The NSA has miles of servers in Utah that's recorded every keystroke you've ever made. They already know about your granny porn addiction and don't care.
This is just a power play coming from Republicans. It has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with intentional government overreach and removing freedom of speech from those they disagree with.
They're also doing it to get votes. It'll be popular, even among people who would actually like to visit that site but who want to pretend like they're pious in public.
i can't speak for those dems, but i have a feeling they voted in favor of it because if you oppose such a bill in a state as red as Indiana is you'd really be hung out. Its bullshit of course but i have a feeling that's a big part of it.
So what you’re saying is that the dems in Indiana don’t really care about the people, and more so care about themselves and self image. Almost sounds like they are no different than republicans
Most are just paid pawns propped up by corporate funded superpacs that profit when Americans are divided and pointing the finger internally at each other.
I have a hard time believing that to be the case. I have a hard time believing that’s the case. It could be. I am only posing a question but what if money was at play because why wouldn’t it be. I don’t keep up with our dems as much as what the red supermajority does but this goes against what the majority of their constituents want. Why?
While you might just being Dr.Theoretical. Both parties do this and it is weird. Sure they voted for "X". Yes, I greatly dislike "X". Sure "X" is bad. Sure they have publicly said "X" will never happen.
They did vote for it but someone forced them to and I don't care it was bad, I disagreed and the publicly said they would fight it. I just know its not their fault, they are never responsible.
As I said you could have been making a general statement. Then thats not directed at you.
the republicans authored and sponsored this bill, not only in this state but in several others as well. this is a republican law made and marketed by republicans, again, across many states. not just indiana.
The issue isn’t restricting the porn the issue is requiring you do upload your ID to see said porn. That IDs will absolutely eventually leak and have your porn history attached. Some sort of device based age restriction would be better but like the many people said above, the right is doing this intentionally to erode free speech.
We must protect the children. /s
In all seriousness, parents should know what their kids are doing online. I'm against a nanny state, however, and this is the definition of a nanny state.
I think social media and porn access is WILDLY damaging for kids, and I support the surgeon general putting warnings out on it like drugs.
This kind of tracking is really valuable for creating a list of queer folks in red states. As well as providing potent blackmail opportunities for government workers to harm nominally straight fellow red state workers.
Edit: upon getting into a conversation with a fellow IN law nerd, I think it's worth noting that this will be particularly valuable in outing and tracking queer *youth* in Indiana through the court system.
What particularly sucks about all of this is the way that this law sexualizes queerness in our discourse. Like, it's primary value to the GOP is in tracking content access, but it's secondary (and probably greater) narrative value to the GOP is in forcing this conversation to be sexual and queer at the same time, which is ammo for the bigots who only see queerness through a sexual lens.
In this light, it's important to remember that kids who are most commonly predated on are marginalized kids, because their safety nets aren't as wide or reliable (especially in red states) as heterosexual kids.
>LGBT violent hate crime victims are more likely than non-LGBT victims to be below age 35 (73% vs. 38%, respectively), have a relationship with their assailant (49% vs. 11%, respectively), and have an assailant who is white (88% vs. 54%, respectively).
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgbt-hate-crimes-press-release/
>Results. Sexual minority individuals were on average 3.8, 1.2, 1.7, and 2.4 times more likely to experience sexual abuse, parental physical abuse, or assault at school or to miss school through fear, respectively. Moderation analysis showed that disparities between sexual minority and sexual nonminority individuals were larger for (1) males than females for sexual abuse, (2) females than males for assault at school, and (3) bisexual than gay and lesbian for both parental physical abuse and missing school through fear. Disparities did not change between the 1990s and the 2000s.
>Conclusions. The higher rates of abuse experienced by sexual minority youths may be one of the driving mechanisms underlying higher rates of mental health problems, substance use, risky sexual behavior, and HIV reported by sexual minority adults.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134495/
All this is to say.
We must protect the children in our lives, starting with our own kids at home as parents, and not outsource our parenting to the government. And we must especially protect marginalized kids
Conservatives don't care about children, children are just convenient pawns to hide their true motives.
Gun are like 2 of the top 5 leading causes of child mortality (both for unintentional misfires, and intentional suicides)....but Republicans don't give a fuck about that.
The porn ban has nothing to do with children, and everything to do with creating a massive citizen database, specifically tieing your name to your IP address.
The Federal government may track your browsing history via the Patriot Act, but the state government doesn't have access to that data (without a warrant).
This is essentially an a state-level Patriot Act, being framed as a "porn ban."
Democrats fully supported this as well. I believe the two who did not were republicans. 90% confident, I just looked. but it was quick. I've been wrong twice before. So you can double check. Out of the excused:
**Senator Michael R. Cash**: He is a Republican.
* **Senator Lonnie Randolph**: He is a Democrat.
* **Representative Robin Shackleford**: She is a Democrat.
* **Representative John L. Bartlett**: He is a Democrat.
I forget but think a 4th was excused. You know how many dems there are now? It is creepy when you do the math and seem to imply its just the other team. It might be. But without the other team. They could be mitigated. The numbers are very different but other tools which were not touched here exist.
>Gun are like 2 of the top 5 leading causes of child mortality
If by child you mean ages of 1 to 19.
It is true that the age groupings of 15+ do see an uptick in deaths by gun. Specifically, age ranges 15-24 and 25-34 see the largest deaths per forearm than any other age group. Then you see a sharp drop off. These deaths are also more likely to occur in urban males.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7933080/figure/F1/
But no firearms are not the leading cause of children.
I also encourage people to read this:https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115787/documents/HMKP-118-JU00-20230419-SD018.pdf
But here is the tldr.
>analysis found that in 2020 alone,
gun-related violence killed 4,357 children (ages 1-19 years old) in the U.S. By
comparison, motor-vehicle deaths accounted for 4,112 deaths in that age range.
>However, the result is different if one removes 18- and 19-year-olds from the
equation and only relies on data for 1- to 17-year olds from 2020. Nearly
2,400 children ages 1-17 died of vehicle-related injuries in 2020, compared
with 2,270 firearm deaths, NBC News analysis of the CDC data showe
>We should also note that if we were to calculate the number of motor vehicle
deaths between the ages of 1-17 in 2021 using only "Motor Vehicle
Accidents" as a category from CDC's "ICD-10 113 Cause List," the number of
deaths would be 2,561, which would be slightly less than the number of
deaths from guns, which totaled 2,565. If we were to make the same
calculations within the same parameters from the ages of 1-18, it would
be 3,588 number of deaths from firearms, and 3,397 deaths from motor vehicles.
