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

161–170 of 172 posts

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

#161

Post by npteljes »

JasonFruit wrote: post #96

[flagged]

It does exist, it's very popular, and people won't let go, just because the gummint says so. So, the prohibited thing will go underground. It gets more extreme, organized criminal activity will increase, people's trust in others and in the establishment weakens. That I'd definitely call a blight on society. Now, which blight we pick is the question. Doing the harmful thing in the open, in controlled ways, or doing it in the dark, in uncontrolled ways? I don't think the latter has much success, if a generally nicer society is the goal.

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

#162

Post by ethanbond »

sqrt_1 wrote: post #41
ethanbond wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean a town in Tennessee recently outlawed homosexuality in public. I can easily see this being applied to anything with LGBT material, sexual or not. That said, yeah, I get the motivation. I put this in a similar category as the regulatory response to Airbnb/Ubers of the world: it seems like a better outcome may have been possible if the companies didn’t totally and flagrantly shirk their social obligations to beg…

I don't think a town in Tennessee recently outlawed homosexuality in public, They just added: "No person shall knowingly while in a public space engage in indecent behavior, display, distribute, or broadcast indecent material, conduct indecent events, or facilitate any of the foregoing prohibited acts." Problem was that the referenced indecent statue definition included homosexuality, which was then removed from the…

It was removed in response to a lawsuit. Strictly speaking, yes they did recently outlaw being gay, but it was (allegedly) due to forgetting to change a statute definition rather than expanding it.

I guess they get kudos for removing “homosexuality” from the definition of “indecent acts” in 2023!

In any case, the question is whether there’s reason to believe this will be a slippery slope. There’s obviously a pattern of increasing moral regulation throughout the country including book bans. That this particular instance of moral regulation was a bit complicated in its implementation and (allegedly) accidentally overzealous in its scope doesn’t negate the trend.

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

#163

Post by jzb »

dgacmu wrote: post #95
jzb wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's pretty insane that we have no check for an unlimited amount of free porn with all kinds of extremes." And... we still don't. Porn is available through a lot of channels to anybody who knows how to look, all the NC law (and others) is doing is applying pressure to a handful of businesses and encouraging bad practices in the form of having to handle IDs. I'm the first to acknowledge it's sometimes worth doing som…

"NC legislature accidentally endorses Mullvad VPN" could be a parallel article to this one. It would be interesting if someone analyzed the growth in VPN use following the enactment of this law.

Indeed. I'm pretty sure VPN subscriptions had a nice little spike at the end of December in NC.

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

#164

Post by schneems »

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.

> obsessed with policing language

“When you say this thing about a minority group, people will die, so please don’t do it” is not the same as “let’s burn books because they acknowledge that slavery existed”

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

#165

Post by ImpostorKeanu »

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…

The core of OPs argument is that tracking is bad, not that ID/age verification is bad.

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

#166

Post by swells34 »

omeid2 wrote: post #142
swells34 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn isn't sex the same way pictures and videos of food is not food... You picked a very strange and convoluted analogy instead of the very simple and very straightforward one that is an accurate 1:1 analogy. Strange way to announce an agenda.

You're making the absurd assertion that porn reflects real life sex. It does not. A more forgivable analogy to pictures would be that porn is to food, what artificial, constructed, and edit advertisements of food is to food. https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-food-advertisements-vs-... The only agenda is the push for normalisation of porn everywhere. We see it.

No, I'm making the assertion that the analogy that most closely matches should be used, and that you picked one so poorly that it immediately smells of bad faith arguments and agendizement.

Your analogy is comparing media of a physical act to... A physical thing, candy. Why not compare media to media? It's the same abstraction. Pictures of food to pictures of sex, instead of actual food to pictures of sex?

You just keep making up more and more convoluted and inaccurate analogies specifically to back up whatever weird agenda you are vaguely trying to push. Please take the rhetorical tricks to another platform; reddit is a good place to start, they'll love this type of yelling match.

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

#167

Post by samstave »

whstl wrote: post #31
samstave wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit had a lot of dark subs and users for a very long time, and they kinda just swept it all under the rug. /r/spaced*cks, ViolentaCruz, others I cant recall, and the infamous /r/cannibals controversy with a reddit founder and CEO. Yeah, weird times - not its many bots - and interestingly, in the last year, a boatload of .in India subreddits for various aspects of their culture (like IdianMotorcycles, Weird train b…

> "movie and celeb gossip subs" I haven't come across the Indian version of this, but the default page (I don't have an account) now has a lot of posts from celebrity gossip subs, and the viciousness and hatred there is worse than what I saw in radical politics subs, or even 4chan. At least the porn and NSFW stuff was hidden. This actually what made me block Reddit from my devices.

I only browse /r/all any longer - with no account after admin fraud killing mods for policy gain... and I have a good filter-out list in RES, but yeah, .in domain submissions have spiked in the last year+

Would be cool for a toggle in prefs/RES to only include certain domain tLDs/blacklist certain TLDs -- like maybe one doesnt want to see .cn, .in, .ir, .[STRING] ?

Regardless, granularity over feed is still tedious in /r/ and RES is still a slow solution.

You can edit RES files, but avg reddit viewer (Anyone who does Not use old.reddit) just get the same crappy 'modern' UX.

I wonder about engagement times on old.reddit vs www.reddit get - I cant even look at https://www.reddit - but thats due to me customizing me data density to my view.

https://i.imgur.com/XKMfMJO.png

https://i.imgur.com/MLnUEPc.png

---

Reddit should be ground/target|zero for sentiment/mind-mining (will never forget in an interview with Twitter when they were still on (howard) (near the AT&T spy room) -- Question:

"What do you think Twitter is?"

ME: "You are a global sentiment engine"

They did not like that comment... and asked me what physical publications I read to keep up on networking/DC Design/etc...

(Which I thought was ironic, except for seeing what publications they could exploit - but the truth was they wanted to usurp sentiment+discourse...

(Succeeded)

(similar with google interview (2006) "what would you say we do around here?" -- >>"Everyone thinks you're a search engine - but you're just an advertising company"

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

#169

Post by omeid2 »

swells34 wrote: post #166
omeid2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making the absurd assertion that porn reflects real life sex. It does not. A more forgivable analogy to pictures would be that porn is to food, what artificial, constructed, and edit advertisements of food is to food. https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-food-advertisements-vs-... The only agenda is the push for normalisation of porn everywhere. We see it.

No, I'm making the assertion that the analogy that most closely matches should be used, and that you picked one so poorly that it immediately smells of bad faith arguments and agendizement. Your analogy is comparing media of a physical act to... A physical thing, candy. Why not compare media to media? It's the same abstraction. Pictures of food to pictures of sex, instead of actual food to pictures of sex? You just k…

Reflect on why criticism of pornography makes you so angry and emotional.

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

#170

Post by omeid2 »

lilboiluvr69 wrote: post #150
omeid2 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exceptio probat regulam.

Yes but generally when curtailing free speech courts apply strict scrutiny, and even minors are generally understood to have the right to produce and accept speech, banning someone from viewing all visual depictions of sex outright seems overbroad even if only a minority is not 'harmful', whatever that means.

Porn isn't political speech. It doesn't deserve the same level of sacrifice we do for freedom of political speech.
Post reply on HN