upvote
It's all just an effort to control the 90%.
reply
It lawfare against porn. They don't want these companies to exist. They want it to be impossible to comply with the law to shut them down.
reply
It's lawfare against Constitutionally-protected speech. The "for the children" bit is just an appeal to emotion.

/Same as it ever was

reply
It’s to control their Women

Kids are the misdirection

reply
Please elaborate on how a law that targets websites that overwhelmingly skew towards a male audience is designed to “control their women”.
reply
Charitably, outlawing porn would put a lot of women out of work, and place a new limitation on what types of work they can get, and in the process limit what women did with their bodies (on camera, for money). It'd do the same for men too, but as you said the audience is primarily men and the content they're looking for is primarily women. The truth is it would suck for pretty much everybody.
reply
Why are people so upset about porn? It's probably still the biggest portion of internet traffic. Kind of like human nature, don't you think?
reply
Assuming you are really asking, the two largest objections:

- religious/cultural. My beliefs forbid this, it makes people bad/worse in some hard-to-define way, so no one should be allowed to do it. Sometimes with an emphasis that the sellers are luring good people into sin/ruin.

- it harms women. Many of the participants are trafficked or coerced in some way (and further abused). The profits from the industry encourage more of this. It “warps” the mind of men who use it, leading them to mistreat and abuse women.

I see elements of truth in all these, but IMO they are ultimately not compelling, prohibition is unworkable and unduly infringes on willing participants and consumers.

reply
Yeah both of those arguments would work fine for banning religion, but oddly that is shocking to proponents.
reply
I thought the same. People would realistically be thinking "not my religion" but, even if that were true, that is the kind of thinking that leads to conflicts between religions. That can range from racism between individuals, to stuff like this, and even to entire wars. Despite all of this we specifically protect religion, which I'm fine with, but nobody should be forcing their religious beliefs onto others in any way. That has definitely harmed far more people overall.
reply
I would add:

- natalism. Some people worry about inverted demographic pyramids. They want to see more births, so they need more horny guys trying to form relationships instead of being content single. Sometimes there is a racist angle.

- industry. Anything that's "too fun" for young people disincentives education or working.

- addiction. (But people get addicted to shopping or eating dirt too.)

Some arguments against outlawing it include:

- free speech.

- a sizeable fraction of the population wants it to exist.

- better option for economically impoverished women than prostitution.

- societies that suppress it don't really seem better for women, or anyone.

- prohibition of a widely demanded product creates crime (and nothing is easier to smuggle than pure information).

reply
[dead]
reply
deleted
reply
Frankly I believe the whole “warps the mind of men to abuse women” is total nonsense.

I’ve watched plenty of porn in my life, probably a bit more than average. I’ve never done anything out of the norm or unwanted to woman, let alone abuse one.

I think shitty people will be shitty people and it’s just a really easy thing to point at instead of taking responsibility for it. It’s also a convenient plausible sounding correlation for people who already want to ban porn to use.

reply
I’m quite sure porn impacts what is considered “the norm”.
reply
> I’ve never done anything out of the norm or unwanted to woman, let alone abuse one

Yeah the Dworkin contention that porn turns men into rapists has basically been disproven.

But there’s no reason to say “warps the minds of men” has to lean in that direction. Reading forums of young men who have porn addictions and grew up with HD hardcore porn it seems more like the opposite happened, they become more withdrawn, less likely to engage with women enough to develop social skills, less able to perform sexually irl and subject to porn-induced erectile dysfunction. When it was just magazines and socially stigmatized VHS rentals it was unheard of for college aged men to take viagra, now it’s widespread. Arguably warped minds led to this.

reply
> When it was just magazines and socially stigmatized VHS rentals it was unheard of for college aged men to take viagra

In the days of VHS, Viagra wasn’t a thing.

reply
Reminds me of a study[0] I saw recently which concluded that antisocial behaviour from drunk people seems to stem mostly from antisocial people consuming alcohol.

[0] https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/43/2/204/122225?logi...

reply
This reminds me of the whole "playing video games causes violent behavior" stream of thought. Like people, I do not think CounterStrike is real nor do I want to engage in gun battles to the death in real life.
reply
If you change the argument to "can warp the mind of some men", it becomes much harder to falsify.
reply
Right, but only because it becomes vacuously meaningless. For example, your comment can warp the minds of men. As can mine here. As can a blade of grass waving in the wind.
reply
Agreed. It’s like the argument that video games cause shooters.

Umm, I played plenty of GTA growing up and I’ve never stolen a car. People are actually very good at separating fantasy from reality, believe it or not.

reply
For those who aren't good at separating fantasy from reality literally anything can become the source of the voices in their head. Religion is as likely to drive them to violence as a video game would be.
reply
I can see the argument for a “correlation vs causation “ argument, but I’m not a social scientist.
reply
The "porn harms women" argument really seems to infantilize women and assumes that women can never want or enjoy sex for the sake of sex.
reply
This is not the claim. The claim is that, empirically, many (or enough) of the women who end up in porn are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.

I am all for individual freedoms, but I've read enough about this issue, and seen enough documentaries, that I think the claim is very well-founded. Of course, some porn stars are just willing adults doing something they want to do, but there are many who are not.

reply
> of the women who end up in porn are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.

People who believe that are not aware how the industry has changed and the standards attached to that.

Additionally, that wasn't the draw of the industry. Using the "porn/stripping" preys on the poor is a far over simplification and a weasly thing to say.

reply
but you can apply this argument to almost any product or good on the market and get a similar ratio of 'willing participant' and 'pseudo-slavery' involvement. Across the board.

in other words I wouldn't ban oranges because some of the farmers have been found to have been enslaved; instead i'd investigate and penalize the enslavement and crimes taking place.