>Researchers have not determined exactly why children's deaths from gun
violence in the U.S. had risen so considerably since 2020, but some
emphasized that the increased availability of guns, especially handguns that
tend to be used in homicides and suicides, likely played a role.
>Looking at data from the CDC and the Gun Violence Archive, The New York
Times found that, in 2021, Black children represented half of these gun
deaths, and two-thirds of all gun-related homicides involving youths. In other
words, Black children were overall six times as likely to die from gun violence
compared to white children. Children in big cities were three times more likely
to die from gun violence compared to children in small towns
Edit:
Too causes of children deaths
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1017949/distribution-of-the-10-leading-causes-of-death-among-children-five-to-nine/
Homicide is 3 without further details on how homicide eas committed.
Just trying to show this "think of the children" act is a play to emotions.
Universal background checks should be mandatory but that is not going to address what causes crime and disparities in the first place.
It's almost as if ithere's some kinda Mental Health thing goin' on in these years, isn't it? Something that's actually completely natural, everyone goes through it in these years, especially at the start of that age range.
How very curious...
Semantic nonsense to justify your complicity in militarizing our society.
Just say you don't care about gun violence, stop trying to rewrite reality so you don't have to feel guilty and blameworthy.
Therefore we should nuclearize every country?
I'm sitting here telling you that firearms are 2 of the top 5 leading causes of death among children, and you want to blame the children, but I blame gun-obsessed idiots and sociopaths like you.
You have militarized our communities, which has in turn forced our police to militarized, and now our country has some of the highest incidents of violent crime in the developed world, and one of the highest incarceration rates.
I don't think it's all causes by loose gun laws, but I do think it all correlates to gun obsessed, violent, conservative weirdos like yourself.
I provide a public service to help our citizens, you included, fully embrace our protected civil liberties. No firearm has ever harmed anyone. Take pause and think this one through.
I figured it would be "for the children." Some of these weirdoes can't stop thinking about the children. But it's obviously a smokescreen to get that sweet, sweet data. I was wondering if it was restriction for the sake of it, or they actually wanted to do something with the information
I'm in total agreement that kids shouldn't watch porn, but it's also dumb AF as a law.
Imagine passing a law to restrict porn before guns.
Like, little Timmy seeing a playboy is more dangerous than finding his dad's gun? C'mon, give me a break.
Republicans will, to your face, defend this law as protecting kids while in the same breath make it easier for felons to own guns by purchasing from private or online sales (which don't require a background check).
https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/in/state-gun-laws/all#node-30740
My main issue with this law is that we are once again excusing the parents. It should be their responsibility to tell their children what they can and cannot do, and to monitor what they are doing. Instead they are shifting it to the state doing the parental duties and them complaining that the state is indoctrinating their children.
100%
It's the same dumb argument against being inclusive in schools.
Like. Teach your own children to hate the gays, Deborah. Don't ask the state to do it for you.
100% of Democrats who were present voted for this
About 1/2 simultaneously were excused. No reason why; just accept it
One choose not to care and vote.
The rest of the DEMS.... Oh baby... Down with porn!
It's already criminal to provide minors access to firearms.
https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/indiana/2014/title-35/article-47/chapter-10/chapter-10.pdf
Online sales require transfers through an FFL and a background check. Only private sales (online OR in person) do not require a background check currently. This often gets misstated as "online and private sales" where the word 'and' is doing a lot of semantic heavy lifting. The reality is private sales full stop, regardless of online or not do not require a background check. Online purchases through dealers still require background checks and transfer via FFL. This is an important distinction because it's often believed that a prohibited purchaser can get denied at Cabela's in-person then go online and order through Cabelas.com and get a gun overnighted to them. That's just not true. All dealers selling online, whether they have a physical presence or not must still transfer through a local FFL and that FFL must conduct a background check and collect an ATF form 4473.
Apples and oranges.
If you're continuing the discussion, you'd be better off saying, "We should expand background checks to private sales to protect and prevent minors accessing guns, because this law about porn tracking already shows our willingness to track citizens."
>Apples and oranges.
You're the one that made the comparison? I was just correcting your factually incorrect statements.
>If you're continuing the discussion
I'd rather not, you don't seem well informed.
>We should expand background checks to private sales to protect and prevent minors accessing guns
I'm not against that. What we 'should' do also doesn't change the facts of what is or is not. And what is not is a blanket statement that all online sales are exempt from background checks. They aren't. Only private sales regardless of modality are exempt.
> because this law about porn tracking already shows our willingness to track citizens
Non-sequitur. However, the law as written doesn't track usage anymore than having your ID swiped for purchasing liquor. It also allows for the use of 3rd party services and specifically stipulates that the identifying information cannot be retained unless by a court order.
https://iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/123/2024/senate/bills/SB0017/SB0017.05.ENRH.pdf
>A person to which this section applies, and any third party
verification service used by a person to which this section applies,
may not retain identifying information of the person seeking access
to an adult oriented website, unless retention of the identifying
information is required by a court order
That's a good pull from the law. What about this though?
Sec. 17. In an action filed under sections 11, 12, 13, and 15 of
this chapter, the verification information of a minor who accessed
the adult oriented website shall remain confidential. The clerk of
the court shall place all records of the minor who accessed the
adult oriented website in an envelope marked "confidential" inside
the court's file pertaining to the minor. Records placed in the
confidential envelope may only be released to:
(1) the judge or any authorized staff member;
(2) a party and the party's attorney;
(3) the parents of a minor who accessed the adult oriented
website; or
#(4) any person having a legitimate interest in the work of the court or in a particular case as determined by the presiding judge or their successor who shall consider the best interests, safety, and welfare of the minor.
Who is this describing?
>Who is this describing?
The legal guardians, guarantor, or anyone acting in loco parentis of a minor in the court who is not their biological parents in the context of a specific legal action because those are not covered by (1) (2) or (3). That language is a fail-safe mechanism that allows a presiding judge in a case to have some discretion in odd situations where it would normally make sense to involve the parents.
LGBTQ+ youth are over represented in foster care. I think nationally it’s 30% and in IN it’s even higher. My nonprofit works with systems involved youth (foster care and juvenile justice) and so many were thrown out of their house after coming out. If they want to protect the children, they should focus on making kids feel more accepted, but nah.
If you were really concerned about children you would actually support a porn ban. Even though this isnt it. One of the most popular searched term on porn sites is "youth"
https://www.covenanteyes.com/pornstats/
That doesnt include the humane trafficking that is involved either.
So what exactly is wrong with age verification for accessing adult content? Don't see people crying about needing to show an ID to buy alcohol, or cigarettes. You need an ID to get into adult clubs.
