Just wondering if there were any reactions on either side to the recent news that because of a law Utah passed (the law didn't ban porn, it had to do with age verification requirements), Pornhub, which you know you've been on, has blocked access to their website in Utah. Perhaps coincidentally, and this is true, the searches in Utah on google are showing a significant uptick in VPN searches :).
Pornhub and Utah
Posts
Total:
56
Morally? Porn is bad for society. In addition to the age requirement issues the law is meant to address, there's so much human trafficking that's connected to it, and I don't think it's properly regulated. There's no way to tell the difference between consensually uploaded and nonconsensually uploaded content. Less people watching porn, just because it's difficult to access, is probably a net gain, even if the decline is somewhat mitigated by VPN use. I don't think porn should be illegal if properly regulated, because of freedom of expression, but we have no reason to believe the government is properly avoiding the human trafficking issue right now or really has any idea how much of an issue it is. That's quite worrying. Prostitution is banned in most places, but it seems easier to regulate than porn, at least. Something distributed on the internet is harder to track. It's also not great that 8 year olds have easy access to something that may be harmful and highly addictive—and even if it doesn't meet the scientific bar for "addiction", heavy porn use certainly functions very similarly to addiction in many ways.
Legally? The law is poorly written and doesn't address the main issues with the current system, although it probably weakens the porn industry, which is a net gain for society. It's a bad precedent though with regard to freedom of speech since it sets an unreasonable standard for proving the age of the viewer when lesser regulations would probably suffice. And there's also freedom of expression to consider, since the majority of content being restricted is probably being viewed by adults and not from human trafficking.
There's more explicit content online than anyone could watch in 10 lifetimes. Supply isn't much of an issue. As such, I think the government would be justified in heavily limiting the production of new content to be certain it's not obtained illegally.
-->
@Savant
In what route should/could govt. ban or have greater control over porn?
Would anything like taxes/fees decrease use or access?
Would anything like taxes/fees decrease use or access?
-->
@Savant
I would support the ban on porn.
I started watching porn when I was like 7. It didnt harm me, but I would say I wasted lots of time over something that didnt really help me in life. It simply doesnt make a person more happier than a person would be if he didnt watch porn. I would even dare to say it makes person feel worse after some time.
-->
@Savant
there's so much human trafficking that's connected to it, and I don't think it's properly regulated. There's no way to tell the difference between consensually uploaded and nonconsensually uploaded content.
Agree here entirely. I've made the decision that I'd rather pay a site that has actual non-porn star people in relationships having sex, I find it much less objectionable. I'm not sure I agree that porn is bad for society as a principle, because it's been around literally since the first dick drawing was probably about six seconds after a cave man figured out how to draw on a cave wall, but I definitely think it's a little darker now than it used to be.
-->
@hey-yo
In order to upload content you'd need a government approved license and photo ID based on signing something in person at a government office. That's one way.
I have a different angle, you mentioned VPNs. That's what I would point out, internet use can't be controlled. Not unless the internet is re-engineered from the ground up and that won't happen because there is not consensus on that.
It's not a question of what you do or do not what on the internet, it's only a question of how quickly decentralized hosting and economics takes over the world. Today it's VPNs which can themselves be attacked by a government.
The harder the government pushes the faster they'll accelerate to the choice between cutting of the internet in general or having their laws violated without consequence.
From a purely strategic point of view it's better to pretend you're liberal but disapproving than to demonstrate you are powerless.
A 2004 JAMA study was among the first to suggest a modifiable risk factor, finding “high ejaculation frequency” may be associated with lower risk for prostate cancer. The present research builds upon these findings with the “high quality data” collected from nearly 32,000 men participating in the Health Professionals Follow-up study; the men were followed for a total of 18 years. At the start of the study, men aged 20 to 29 and 40 to 49 were asked to calculate the average number of times they ejaculated per month, including the number of times they ejaculated during the previous year. Researchers then used both averages to compute a lifetime average.
The results showed men who ejaculated at least 21 times a month reduced their risk for prostate cancer by 20 percent compared to men who ejaculated four to seven times a month.
The results showed men who ejaculated at least 21 times a month reduced their risk for prostate cancer by 20 percent compared to men who ejaculated four to seven times a month.
-->
@Savant
In order to upload content you'd need a government approved license and photo ID based on signing something in person at a government office. That's one way
You want the government to controll free speach, maybe nationalize social media?
-->
@Sidewalker
maybe nationalize social media?
They tried that before Musk messed it all up.
-->
@Sidewalker
to controll free speach
I want them to prevent human trafficking, which is not protected by the first amendment.
-->
@Savant
I want them to prevent human trafficking, which is not protected by the first amendment.
