrote: post #86
thinkerswell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally you get more of what you subsidize, so my bet is that this will lead to less porn consumption, an absolutely massive win.

> an absolutely massive win For who?

Puritans/Evangelicals

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#118

Post by stephen_g »

boppo1 wrote: post #37
slibhb wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you extend this policy to "consuming a video/image/text message," that would be dystopian. But this is about porn. Maybe it'll be a slippery slope but I doubt it. I wouldn't vote for this policy but I get it. Lots of people don't want kids watching porn. And it's not just social conservativism, people across the political spectrum think porn is addictive, psychologically damaging, and leads to sexual dysfunction.

If I like BDSM, and that is cataloged, I can easily see that being leveraged against me. We should focus on tools and systems that empower parents to guide their childrens' internet experience. Maybe a token of some sort sites can use to self identify as 18+ so parents can set up strong filters.

There is already one - it’s called RTA (‘Restricted to Adults’) and is a meta tag that should filter out sites if you have parental controls enabled. I expect it’s one of the things Google etc. look at for SafeSearch to remove those results too (among other checks).

Of course, the irony is that only those that would label their sites as RTA already (so are already easily filtered) would comply with any ID requirement, so these kinds of laws achieve very little!

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#119

Post by owenpalmer »

Kamq wrote: post #46
thinkerswell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally you get more of what you subsidize, so my bet is that this will lead to less porn consumption, an absolutely massive win.

Given that access to porn is strongly negatively correlated with violent rape across most cultures I've seen studied, I'm not sure you should be cheering this.

How do you know this is true?
Post reply on HN