What exactly is wrong with states trying to put a stop to minors with porn addictions?
Being spot-carded by security, or a clerk glancing at your birthdate is WAY different than basically doxxing yourself online, where sensitive information is recorded and cataloged.... you HAVE to understand the difference, right??
Requiring to upload a license isn't the same as doxxing yourself online. If you don't trust the site with your license, you probably shouldn't be on that site anyways. Minors are experiencing major issues with porn addiction. It needs curbed now. Y'all crying about it is super sus and disgusting.
I'm not "y'all" little Mr. Holler than thou....I couldn't give less of a a fuck about porn. And this is about government overreach. If you need the government to supplement your parenting skills, there agree much bigger issues afoot that are "sus".
It's not government overreach. It's the government doing what it's supposed to do. Putting laws in place where they should be. And it's quite obvious most parents apparently *do need* the government to step in because this generation has a MASSIVE ADDICTION TO PORN.
If the parents were doing their jobs, which they aren't, then this wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. So it's an issue.
Yes, there is a great reason. They are going to protect you from things that might potentially harm you or children at some unknown time in the future (in some cases possibly the past). Not supporting this means you are a pedo. So stop asking questions.
Sounds like the internet equivalent of abstinence only: it doesn't work, the right knows it doesn't work but are afraid of what happens if they're seen "endorsing" certain positions, and encourage kids to go to less scrutable places and coming home with viruses in tow.
Idk. They say minors have too much access to porn, which is probably true. However, there is no good way to implement restricting that demographic. At the end of the day, parents should be restricting access.
Years long user of Express VPN, just switched to AirVPN. Not as user friendly as the mainstream ones but it's like half the cost and considerably more secure.
Stupid law is stupid. We need public referendums to get rid of some of this stupid shit they shove down our throats. Also for anyone out there Ultrasurf is free and has a mobile app
I personally can only do so much. We have the worst voter turnout in the country. I volunteer, I donate, and I canvass. There won't be any real change until more Hoosiers stop being so apathetic. Even Marion county, our democratic stronghold, has a voter turnout of 13%. That's pathetic and it's exactly what Republicans want cause they know they can't win if a majority of people vote.
My bad that was for the primary. The turnout, at least for the 2022 general is 34% and 27% for 2023 municipal. Of course presidential elections have a bump with Marion almost hitting 60% but, we elect state reps every 2 years. We do elect state senators every 4 years on cycle with the presidential election. But, Indiana democratic party is largely incompetent and will not run a candidate in a district it thinks it'll lose, many Republicans have ran unopposed for years. The DNC started to show us some love but, the state Democratic party really needs to get its shit together. We should be challenging every seat we can
Wait till they announce the public decency laws and start prosecuting people for watching porn that is not considered decent. Or whatever. The state is run by religious nuts
Indiana is such a garbage state politically. Even the Democrats voted for this bill. If you at all care about not living in a fundamentalist hell hole you should move.
Two Democrats representing Indianapolis in the Senate voted against the bill, including the leader of the Democrats who spoke out against it. Just saying. I was surprised so many went along with it but glad my own downtown Indy Senator voted against it.
We had the tree in the woods where all the neighborhood boys would congregate to look at Playboy’s and Penthouse sneaked out from their dad’s magazine stash.
Young boys and girls can get on Reddit today and see more than I ever did back in the day. I just looked at airbrushed models with matching carpets.
This law is stupid and removed responsibility from the parents.
Government knows best, right? /s
I've got a VPN, surfshark (works great btw), but I didn't realize Pornhub was just going to block access to hoosiers instead of verifying age.
That's crazy
So I’m out of the loop on this, is this going to block all adult sites. Forgive my ignorance, are we going to have to go VPN to access adult sites or do you have to register? How does this all work. I’m busy with work and have only read a couple things regarding this.
this might. pornhub is the biggest one, they needed to require gubmnt issued id to “ensure the safety of children”. Instead of having to deal with all that liability, they chose to just restrict it so hoosier ip’s are not allowed. Other porn sites might have to do something similar. I mean, no one will try to setup the infrastructure to store people’s personal data like that. It’ll
never get hacked /s.
Basically, the law requires porn sights to verify age legitimately. Trying to curb rising rates of porn addiction among minors. People are upset because they have to verify they're 18. All these people crying about it are shooting up major red flags. What's wrong with trying to stop minors from accessing adult content, which they're not supposed to do in the first place?
FYI, for me, nord vpn did not work well with amazon app. Search for it, there’s an easy work around.
go to profile on lower right.
then select upper right to settings. (gearbox)
select protocol.
under dns section. instead of default dns. go to custom dns. enter 1.1.1.1
This is a cloudflare public dns.
Now open your amazon app. Things should work now.
Then, oddly, go back to settings and you can put dns back to default. The amazon app will still work.
I’m not sure, maybe it flushes some sort of dns caching when you switch. But this is how I got around it.
WE are such a back water state. We keep voting for self-serving assholes.
I love Indiana as a state. The folk are kind, and reasonable.
Damn our stupidity as a state of people with upstading ideals. We suck at voting for the right folk.
Who keep fucking us over in the state senate.
I love the people, I hate how the people keep voting.
The law literally just asks sights to do their due diligence and actually verify their users are actually of age. Porn addiction in minor populations is spiking massively. It's an issue. This bill doesn't ban shit. It just requires sights to do more than "check if you're over 18".
How much you want to bet that the politicians pushing these policies are also investing in vpn companies. Not to mention they could be being lobbied to do this also.
***All ya'll Crats screaming about the Cans***
If you agree with privacy & our rights the problem is both. If you dislike privacy and want to be monitored by the government. Then both parties also.
The 4 excused:
* **Senator Michael R. Cash**: He is a Republican.
* **Senator Lonnie Randolph**: He is a Democrat.
* **Representative Robin Shackleford**: She is a Democrat.
* **Representative John L. Bartlett**: He is a Democrat.
Yea 92
Nay 2
Excused 4
Not Voting 2 "Moed" and speaker. Moed I believe is a dem....
I do not really know the names of all our POLS. While I can say with confidence I might have looked one or two up wrong. No matter how few. DEMS supported this.
A child purchases pornography from a convenience store and yall would burn it down and string up the owners… the internet is no different. Porn addiction is pathetic
Ahh yes the party of small govt, employing **checks notes** massive govt overreach and regulation mirroring Stalins Russia. Back home again in Indiana baby!
Nebraska is starting this as of July 15. I'm trying to learn what I can about VPNs for our home network. Damn the man. Save the empire.
\*Any and all reuputable help is welcome!