Saying too many bad things about Democrats isn't protected either.
-->
@FLRW
The results showed men who ejaculated at least 21 times a month reduced their risk for prostate cancer by 20 percent compared to men who ejaculated four to seven times a month
That's interesting. But I've read another study that claimed prostate massage has better results.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Who could have thought Manga had roots in the healthcare industry!
-->
@Savant
to controll free speachI want them to prevent human trafficking, which is not protected by the first amendment.
That's not what you said, you said the government should control content, here's the statement I was responding to:
"In order to upload content you'd need a government approved license and photo ID based on signing something in person at a government office."
Human trafficking isn't protected by first amendment is a non-sequitur, and duh. Eliminating free speechwon't prevent human trafficking, try something else..
-->
@Sidewalker
the government should control content
Nonconsensual pornographic videos of human trafficking victims are not protected by the first amendment. Neither is any kind of obscenity, actually, but I'm willing to set that point aside in favor of a moral argument. My policy allows any consensual video to be filmed but ensures the content is not illicit. Similar to laws regarding child porn. It's like gay pride parades—they're protected by the first amendment, but you have to go through the proper channels to organize them. Also comparable to gun permits.
-->
@IlDiavolo
The results showed men who ejaculated at least 21 times a month reduced their risk for prostate cancer by 20 percent compared to men who ejaculated four to seven times a monthThat's interesting. But I've read another study that claimed prostate massage has better results.
There are rumors and wives tales that you can ejaculate and massage your prostate without constant access to online porn. Not sure I'd give credit to such quackery though.
-->
@Savant
Similar to laws regarding child porn.
Not really. Uploading child porn is always illegal even with an ID, but it isn't illegal to upload non-child porn until it's proved to be non-child porn.
it's like gay pride parades—they're protected by the first amendment
Thought you said obscenity wasn't protected... JK
Also comparable to gun permits.
So... of extremely questionable constitutionality.
it isn't illegal to upload non-child porn until it's proved to be non-child porn
I get what you're saying with regards to burden of proof—under my system, a permit is required for everyone whereas under the status quo anything without a permit is presumed to be legal. However, I don't think that's an issue with regards to constitutionality. With most other rights, even constitutional ones, it's usually considered reasonable for the government to require some sort of inspection to make sure actions fall within the purview of the law (voter ID, to give another example). Requiring a permit to exercise a particular constitutional right isn't unwarranted if anyone wanting to exercise that right can get a permit.
obscenity wasn't protected... JK
Actually, you're right. By legal precedent, that's a bad example due to possible sexual interpretation, but just apply to other sorts of demonstrations for other political causes.
of extremely questionable constitutionality
Most courts have historically ruled them as constitutional, so that shouldn't be an issue for my proposal. Courts give a lot of discretion if a right isn't outright banned, so they will probably favor me here.
-->
@Best.Korea
I started watching porn when I was like 7.
Not surprised. Not even in the slightest.
-->
@Savant
it's usually considered reasonable for the government to require some sort of inspection to make sure actions fall within the purview of the law (voter ID, to give another example)
I'd say that's a bad analogy. Voting isn't a true right, it's a citizen privilege granted by a particular form of government just like a public road system is a privilege. Now communications infrastructure is a privilege too, but the key difference is that the government is a third party to that interaction (despite what some might claim about the internet being built by the government everything the government may have helped build could be replaced privately in a year).
It's more like going to a store to buy an apple. It might be the government's legitimate role to task investigators and other agents to make sure that apple isn't poisoned, to publish standards for apple names and qualities, to generally fight against fraud; but if they ever say "You got a license for that apple?" they've crossed the line.
Requiring a permit to exercise a particular constitutional right isn't unwarranted if anyone wanting to exercise that right can get a permit.
Spoken like a man who has never tried to build a garage on his own land in an overbearing county (most of them).
Permits to exercise true rights are categorically unethical. It's in the name "permit", you apply to be permitted. Without it you are not permitted. If you have to ask permission it's not a right. As practiced, permits are always the choke point where bureaucracy and oppression pile, there are innumerable examples, so it's not like my objection is technically correct but practically inconsequential.
of extremely questionable constitutionalityMost courts have historically ruled them as constitutional, so that shouldn't be an issue for my proposal. Courts give a lot of discretion if a right isn't outright banned, so they will probably favor me here.
I wasn't saying it was inconsistent with precedent, I'm saying precedent is illogical. You do not have a right to keep and bear arms if you have to ask permission, have to wait 14 months, get denied because of your free speech, take it to the supreme court who sides with you, and then they confiscate the gun a month later.
That is an excellent example of rights being trampled upon and therefore a good reason to reject application of the same 'principles' to speech and expression.
