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

PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

kslnewsradio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#931

Post by dragonwriter »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #929
Longlius wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's good, but I really wish the solution was, "We need parents to take a more active role in their children's lives and supervise their internet usage" and not, "Lockdown and de-anonymize the web."

On the other hand, if you as a legislator perceive a social evil, and your options are to pass a law or to get all the parents to take away their kids' phones and switch back to desktop computers (used only in a common area), which do you pick?

I dunno, is the law unlikely to work at its nominal goal and likely to, in practice, substantially burden adults in activities that they are and ought to be free to do, and also largely being advocated by people who fairly openly want to curtail adults practical access, but have been frustrated by Constitutional protections in their efforts in that direction?

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#932

Post by QuarterReptile »

laserlight wrote: post #568
AlecSchueler wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia page for pornography addiction lists several good sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction And YourBrainOnPorn gathered together some of the literature about escalation: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nl/relevant-research-and-art...

Here's the first sentence of the Wikipedia article: > Pornography addiction is the popular but unscientific[5] application of an addiction model to the use of pornography. [5] Science Stopped Believing in Porn Addiction. You Should, Too. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/2018...

[dead]

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#933

Post by QuarterReptile »

dragonwriter wrote: post #931
QuarterReptile wrote: post #929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if you as a legislator perceive a social evil, and your options are to pass a law or to get all the parents to take away their kids' phones and switch back to desktop computers (used only in a common area), which do you pick?

I dunno, is the law unlikely to work at its nominal goal and likely to, in practice, substantially burden adults in activities that they are and ought to be free to do, and also largely being advocated by people who fairly openly want to curtail adults practical access, but have been frustrated by Constitutional protections in their efforts in that direction?

I don't find your line of thinking to be consistent with a legislator.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#934

Post by salad-tycoon »

lubujackson wrote: post #926
brightball wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s such a strange dichotomy in these conversations. 1. Porn shouldn’t be available to kids and it’s on the vendors legally to ensure that. 2. Porn should be unrestricted, it’s up to parents to do something about it. What I can’t understand is if the people in camp 2 are so unashamed of the porn advocacy then why is age verification such a big deal? If it’s not a big deal then verifying your age shouldn’t phase y…

The ol' "if you have nothing to hide" argument was flawed a century ago and it isn't getting any less wrong. Recognize that "age verification" is 100% about taking control out of individual hands and into the government's. The only reason we do this with alcohol is because of health and safety risks. Please tell me how boobies threaten the fabric of society?

Boobies are great, useful, and oftentimes beautiful. Yes, the US can be a bit puritanical but porn is hardly just boobies.

Premature exposure to sexual content is thought to be deleterious to a developing brain. Sure, kids mature at different rates but what should be formative years might instead be spent in navel gazing porn addiction which can lead to developing a taste for evermore strange, fringe, and or violent self gratification or acting out of fantasies and disrupted socialization. Instead of going out and figuring things out, why leave the house when you can get your fix(es) in the comfort of your own room.

Yeah, it’s a judgement call but one I’m comfortable with. Kids have always figured sex out just fine, we don’t need to throw nitroglycerin on already raging fire in the way of ever increasingly fringe/violent/illegal unlimited free sexual videos on demand. You can read up on Reddit about people addicted to porn and how empty of shells they feel like, childhood is the wrong time to introduce this fuel to that fire.

Don’t worry the porn owners can learn to code.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#935

Post by scarface74 »

hellojesus wrote: post #819
scarface74 wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/sister-wives-wi... > If even one of the marriages is a legal, civil marriage, then Kody and the wives are probably guilty of bigamy under Utah's definition. The Utah Code states that a "person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another per…

Wouldn't the solution be to not marry anyone and solely cohabitate with your partners? Get power of attorney, etc. to close the gap on the marriage perks.

A spouse is eligible to draw half of their spouses social security instead of their own if it would be a higher amount without affecting the working spouse’s social security.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#936

Post by cogitoergofutuo »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #900
WeylandYutani wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Persecuted because Mormons refused to respect American laws. Yes if someone starts a cult that does illegal things they don't get to claim religious freedom or cry about persecution.

What laws would those be exactly?

https://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/mormon.asp

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#937

Post by kennethrc »

bradlys wrote: post #541
tedivm wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence do you have that the incel movement is driven by pornography? I always attributed it to the recruitment efforts of the alt-right and other misogynistic groups.

Guys, the incel “movement” is just dudes not getting laid and whining about it. It’s as old as time. They just happen to be on the Internet now and we’ve atomized society to the point where they’re super common. Most everyone is an incel until they’re not. After all - there’s a point where you want sex and aren’t getting it. Thus, an incel.

Yup.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#938

Post by wyldberry »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #914
wyldberry wrote: post #838

Way late to this, but to me this ultimately comes down to: "How do we handle the negative externalities that access to the worlds information at our fingertips has caused?" In theory parents are responsible for general outcomes of their children. However, do you expect non-tech, and realistically, non security/networking people to have the toolset to understand how to set up their networks and their devices to block…

> They say "you're the parent block it". It's almost as if a child walked into a bar and said "give me a beer" and the bartender did. Then didn't get in trouble because "the parent should have stopped it". no, this is more like dad bringing home beers, the kids get into it, and they try to go after the store or beer manufacturer. I mean it's still happening generally under a parents roof, likely in their own homes an…

I literally sit in cybersecurty chat channels where people who know tons still cannot get the "plenty of tools" to block this to work correctly. The ones that do have spent thousands on equipment and monitoring capabilities. You don't even come in with examples of how to do it properly, let alone for non-swe/network engineer/ families to do it. Just hand-waving away "i'm sure mobile devices could".

It's nothing like a parent bringing home the beers. In order to participate in education and social life your kids need access to the internet and devices. You parents are giving you a tool to do a job that comes with a negative externality of being able to access adult websites (and anything else on the internet).

It's not ridiculous for parents to vote for representatives who will put legal blocks in place to force a change since there's no way to vote with your dollar here, even if the source is religion where making children is a core tenant.

I'm very familiar with living with LDS. I'm in Idaho.

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#939

Post by AlecSchueler »

salawat wrote: post #889
AlecSchueler wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting point and thank you for raising it. Indeed I would not. I think it does come down to a moral issue then, which is related both to the core messages communicated and to the audience. In terms of violent media I can think of 3 ways of categorising it: A) media with a moral message abut the use of violence (self defence, save the innocent) B) purely whimsical (something like Doom) and C) explicitly…

Explicitly brutal material does have one educative characteristic. It educates one on the depths of human depravity. It is good to ensure the little ones eventually become aware of the shit we have to deal with. Hiding it helps no one.

Eventually? At what point do you start showing your kids extreme brutality videos to help their education?

Do you hide it for their first few years or do you begin as soon as they can grasp the content of the videos?

Re: PornHub blocks users in Utah, cites state’s age verification law

#940

Post by Aerbil313 »

dang wrote: post #897
Aerbil313 wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You posted this 6 times in this thread. That's excessive and HN readers consider it spamming, so please don't do that kind of thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ok, sorry dang. I’ll delete some.

Edit: I can’t delete for some reason (a certain amount of time has passed prob).

Post reply on HN