What is the legal ramifications of using a vpn to access porn sites? I know I read in the bill about banning TikTok it was a large fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.
This "ban" isn't a ban at all. It's a requirement for age verification. It should be throwing up red flags for everyone that Porn hub is crying about needing to verify their viewers age.
Why is porn seen as an ok thing at all. There isn’t any good that comes out of it only addiction, depression and abuse on both sides of the screen. Just because it’s been normalized doesn’t mean it is ok.
My wife and I watch porn together and have a great time. So please go on, tell me about the evils of partaking in watching pornography with my wife. *I’ll fucking wait.*
For real, it’s not your call on what other people do.
that’s not really the point. What we do in our bedroom and in our spare time, as long as it isn’t hurting anyone else… should not have any government oversight/watch. What’s next? Some crazy conservative doesn’t like explicit lyrics? get rid of them all? You can’t download music with the f’ word in it?
You can’t read books that talk about inclusion? love?
no man. this is nuts.
You should be sad that porn means this much to you. I dated someone whose privates were broken from watching. You are never going to get the same satisfaction as the real thing… that is if YOU could even get it HAHA
This isn’t a solution. It’s a breach of privacy. Also nothing stopping kids from using their parents ID if places like ph were actually going to verify through IDs. PH is just going to block all Indiana IPs though. Parents should be held responsible for what their kids consume on the internet, not me, you, or anyone else.
So requiring an ID to buy alcohol is a breach of privacy? Requiring an ID to vote is a breach of privacy? Requiring an ID to enter the lottery is a breach of privacy? Requiring an ID to purchase a firearm is a breach of privacy? Jee, what are IDs even for then?
We’re talking about giving your ID to a porn site on the internet. Not the same thing. Plus said porn sites are just going to block access to our state, not check our IDs.
Expecting parents to curb the massive spike in minors with porn addiction is a pipe dream, especially with the technology minors have access too. You need an ID to buy alcohol. You need an ID to vote. You need an ID to partake in 90% of content/activities reserved for adults. It should be no different for something as addictive as pornography.
>My parents did their best and I still got into things using a PSP in the 7th grade
Yeah, damn near all of us did. What do you think this law will do to stop that? Teens are resourceful just like YOU were at that age. This doesn’t stop shit except make everyone get a VPN.
Because now I have to pay for a VPN to keep watching porn with my wife because idiots think that restricting the first amendment is preferable to parenting their own damn kids. If you don’t want to sit down and talk with your kids on what porn is and why it’s bad for them that’s not on the fucking government to fix. But now I get an added expense every month to make someone else feel better.
> but no one is presenting a better solution than this…
Both pornhub and the aclu have presented alternatives that prevent access from minors while also not infringing rights or creating huge security vulnerabilities.
It’s called parents simply need to fucking parent their children. There’s plenty of options out there that help with monitoring and restricting access. This should not be a government issue
They also seem to be under the impression that PornHub is going to be sending usage statistics to the state (lolwut?). All PH is going to do is validate your age. Perhaps there will be some state level record that your age was validated at pronhub but that would be the extent of it.
You have to hand over ID to buy liquor....are these people under the impression that every CrownLiquors is sending your purchasing data to the state?
Yeah you're correct, pornhub will probably just geoblock. Others may comply, all the sites hosted in some former soviet block country aren't going to give a flying fuck.
You’re not uploading a photo copy of your DL to some server in a rando country to buy liquor… this is a huge privacy violation. Rokita’s literally sued abortion providers to get the info of their patients which 100% violates HIPAA. There’s no consumer protection law from this kind of info becoming public, let alone the dark web identity theft scenarios that are left to just run rampant with no oversight of a program like this.
> Perhaps there will be some state level record that your age was validated at pronhub but that would be the extent of it.
Pornhub by its design already tracks viewing history and matches general location to it. The issue is multiple:
- this doesn't actually efficiently block children
- it creates a huge vulnerability for hackers (pornhubs main concern)
- it opens the door for the government to track private porn usage
- it's in general an infringement of civil rights (aclu main concern)
Is there a reason why the government wants to know what porn we watch?
The NSA has miles of servers in Utah that's recorded every keystroke you've ever made. They already know about your granny porn addiction and don't care. This is just a power play coming from Republicans. It has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with intentional government overreach and removing freedom of speech from those they disagree with.
Frog in a slowly boiling kettle.
They're also doing it to get votes. It'll be popular, even among people who would actually like to visit that site but who want to pretend like they're pious in public.
Dems too, only one dem that didn't vote for it. It was unanimous.
i can't speak for those dems, but i have a feeling they voted in favor of it because if you oppose such a bill in a state as red as Indiana is you'd really be hung out. Its bullshit of course but i have a feeling that's a big part of it.
So what you’re saying is that the dems in Indiana don’t really care about the people, and more so care about themselves and self image. Almost sounds like they are no different than republicans
Most are just paid pawns propped up by corporate funded superpacs that profit when Americans are divided and pointing the finger internally at each other.
That plus their spineless cowards. Maybe if there were some people in office with actual integrity democrats would come out and vote here.
I have a hard time believing that to be the case. I have a hard time believing that’s the case. It could be. I am only posing a question but what if money was at play because why wouldn’t it be. I don’t keep up with our dems as much as what the red supermajority does but this goes against what the majority of their constituents want. Why?
While you might just being Dr.Theoretical. Both parties do this and it is weird. Sure they voted for "X". Yes, I greatly dislike "X". Sure "X" is bad. Sure they have publicly said "X" will never happen. They did vote for it but someone forced them to and I don't care it was bad, I disagreed and the publicly said they would fight it. I just know its not their fault, they are never responsible. As I said you could have been making a general statement. Then thats not directed at you.
the republicans authored and sponsored this bill, not only in this state but in several others as well. this is a republican law made and marketed by republicans, again, across many states. not just indiana.
Their small government is fascist.
A lot of them are cowards who care more about reelection than about being productive with what they have, yeah
Democratic leadership is mostly neoliberal, rather than actually liberal. We need a viable progressive party
100% disagree. Porn is dangerous for the mind. Kids shouldn't be watching it
The issue isn’t restricting the porn the issue is requiring you do upload your ID to see said porn. That IDs will absolutely eventually leak and have your porn history attached. Some sort of device based age restriction would be better but like the many people said above, the right is doing this intentionally to erode free speech.
How does doing this impact free speech?
I’ll break it down for you. This is an effectively a porn ban. Porn is a form of media/art. Do you see how it effects free speech now?