-->
@IlDiavolo
@FLRW
@Savant
Porn and associated industries are big business with a ready market.
And immorality is in the head of the beholder.
So capitalism or moral tyranny?
Once again though, all to do with intellectually acquired hang ups relative to reproductive physiology and the variations and modifications thereof.
Breeding is now only a secondary consideration to recreational sexuality.
As we got cleverer, so we got sillier.
When all one actually needs to do is masturbate 365 times a year.
Or 366 times in a leap year.
Good for the prostate then.
And much simpler that chopping your dick off and calling yourself Daisy.
And much less wear and tear on the anus.
And cheap too.
-->
@Savant
the government should control contentNonconsensual pornographic videos of human trafficking victims are not protected by the first amendment. Neither is any kind of obscenity, actually, but I'm willing to set that point aside in favor of a moral argument. My policy allows any consensual video to be filmed but ensures the content is not illicit. Similar to laws regarding child porn. It's like gay pride parades—they're protected by the first amendment, but you have to go through the proper channels to organize them. Also comparable to gun permits.
Again, duh.
Sure, there is content that is illegal, it's very upsetting, but that is not a reason to eliminate the first amendment and put government in control of content.
-->
@Sidewalker
But if the government censors Trump then it is OK?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In terms of legality, I don't think my proposal would have trouble getting passed. In terms of principle, I think preventing human trafficking is a good thing, and the reduction in liberty is minimal. If you're the kind of libertarian who opposes driver's licenses, you might have a problem with my plan in principle, but practically speaking, it's a good law.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There are rumors and wives tales that you can ejaculate and massage your prostate without constant access to online porn. Not sure I'd give credit to such quackery though.Today's women know how to get what they want, specially with +40yo men. If nothing works, they resort to the finger, that never fails.
😆
-->
@Savant
Well practically speaking it would likely fail as it would be another drop in the bucket pushing towards totally anonymous internet.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If users can find illicit content, so can the police. And most law-abiding citizens would choose to watch legal content over illegal content, so it ensures people don't watch nonconsensual content accidentally.
totally anonymous internet
Tell that to Jared Fogle.
-->
@Savant
If users can find illicit content, so can the police.
Anyone can find, but with the right crypto technology no one can stop or trace.
And most law-abiding citizens would choose to watch legal content over illegal content
Isn't the VPN use lud referred to side stepping the law? The point is that once the government goes too far and people are pushed out into anonymous space it's easier just to upload from there than to do whatever (probably over the top and ridiculous hoops) the government may set for uploading porn.
Maybe all porn will become obsolete with AI deep fakes and this is a non-issue, but the government trying to control internet activity is not going to go away (unless politics changes a lot).
I could easily see a rapid devaluation of the dollar leading to the increasing use of cryptocurrencies for general economics. Government tries to tax the shit out of them since the monopoly money is being used less and less. People move to a fully private coin, they mine in through encrypted proxies and ever increasing number of people fully encrypt all communications using a distributed DNS system.
The only move left for the government is to make it illegal to have encrypted internet traffic, i.e. they read every letter.
It's sometimes hard to explain this to people who aren't familiar with private public encryption technology. You say "get a license to upload", but if that unless that license is required to use the internet in general it becomes useless. Anyone without a license can simply upload the porn anonymously by encrypting it. When it's encrypted you don't know if it's porn or not. Therefore the only way to know that no one without a license is uploading porn is to make encryption illegal.
Now maybe you could try to go after the distribution point (like pornhub) requiring that they only accept porn from license holders; but what happened in Utah? They got the hec out rather than deal with that, knowing damn well nobody is going to go through government bureaucracy for the sake of Utah.
Even if it was all of the USA at the same time, the same thing would happen because the world is bigger than the USA. Every step closer to making encryption illegal will be preempted by ever more effective use of crypto technology and peer-to-peer networks. At the end of the day the government will have to control every chip, i.e. it would be illegal to own a computer chip without a government back door and which is tied to your government identity.
This, like taking away the guns or free speech, is essentially a declaration of war against human liberty and the precursor to an eternal surveillance state so you'll have far more than just porn addicts fighting against it.
So I would suggest that if one is concerned about sex slaves one should work on ways to free said sex slaves. It's not like porn is the #1 reason they're enslaved anyway.
totally anonymous internetTell that to Jared Fogle.
Not sure of the details, but just because planes crashed before the wright brothers doesn't mean planes can't fly.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
once the government goes too far
That's the point. They're not going too far. If a license is easy to get, the vast majority of people won't go outside the law to view illicit content. Why risk getting caught?
with the right crypto technology no one can stop or trace
I don't think anyone has better tech resources than the FBI. Every time scammers think they're one step ahead of the US government, they're not.