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

61–70 of 172 posts

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

#61

Post by notatoad »

slibhb wrote: post #20
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…

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.

"porn" is poorly defined and has definitely been used to censor things before that aren't necessarily pornography.

whether or not you agree with the blocking of that sort of content, supporting these sort of restrictions on pornography means supporting a policy that lets the government gate content they deem objectionable behind an id check. i guarantee you there's at least some content out there that you're not going to agree with the government's definition of pornography. or even if you agree with the current government on all their content moderation choices, you might not agree with the next one.

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

#62

Post by 734573457 »

samstave wrote: post #15
silisili wrote: post #9

How do sites that have porn but not their main purpose respond, or do they have to? Reddit and Twitter come to mind, I've stumbled across a lot of weird stuff on both.

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…

This is true but I do wonder if this is where the interesting part of the question around platforms lies. Dark stuff aside, reddit has a lot of porn period. If challenged, I wonder if they would be able to compromise by introducing an age-verification requirement for specific subreddits. Since otherwise it seems like they'd either have to just outright block traffic from places with similar laws or go the imgur route and attempt some kind of content purge if they wanted to avoid id-ing people.

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

#63

Post by User23 »

maxbond wrote: post #48
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.

> [P]eople across the political spectrum think porn is addictive, psychologically damaging, and leads to sexual dysfunction. I think everyone acknowledges it can be, but it's a pretty distinct cohort that holds it necessarily is. Definitely not that it inevitably leads to sexual dysfunction, that's just patently untrue. Most adults consume pornography, and for the vast majority of them it isn't a problem. Every adult…

> Most adults consume pornography, and for the vast majority of them it isn't a problem.

Got a source for this? Because everything I look at suggests that much like alcohol, a relatively small number of habitual users account for the vast majority of consumption.

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

#64

Post by whatshisface »

hattmall wrote: post #59
whatshisface wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are leaving it out where anyone can get it (if their parents aren't watching), not showing it to unsuspecting pedestrians. Maybe teenagers have too much autonomy online but it's the place of their parents to take it away from them - not the state of North Carolina.

I think a reasonable analogy would be putting TV's playing porn outside of a school and covered them with a cloth and sign that said adults only. What would my liability be then? And I also sell advertising on the side of the tvs?

Based on the growth of some "romance boutiques," who seem to be able to open chain stores anywhere, the liability is nil.

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

#65

Post by pavel_lishin »

asylteltine wrote: post #53
shagmin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law says it applies if more than 30% of the content is adult content. So won't apply to reddit or Twitter at least but I could see this still leaving plenty of gray area for other sites.

Reddit is easily at least 30% porn if not 90%

[citation needed]

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

#66

Post by nostromo »

Wow, this moronic bill passed nearly unanimously. It's nice to see bipartisanship on display in North Carolina when it comes to the stupidest ideas.

> Any commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material shall...

That's a ridiculously vague standard. Google and Bing both distribute material harmful to minors in "substantial" quantities...

I hope it gets thrown out on judicial overview.

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

#67

Post by hattmall »

whatshisface wrote: post #64
hattmall wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a reasonable analogy would be putting TV's playing porn outside of a school and covered them with a cloth and sign that said adults only. What would my liability be then? And I also sell advertising on the side of the tvs?

Based on the growth of some "romance boutiques," who seem to be able to open chain stores anywhere, the liability is nil.

They allow kids to go in?

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

#68

Post by paulddraper »

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…

> What if you had to show Government ID whenever you entered a grocery store, a library, a movie theater?

What if you had to show Government ID whenever you entered a bar, a strip club, or a (R-rated) movie theatre?

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

#69

Post by shagmin »

thinkerswell wrote: post #12
mc32 wrote: post #3

Ignoring other (obvious) issues, it’ll be interesting to see how people respond. Do they seek different entertainment? Does it lead to more or less socially desirable/adjusted behavior?

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

Yeah...pornhub is a good actor though. Maybe people end up on shadier websites with much less savory and/or outright illegal content instead.

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

#70

Post by jxdxbx »

LammyL wrote: post #60
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is one thing to show ID. It is an other thing to show ID and have the details stored in a database in perpetuity by companies who don’t have huge budgets for data privacy and security.

Zero-knowledge methods for verifying age are possible but there is almost no political will or interest in them. Sites would get a “yes” or “no” as to whether someone is of age, and no other information.
Post reply on HN