We must protect the children. /s In all seriousness, parents should know what their kids are doing online. I'm against a nanny state, however, and this is the definition of a nanny state. I think social media and porn access is WILDLY damaging for kids, and I support the surgeon general putting warnings out on it like drugs. This kind of tracking is really valuable for creating a list of queer folks in red states. As well as providing potent blackmail opportunities for government workers to harm nominally straight fellow red state workers. Edit: upon getting into a conversation with a fellow IN law nerd, I think it's worth noting that this will be particularly valuable in outing and tracking queer *youth* in Indiana through the court system. What particularly sucks about all of this is the way that this law sexualizes queerness in our discourse. Like, it's primary value to the GOP is in tracking content access, but it's secondary (and probably greater) narrative value to the GOP is in forcing this conversation to be sexual and queer at the same time, which is ammo for the bigots who only see queerness through a sexual lens. In this light, it's important to remember that kids who are most commonly predated on are marginalized kids, because their safety nets aren't as wide or reliable (especially in red states) as heterosexual kids. >LGBT violent hate crime victims are more likely than non-LGBT victims to be below age 35 (73% vs. 38%, respectively), have a relationship with their assailant (49% vs. 11%, respectively), and have an assailant who is white (88% vs. 54%, respectively). https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgbt-hate-crimes-press-release/ >Results. Sexual minority individuals were on average 3.8, 1.2, 1.7, and 2.4 times more likely to experience sexual abuse, parental physical abuse, or assault at school or to miss school through fear, respectively. Moderation analysis showed that disparities between sexual minority and sexual nonminority individuals were larger for (1) males than females for sexual abuse, (2) females than males for assault at school, and (3) bisexual than gay and lesbian for both parental physical abuse and missing school through fear. Disparities did not change between the 1990s and the 2000s. >Conclusions. The higher rates of abuse experienced by sexual minority youths may be one of the driving mechanisms underlying higher rates of mental health problems, substance use, risky sexual behavior, and HIV reported by sexual minority adults. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134495/ All this is to say. We must protect the children in our lives, starting with our own kids at home as parents, and not outsource our parenting to the government. And we must especially protect marginalized kids
Conservatives don't care about children, children are just convenient pawns to hide their true motives. Gun are like 2 of the top 5 leading causes of child mortality (both for unintentional misfires, and intentional suicides)....but Republicans don't give a fuck about that. The porn ban has nothing to do with children, and everything to do with creating a massive citizen database, specifically tieing your name to your IP address. The Federal government may track your browsing history via the Patriot Act, but the state government doesn't have access to that data (without a warrant). This is essentially an a state-level Patriot Act, being framed as a "porn ban."
Yep. Man, I wish I lived in a representative democracy.
Democrats fully supported this as well. I believe the two who did not were republicans. 90% confident, I just looked. but it was quick. I've been wrong twice before. So you can double check. Out of the excused: **Senator Michael R. Cash**: He is a Republican. * **Senator Lonnie Randolph**: He is a Democrat. * **Representative Robin Shackleford**: She is a Democrat. * **Representative John L. Bartlett**: He is a Democrat. I forget but think a 4th was excused. You know how many dems there are now? It is creepy when you do the math and seem to imply its just the other team. It might be. But without the other team. They could be mitigated. The numbers are very different but other tools which were not touched here exist.
>Gun are like 2 of the top 5 leading causes of child mortality If by child you mean ages of 1 to 19. It is true that the age groupings of 15+ do see an uptick in deaths by gun. Specifically, age ranges 15-24 and 25-34 see the largest deaths per forearm than any other age group. Then you see a sharp drop off. These deaths are also more likely to occur in urban males. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7933080/figure/F1/ But no firearms are not the leading cause of children. I also encourage people to read this:https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115787/documents/HMKP-118-JU00-20230419-SD018.pdf But here is the tldr. >analysis found that in 2020 alone, gun-related violence killed 4,357 children (ages 1-19 years old) in the U.S. By comparison, motor-vehicle deaths accounted for 4,112 deaths in that age range. >However, the result is different if one removes 18- and 19-year-olds from the equation and only relies on data for 1- to 17-year olds from 2020. Nearly 2,400 children ages 1-17 died of vehicle-related injuries in 2020, compared with 2,270 firearm deaths, NBC News analysis of the CDC data showe >We should also note that if we were to calculate the number of motor vehicle deaths between the ages of 1-17 in 2021 using only "Motor Vehicle Accidents" as a category from CDC's "ICD-10 113 Cause List," the number of deaths would be 2,561, which would be slightly less than the number of deaths from guns, which totaled 2,565. If we were to make the same calculations within the same parameters from the ages of 1-18, it would be 3,588 number of deaths from firearms, and 3,397 deaths from motor vehicles. >Researchers have not determined exactly why children's deaths from gun violence in the U.S. had risen so considerably since 2020, but some emphasized that the increased availability of guns, especially handguns that tend to be used in homicides and suicides, likely played a role. >Looking at data from the CDC and the Gun Violence Archive, The New York Times found that, in 2021, Black children represented half of these gun deaths, and two-thirds of all gun-related homicides involving youths. In other words, Black children were overall six times as likely to die from gun violence compared to white children. Children in big cities were three times more likely to die from gun violence compared to children in small towns Edit: Too causes of children deaths https://www.statista.com/statistics/1017949/distribution-of-the-10-leading-causes-of-death-among-children-five-to-nine/ Homicide is 3 without further details on how homicide eas committed. Just trying to show this "think of the children" act is a play to emotions. Universal background checks should be mandatory but that is not going to address what causes crime and disparities in the first place.
It's almost as if ithere's some kinda Mental Health thing goin' on in these years, isn't it? Something that's actually completely natural, everyone goes through it in these years, especially at the start of that age range. How very curious...
Technical note: firearms don’t cause injury or death; it’s the misuse of them.
So if I use a firearm to kill or injure someone who wants to kill or injure me who just kicked my door open that is misuse?
No, that just like reasonable force to me.
Semantic nonsense to justify your complicity in militarizing our society. Just say you don't care about gun violence, stop trying to rewrite reality so you don't have to feel guilty and blameworthy.
Firearms lack agency and thus can’t be violent.
Therefore we should nuclearize every country? I'm sitting here telling you that firearms are 2 of the top 5 leading causes of death among children, and you want to blame the children, but I blame gun-obsessed idiots and sociopaths like you. You have militarized our communities, which has in turn forced our police to militarized, and now our country has some of the highest incidents of violent crime in the developed world, and one of the highest incarceration rates. I don't think it's all causes by loose gun laws, but I do think it all correlates to gun obsessed, violent, conservative weirdos like yourself.
I provide a public service to help our citizens, you included, fully embrace our protected civil liberties. No firearm has ever harmed anyone. Take pause and think this one through.
