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

After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 228 posts

Re: After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

#201

Post by jajko »

nashashmi wrote: post #173
jajko wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL. You should walk around some french cities a bit. Getting drugs for locals is certainly not a problem, despite harsh punishments like its 80s.

Ok. Now suppose for a minute you go to a city place where you know absolutely no one. Whom do you ask for drug advice now?

That's very easy - go to area of train station, or some nearby park, and look for immigrant-looking people just standing around, trying to keep eye contact with passers or saying quietly "bonjour".

95% of the time you will get exactly what you want, otherwise it would be some form of "desolee". This is obvious, everybody knows and sees it, en masse (as in you are choosing from tens of such people in given area).

Re: After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

#202

Post by number6 »

trilbyglens wrote: post #175
ryeats wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to block YouTube when my kids were remote learning during the pandemic, it took several attempts and they were in grade school. They even got around Apple's considerable content controls I had to set up a DNS proxy.

Best way is to block at the router.

They will just start to use the onion Router.

Not even states can block internet access 100%

Re: After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

#203

Post by pixxel »

david-gpu wrote: post #32
azrrik wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people have things they don't want everyone to know. how is wanting a small amount of privacy ridiculous?

Why would anybody even want to know the porn you watch? And what would they do about it, or how would that affect you? "Hey, Jimmy, I went searching for your porn habits and found that you are into fat redheads. Shame on you, shame on you. You are now excommunicated from... Somewhere" . How is this not a much bigger social faux pas for the accuser rather than the accused?

[dead]

Re: After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

#204

Post by Mawr »

sandspar wrote: post #83

I support banning porn. You've got coordinated "teams" of men, most of them diagnosable sociopaths, who work as a group to manipulate and destroy teenagers. For every one woman you see on a porn website, there's a network of 10 men who are working as a coordinated team to manipulate her. Most of the young women are from broken homes, many of them are low IQ, and many of them were sexually abused as children by male a…

Sounds like you've heard of a few cases of abuse and are extrapolating that to every single person that works in porn. It doesn't work like that.

For the most part, the actors just get paid per scene, know what they're getting into, and have clear boundary and consent terms.

Then there's all the amateur stuff too.

Re: After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

#205

Post by psychoslave »

callamdelaney wrote: post #66
ghusto wrote: post #17

> A more technically sound approach would be content controls directly implemented on the devices parents chose to give their children Passive aggression level 10, and I approve.

This is the only true solution. Parents need to take responsibility for what their kids are doing online, what they’re viewing and who they’re talking to. This generation of parents should be prepared for that but apparently not.

As a parent, I do agree with taking responsibility on it. My older children is 8, so not much computer for her now. Just a bit of dactylography before she can play Gcompris, mostly chess lately, nothing online so far. They did have some initiation at school (for context this is public school in France).

That said, I do expect I won't be able to prevent them to reach inappropriate resources once they meet the point where they can browse online without me being there to inspect, so I'll rather invest time to explain them that can happen, make sure they are confident they can tell me if they faced something odd. Forbidding would be the best way to encourage, and any automatic system alone will have too shallow circumvention paths or too much burden of admin to follow for relevancy as a Parenthood tool.

Re: After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

#207

Post by psychoslave »

sapphicsnail wrote: post #145
callamdelaney wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the average age of mothers is 30 - these parents should understand the risks of technology having be exposed to it themselves but we don’t seem to be seeing improvement in this area like we might expect.

A lot of us experienced the opposite problem. I had parents that restricted large parts of the Internet that probably would have been fine to access. The Internet has changed a lot. It wasn't until I took in a zoomer who grew up with unrestricted Internet access that I realized how damaging it could be.

Could you elaborate?

Re: After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

#208

Post by mirekrusin »

nashashmi wrote: post #78
mirekrusin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drugs too. Doesn't seem to stop ones that want to do it though by looking at some neighbourhoods.

It does stop kids from being openly advertised drugs and makes it difficult for kids to get drugs. That is the whole point of legislation, not to eliminate but mitigate.

In theory yes, in practice no. It's smarter to legalise it, it cuts off income source for criminals, creates taxable income that can be actually used to fund help centers etc.

Re: After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

#209

Post by mirekrusin »

mdp2021 wrote: post #61
mirekrusin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drugs too. Doesn't seem to stop ones that want to do it though by looking at some neighbourhoods.

Given that incompetent families will always exist, you ban drugs because of the social consequences of the phenomenon - the damages are evaluated as high. For other indulgences, social damages may vary.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that you're funelling large streams of money into pockets of criminals. You're also not solving anything, in practice people keep buying it - without actual minor controls (unlike ie. alcohol or tobacco) and with blurred perception (ie. same dude probably deals weed, cocaine, heroine, whatever). It is shifting market to black side with all negative consequences that come with it. It creates this disgusting alternative, unofficial layers in cities where law enforcement long ago gave up on enforcing this ban and ordinary people learn/know to stay the fuck out and ignore.

Re: After Pornhub left France, this VPN saw a 1,000% surge in signups in 30 minutes

#210

Post by JCattheATM »

lucianbr wrote: post #200
JCattheATM wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, we can't refuse a system or a technology on the basis of "depends". Of course we can, based exactly on the dependencies. If someone has an atrocious representation, we don't need to trust the system, if they don't then it becomes more reasonable to do so. > Your physical safety when traveling anywhere by any means depends on many factors. You still leave the house, don't you? Not all risks are equal.

Is this trolling? > Of course we can, based exactly on the dependencies. But you have provided zero exact dependencies or details. All you said was "depends". > Not all risks are equal. But you have claimed nothing about this particular risk. Is it big? Is it small? We have no idea. This is sophistry. Fancy words attempting to sound smart with zero content. You are not arguing either for this tech, or against it, or…

> Is this trolling?

Certainly not, although I wonder if this question is to any extent projection.

> But you have provided zero exact dependencies or details. All you said was "depends".

Which was sufficient to make the point I wanted to make.

> This is sophistry. Fancy words attempting to sound smart with zero content.

It's not, so much as you not understanding a point, wanting to give it the second degree and when I didn't initially support the point to a level you personally found satisfactory, because there was no reasonable need for me to do so, dismissing the point entirely.

You're not someone I see the potential to have a productive discussion with, so I'll let this be my last reply.

Have a great day.

Post reply on HN