Similarly : I wouldn't ban pornography on some false pretense that it's to save someone, because quite honestly if I began that boulder rolling it shouldn't stop , every industry victimizes someone; it's a question of stopping and penalizing abuses and preventing victimization, not about regulating broad industries ( a move that worsens human rights violations by moving them into a highly lucrative black market, into the shadows ) .

reply
I never argued to ban pornography, and I'm not in favor of that.

That said, no, it's not like other industries. The amount of well-documented abuse is much higher. Degree matters.

reply
I'd be willing to bet that there are far more people who voluntarily make porn than people who voluntarily work on cocoa farms in Western Africa. Not that the existence of other industries where slavery and abuse are more prevalent make those problems in the porn industry any better, but at the very least a lot of work has been done to limit the amount of abuse in the adult entertainment industry and there are a lot of places where people who are being abused can find help and support, especially here in the US. You're more likely to be supporting slavery and abuse buying a Hershey's Bar or an iphone than by watching a video on pornhub.
reply
Find chocolate that doesn't involve slave labor at some point in it's production and then say that again.
reply
All fast fashion comes from the trafficked or abused workers. All meat comes from the grave abuse of the animals.

It's still sold on the high street and advertised everywhere.

reply
> The claim is that, empirically, many (or enough) of the women who end up in porn are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.

The main point of contention becomes what "enough" constitutes. Almost no women in commercial porn is underage as all countries that legally allow its production also require strict proof of age for the people actually having sex.

reply
deleted
reply
Admittedly hot take, but I think the existence of ubiquitous porn on-demand does take away power from people who would withhold sex as part of a negotiation in a relationship.
reply
I’ve seen two arguments:

Women who do not provide fully informed and voluntarily consent are harmed

Porn makes some (or many, or all) men who consume it treat some (or many, or all) women badly

reply
Some argue it harms all women who participate in, but others argue it harms some women who participate, which seems undeniable.
reply
Almost all activities harm some of the people who participate in them.
reply
True, and this is probably true of all work. Retail work has probably harmed many more women than sex work (by virtue of being much more common).
reply
It also ignores gay porn.
reply
It is amazing how comprehensively gay porn is ignored in these debates which I think supports my argument that the "porn harms women" argument fundamentaly removes female agency.
reply
>Kind of like human nature, don't you think?

That's one reason why traditionists in power usually crack down on any sort of pornography or alternate sexuality. Sex is a huge driver for human behavior. And established power structures would prefer that the only way for anyone to get sex is via compliance with the existing power structures. It's not something where the establishment is ever going to be able to perfectly control things, but if they can make it more difficult to get any sort of sexual gratification that doesn't align with their preferred social structure that gives the establishment an advantage in holding on to power.

reply
They want to protect their local ‘woman’ market, without them having to compete with porn expectations.
reply
The UK is doing it.

Ofcom is investigating PornHub even after PornHub installed age checks as Ofcom claims age checks not “robust” (read: VPN ban). So hand over your id to see porn.

https://x.com/moo9000/status/2102726344975040565?s=20

reply
The UK government is extremely socially conservative when it comes to sex/porn online, and they never let an opportunity to violate privacy rights go to waste.

The rest of the world would be better off to just block the UK from online platforms rather than risky complying with their increasingly insane demands.

reply
For the porn argument I mean, just generate your own locally on your own device, they tend to overlook that when they're shoving AI down everyone's throats. Like everything else techwise that's worthwhile in the last 30 years, it's been driven by porn culture.
reply
They don't care about porn. The people who would vote for it in Utah do, and that's why Utah is being used as a vehicle by other people to bolster the need to root all computers.
reply
How can you be that paranoid about one thing and so gullible with another? We’re surrounded by phones, cameras, smart cars, IoT, microphones and most people are on social media too.

The government demonstrably has the ability to break into your comms and data without going through any of this. Instead of a libertarian conspiracy theory have you considered that politicians chase power and re-election?

Taking a stand and making major changes is hard to pull off, costs a lot of political resources, and can backfire horribly. Doing symbolic, popular crap that’s popular with the (admittedly thick and ignorant) majority is an easy win. Moral outrage is an easy win. “Think of the children” is an easy win.

Ed: Corrected “comma” to “comms”

reply
Break into your comma? Google-fu is letting me down on this one
reply
I assume auto correct for “coms” or “communications”?
reply
> Folks would just host their own vpns various places and this would be pointless

In the real world, very few people have that capability.

reply
But also there's very little need today, it's very cheap to do, just complicated, a barrier that can be easily solved if there appears demand
reply
Do you have a friend/family out of state? Do they have a commodity router? Many have such a feature built in.

Less savvy individuals/business would also have no reason to obey these laws.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit

reply
The limitation isn't access to the technology. There is endless OSS, it's probably built into many standard OSes, and there are many available products and projects that will deploy the whole thing for you.

The limitation is technical skill, even having enough skill to know that this is a solution.

reply
Detection can be based on the IPs themselves, no packet tricks required. Plenty of services can do that: https://focsec.com/

Now of course, if your VPN is a home-lab style VPN where you are connecting to a little wireguard box sitting in your own home, that is a totally different story.

reply
And still required by Utah law.
reply
You can do for free with tailscale exit nodes. Just have a friend in a different location host for you or buy some compute space somewhere
reply
Yes that’s the point the parent was making, although I don’t even think Tailscale is the easiest option if all you want is a relay.
reply