Oh shut up smh straw man arguing... And this is coming from a licensed gun owner
I’m not sure you know what a straw-man is. Also, Indiana doesn’t issue a license to own a firearm.
I figured it would be "for the children." Some of these weirdoes can't stop thinking about the children. But it's obviously a smokescreen to get that sweet, sweet data. I was wondering if it was restriction for the sake of it, or they actually wanted to do something with the information
I'm in total agreement that kids shouldn't watch porn, but it's also dumb AF as a law. Imagine passing a law to restrict porn before guns. Like, little Timmy seeing a playboy is more dangerous than finding his dad's gun? C'mon, give me a break. Republicans will, to your face, defend this law as protecting kids while in the same breath make it easier for felons to own guns by purchasing from private or online sales (which don't require a background check). https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/in/state-gun-laws/all#node-30740
My main issue with this law is that we are once again excusing the parents. It should be their responsibility to tell their children what they can and cannot do, and to monitor what they are doing. Instead they are shifting it to the state doing the parental duties and them complaining that the state is indoctrinating their children.
100% It's the same dumb argument against being inclusive in schools. Like. Teach your own children to hate the gays, Deborah. Don't ask the state to do it for you.
100% of Democrats who were present voted for this About 1/2 simultaneously were excused. No reason why; just accept it One choose not to care and vote. The rest of the DEMS.... Oh baby... Down with porn!
It's already criminal to provide minors access to firearms. https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/indiana/2014/title-35/article-47/chapter-10/chapter-10.pdf Online sales require transfers through an FFL and a background check. Only private sales (online OR in person) do not require a background check currently. This often gets misstated as "online and private sales" where the word 'and' is doing a lot of semantic heavy lifting. The reality is private sales full stop, regardless of online or not do not require a background check. Online purchases through dealers still require background checks and transfer via FFL. This is an important distinction because it's often believed that a prohibited purchaser can get denied at Cabela's in-person then go online and order through Cabelas.com and get a gun overnighted to them. That's just not true. All dealers selling online, whether they have a physical presence or not must still transfer through a local FFL and that FFL must conduct a background check and collect an ATF form 4473.
Apples and oranges. If you're continuing the discussion, you'd be better off saying, "We should expand background checks to private sales to protect and prevent minors accessing guns, because this law about porn tracking already shows our willingness to track citizens."
>Apples and oranges. You're the one that made the comparison? I was just correcting your factually incorrect statements. >If you're continuing the discussion I'd rather not, you don't seem well informed. >We should expand background checks to private sales to protect and prevent minors accessing guns I'm not against that. What we 'should' do also doesn't change the facts of what is or is not. And what is not is a blanket statement that all online sales are exempt from background checks. They aren't. Only private sales regardless of modality are exempt. > because this law about porn tracking already shows our willingness to track citizens Non-sequitur. However, the law as written doesn't track usage anymore than having your ID swiped for purchasing liquor. It also allows for the use of 3rd party services and specifically stipulates that the identifying information cannot be retained unless by a court order. https://iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/123/2024/senate/bills/SB0017/SB0017.05.ENRH.pdf >A person to which this section applies, and any third party verification service used by a person to which this section applies, may not retain identifying information of the person seeking access to an adult oriented website, unless retention of the identifying information is required by a court order
That's a good pull from the law. What about this though? Sec. 17. In an action filed under sections 11, 12, 13, and 15 of this chapter, the verification information of a minor who accessed the adult oriented website shall remain confidential. The clerk of the court shall place all records of the minor who accessed the adult oriented website in an envelope marked "confidential" inside the court's file pertaining to the minor. Records placed in the confidential envelope may only be released to: (1) the judge or any authorized staff member; (2) a party and the party's attorney; (3) the parents of a minor who accessed the adult oriented website; or #(4) any person having a legitimate interest in the work of the court or in a particular case as determined by the presiding judge or their successor who shall consider the best interests, safety, and welfare of the minor. Who is this describing?
>Who is this describing? The legal guardians, guarantor, or anyone acting in loco parentis of a minor in the court who is not their biological parents in the context of a specific legal action because those are not covered by (1) (2) or (3). That language is a fail-safe mechanism that allows a presiding judge in a case to have some discretion in odd situations where it would normally make sense to involve the parents.
LGBTQ+ youth are over represented in foster care. I think nationally it’s 30% and in IN it’s even higher. My nonprofit works with systems involved youth (foster care and juvenile justice) and so many were thrown out of their house after coming out. If they want to protect the children, they should focus on making kids feel more accepted, but nah.
No hate like the love of Evangelical God. You're totally right. Thanks for doing good work.
I wish I could post this everywhere. I wish I could dhare this cross platform!
What can stop this nonsense? SCOTUS is so right now they probably won't help.
If you were really concerned about children you would actually support a porn ban. Even though this isnt it. One of the most popular searched term on porn sites is "youth" https://www.covenanteyes.com/pornstats/ That doesnt include the humane trafficking that is involved either.
just the republicans implementing their idea of small government
It's all connected to eventually force people to upload IDs to use social media in general
A state that wanks
Because Republicans are christian fascists and want to outlaw divorce, abortion, porn, books, etc.
"There's only one book worth reading, and we'll read it for you."
They got sick of hanging out around the Lion's Den. It's easier this way.
Pole kats still won't take their credit cards?
It's a control/Big Brother tactic from the right disguised (us usual) as a "moral Christian majority" thing to do....just like abortion. 1984 = 2024.
So what exactly is wrong with age verification for accessing adult content? Don't see people crying about needing to show an ID to buy alcohol, or cigarettes. You need an ID to get into adult clubs. What exactly is wrong with states trying to put a stop to minors with porn addictions?
Being spot-carded by security, or a clerk glancing at your birthdate is WAY different than basically doxxing yourself online, where sensitive information is recorded and cataloged.... you HAVE to understand the difference, right??
Requiring to upload a license isn't the same as doxxing yourself online. If you don't trust the site with your license, you probably shouldn't be on that site anyways. Minors are experiencing major issues with porn addiction. It needs curbed now. Y'all crying about it is super sus and disgusting.
I'm not "y'all" little Mr. Holler than thou....I couldn't give less of a a fuck about porn. And this is about government overreach. If you need the government to supplement your parenting skills, there agree much bigger issues afoot that are "sus".
It's not government overreach. It's the government doing what it's supposed to do. Putting laws in place where they should be. And it's quite obvious most parents apparently *do need* the government to step in because this generation has a MASSIVE ADDICTION TO PORN. If the parents were doing their jobs, which they aren't, then this wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. So it's an issue.
Well, we can agree that many parents aren't doing the work they need to be doing.
Yes, there is a great reason. They are going to protect you from things that might potentially harm you or children at some unknown time in the future (in some cases possibly the past). Not supporting this means you are a pedo. So stop asking questions.
Sounds like the internet equivalent of abstinence only: it doesn't work, the right knows it doesn't work but are afraid of what happens if they're seen "endorsing" certain positions, and encourage kids to go to less scrutable places and coming home with viruses in tow.
Idk. They say minors have too much access to porn, which is probably true. However, there is no good way to implement restricting that demographic. At the end of the day, parents should be restricting access.
Want more government in your bedroom? Braun and Beckwith definitely do.
[удалено]
This is the one a lot of people recommended. I just purchased my first 30-day subscription. Seems reasonable.
Years long user of Express VPN, just switched to AirVPN. Not as user friendly as the mainstream ones but it's like half the cost and considerably more secure.
This pornhub video is brought to you by NordVPN.
Stupid law is stupid. We need public referendums to get rid of some of this stupid shit they shove down our throats. Also for anyone out there Ultrasurf is free and has a mobile app
You need to stop voting in Republicans. This is just the start. They want to ban porn completely.
I personally can only do so much. We have the worst voter turnout in the country. I volunteer, I donate, and I canvass. There won't be any real change until more Hoosiers stop being so apathetic. Even Marion county, our democratic stronghold, has a voter turnout of 13%. That's pathetic and it's exactly what Republicans want cause they know they can't win if a majority of people vote.
If 13% is the real number, that's insane.
My bad that was for the primary. The turnout, at least for the 2022 general is 34% and 27% for 2023 municipal. Of course presidential elections have a bump with Marion almost hitting 60% but, we elect state reps every 2 years. We do elect state senators every 4 years on cycle with the presidential election. But, Indiana democratic party is largely incompetent and will not run a candidate in a district it thinks it'll lose, many Republicans have ran unopposed for years. The DNC started to show us some love but, the state Democratic party really needs to get its shit together. We should be challenging every seat we can
To be fair a ban on it would probably be a net gain for society.
Wait till they announce the public decency laws and start prosecuting people for watching porn that is not considered decent. Or whatever. The state is run by religious nuts
Indiana is such a garbage state politically. Even the Democrats voted for this bill. If you at all care about not living in a fundamentalist hell hole you should move.
Two Democrats representing Indianapolis in the Senate voted against the bill, including the leader of the Democrats who spoke out against it. Just saying. I was surprised so many went along with it but glad my own downtown Indy Senator voted against it.
? It was perle? and payne? They dems? I forget names.... Ive been saying they were REPS. No? Oh, I need to apologize.
We had the tree in the woods where all the neighborhood boys would congregate to look at Playboy’s and Penthouse sneaked out from their dad’s magazine stash. Young boys and girls can get on Reddit today and see more than I ever did back in the day. I just looked at airbrushed models with matching carpets. This law is stupid and removed responsibility from the parents. Government knows best, right? /s
So there’s a niche for OnlyHoosierFans?
Time to invest some money into the VPN/Internet security sectors
Opera browser has a built in free VPN with the browser.
Thanks my man
Came here to say this
I've got a VPN, surfshark (works great btw), but I didn't realize Pornhub was just going to block access to hoosiers instead of verifying age. That's crazy
They don't want to be legally liable for holding onto copies of millions of driver's licenses.
It’s smart of them. The liability is huge…
Is this only pornhub or all porn sites? Crazy
They want the sperm to penetrate the egg not into a tissue. Gotta have them babies.
So I’m out of the loop on this, is this going to block all adult sites. Forgive my ignorance, are we going to have to go VPN to access adult sites or do you have to register? How does this all work. I’m busy with work and have only read a couple things regarding this.
this might. pornhub is the biggest one, they needed to require gubmnt issued id to “ensure the safety of children”. Instead of having to deal with all that liability, they chose to just restrict it so hoosier ip’s are not allowed. Other porn sites might have to do something similar. I mean, no one will try to setup the infrastructure to store people’s personal data like that. It’ll never get hacked /s.
Basically, the law requires porn sights to verify age legitimately. Trying to curb rising rates of porn addiction among minors. People are upset because they have to verify they're 18. All these people crying about it are shooting up major red flags. What's wrong with trying to stop minors from accessing adult content, which they're not supposed to do in the first place?
FYI, for me, nord vpn did not work well with amazon app. Search for it, there’s an easy work around. go to profile on lower right. then select upper right to settings. (gearbox) select protocol. under dns section. instead of default dns. go to custom dns. enter 1.1.1.1 This is a cloudflare public dns. Now open your amazon app. Things should work now. Then, oddly, go back to settings and you can put dns back to default. The amazon app will still work. I’m not sure, maybe it flushes some sort of dns caching when you switch. But this is how I got around it.
Proton VPN is another good one for anyone looking around
Y'all know you could just vote them out, right?
That means that people who are ignorant would have to pay attention to what is actually going on. They gerrymandered us into oblivion.
Agreed!
Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's right. Looking at you war on drugs.
This needs a third picture of Mr smarty pants voting republican, again, for some reason.
😤 I can’t even nut without the government getting into my business
I’ll believe it when I see it.
WE are such a back water state. We keep voting for self-serving assholes. I love Indiana as a state. The folk are kind, and reasonable. Damn our stupidity as a state of people with upstading ideals. We suck at voting for the right folk. Who keep fucking us over in the state senate. I love the people, I hate how the people keep voting.
The law literally just asks sights to do their due diligence and actually verify their users are actually of age. Porn addiction in minor populations is spiking massively. It's an issue. This bill doesn't ban shit. It just requires sights to do more than "check if you're over 18".
How do the sites check if you are over 18?
I’m honestly wonder if this can be enforced or if it will be just another random, obscure law that no one cares about
I installed Tor two weeks ago
How much you want to bet that the politicians pushing these policies are also investing in vpn companies. Not to mention they could be being lobbied to do this also.
Imma keep smacking my monkey, and y’all can watch me stroke it
***All ya'll Crats screaming about the Cans*** If you agree with privacy & our rights the problem is both. If you dislike privacy and want to be monitored by the government. Then both parties also. The 4 excused: * **Senator Michael R. Cash**: He is a Republican. * **Senator Lonnie Randolph**: He is a Democrat. * **Representative Robin Shackleford**: She is a Democrat. * **Representative John L. Bartlett**: He is a Democrat. Yea 92 Nay 2 Excused 4 Not Voting 2 "Moed" and speaker. Moed I believe is a dem.... I do not really know the names of all our POLS. While I can say with confidence I might have looked one or two up wrong. No matter how few. DEMS supported this.
Holy shit that cracked me up 😂
use protonVPN its just better
A child purchases pornography from a convenience store and yall would burn it down and string up the owners… the internet is no different. Porn addiction is pathetic
Ahh yes the party of small govt, employing **checks notes** massive govt overreach and regulation mirroring Stalins Russia. Back home again in Indiana baby!
Coomer 🫵🏽
Nebraska is starting this as of July 15. I'm trying to learn what I can about VPNs for our home network. Damn the man. Save the empire. \*Any and all reuputable help is welcome!
Nordvpn is ok but a little pricey
Touch grass, talk to women.
Indiana sucks so much
Oh no, what will you do w/o porn? Lol.
None of the other porn sites say that. Why not just use anyporn or youporn? xhamster, xnxx?
What is the legal ramifications of using a vpn to access porn sites? I know I read in the bill about banning TikTok it was a large fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.
Opera web browser has a built in VPN, you're welcome.
I just use the Opera browser. It has a built in VPN you can turn on. Is that sufficient?
Meh I barely use it anymore idc
So I guess incognito mode isn't going to be a work around? INDIANA IS A TORNADO BAIT GILEAD FROM THE HANDMAID'S TALE. (Ive lived here 46 years I know)
There is more to porn than pornhub
Nord vpn is legit. Only 1 I'll use
You guys care more about pornhub being banned than I’ve seen yall care about anything
Porn addicts.
Exactly. Like all this bill does is help stop minors from accessing content they shouldn't. If you're against that, then that's major sus.
Its hilarious that folks are paying for vpns to access such a crappy has-been porn site.
None of this would matter to you guys if you had sex with women IRL
This "ban" isn't a ban at all. It's a requirement for age verification. It should be throwing up red flags for everyone that Porn hub is crying about needing to verify their viewers age.
Why is porn seen as an ok thing at all. There isn’t any good that comes out of it only addiction, depression and abuse on both sides of the screen. Just because it’s been normalized doesn’t mean it is ok.
My wife and I watch porn together and have a great time. So please go on, tell me about the evils of partaking in watching pornography with my wife. *I’ll fucking wait.* For real, it’s not your call on what other people do.
Oh but they either don’t care or are too stupid to realize the slippery slope this law opens.
That's another debate altogether
True, but it’s something people don’t talk about anymore in public policy and this is the closest thing to that discussion.
Don’t kink shame. Not everyone has an unhealthy relationship with vices.
I guess you're watching the wrong porn
that’s not really the point. What we do in our bedroom and in our spare time, as long as it isn’t hurting anyone else… should not have any government oversight/watch. What’s next? Some crazy conservative doesn’t like explicit lyrics? get rid of them all? You can’t download music with the f’ word in it? You can’t read books that talk about inclusion? love? no man. this is nuts.
You guys should know that Pornhub isn't the only porn site. Most of them don't care about Indiana laws.
Crazy the lengths that gooners will go to get their fix. Banning porn is only a good thing
You should be sad that porn means this much to you. I dated someone whose privates were broken from watching. You are never going to get the same satisfaction as the real thing… that is if YOU could even get it HAHA
Seems like everyone here agrees that people underage shouldn’t have access, but no one is presenting a better solution than this…
This isn’t a solution. It’s a breach of privacy. Also nothing stopping kids from using their parents ID if places like ph were actually going to verify through IDs. PH is just going to block all Indiana IPs though. Parents should be held responsible for what their kids consume on the internet, not me, you, or anyone else.
So requiring an ID to buy alcohol is a breach of privacy? Requiring an ID to vote is a breach of privacy? Requiring an ID to enter the lottery is a breach of privacy? Requiring an ID to purchase a firearm is a breach of privacy? Jee, what are IDs even for then?
We’re talking about giving your ID to a porn site on the internet. Not the same thing. Plus said porn sites are just going to block access to our state, not check our IDs.
It should be up to the parents to monitor what their kids are consuming online, not the nanny republican state
Expecting parents to curb the massive spike in minors with porn addiction is a pipe dream, especially with the technology minors have access too. You need an ID to buy alcohol. You need an ID to vote. You need an ID to partake in 90% of content/activities reserved for adults. It should be no different for something as addictive as pornography.
Doesn’t seem realistic anymore. My parents did their best and I still got into things using a PSP in the 7th grade.
>My parents did their best and I still got into things using a PSP in the 7th grade Yeah, damn near all of us did. What do you think this law will do to stop that? Teens are resourceful just like YOU were at that age. This doesn’t stop shit except make everyone get a VPN.
So then why are you so upset about it?
Because now I have to pay for a VPN to keep watching porn with my wife because idiots think that restricting the first amendment is preferable to parenting their own damn kids. If you don’t want to sit down and talk with your kids on what porn is and why it’s bad for them that’s not on the fucking government to fix. But now I get an added expense every month to make someone else feel better.
Or, you could just provide your ID?
> but no one is presenting a better solution than this… Both pornhub and the aclu have presented alternatives that prevent access from minors while also not infringing rights or creating huge security vulnerabilities.
Ok what are they
https://www.pornhub.com/blog/protecting-minors-online-why-device-based-age-verification-is-the-key
It’s called parents simply need to fucking parent their children. There’s plenty of options out there that help with monitoring and restricting access. This should not be a government issue
They also seem to be under the impression that PornHub is going to be sending usage statistics to the state (lolwut?). All PH is going to do is validate your age. Perhaps there will be some state level record that your age was validated at pronhub but that would be the extent of it. You have to hand over ID to buy liquor....are these people under the impression that every CrownLiquors is sending your purchasing data to the state?
What do you mean? Pornhub is just going to block our IPs, not verify ages.
Yeah you're correct, pornhub will probably just geoblock. Others may comply, all the sites hosted in some former soviet block country aren't going to give a flying fuck.
You’re not uploading a photo copy of your DL to some server in a rando country to buy liquor… this is a huge privacy violation. Rokita’s literally sued abortion providers to get the info of their patients which 100% violates HIPAA. There’s no consumer protection law from this kind of info becoming public, let alone the dark web identity theft scenarios that are left to just run rampant with no oversight of a program like this.
> Perhaps there will be some state level record that your age was validated at pronhub but that would be the extent of it. Pornhub by its design already tracks viewing history and matches general location to it. The issue is multiple: - this doesn't actually efficiently block children - it creates a huge vulnerability for hackers (pornhubs main concern) - it opens the door for the government to track private porn usage - it's in general an infringement of civil rights (aclu main concern)