Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks United States IT

Pornhub To Block Five More States Over Age Verification Laws (theverge.com) 187

Posted by msmash from the tough-luck dept.
Pornhub plans to block access to its website in Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, and Nebraska in response to age verification laws designed to prevent children from accessing adult websites. From a report: The website has now cut off access in more than half a dozen states in protest of similar age verification laws that have quickly spread across conservative-leaning US states. Indiana, Idaho, and Kansas will lose access on June 27th, according to alerts on Pornhub's website that were seen by local news sources and Reddit users; Kentucky will lose access on July 10th, according to Kentucky Public Radio.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pornhub To Block Five More States Over Age Verification Laws More

Pornhub To Block Five More States Over Age Verification Laws

Comments Filter:

  • The problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @08:08PM (#64562451)

    Places most against porn are usually the places consuming the most and worst of it. Porn hatred is usually hypocrisy or self-hatred.

    • Re:The problem... (Score:4, Informative)

      by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @08:21PM (#64562485)
      Citation needed. These states are just trying to keep kids from watching things they aren't mature enough to watch. I know that may be the unpopular opinion, but that is the case.They are not banning porn altogether, like some conservative countries do.

      • Re:The problem... (Score:5, Funny)

        by DaveyJJ ( 1198633 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @08:41PM (#64562531) Homepage
        I wasn't aware (as a Canadian) that was the state's job to do, isn't that the parent's job? Or are those largely Repub states now all for bigger government? We're not sure up there, with all the hypocritical ping-ponging down your way.

        • Re:The problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Malay2bowman ( 10422660 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @08:47PM (#64562555)
          It's hard to take them seriously when they are always talking out of both sides of their mouths "we want freedom!" "You will only do what we tell you you can do" (push for authoritarianism) ad nauseum ad infinitum. They really need to clean their own house before they say anything about "the liberals".

          • Re:The problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @08:56PM (#64562567)

            It's hard to take them seriously when they are always talking out of both sides of their mouths

            Possibly the most relevant example [tumblr.com] of such behavior.

          • Simultaneously believing you celebrate freedom and democracy while actively working to restrict both is what makes an American... an American.

            Lots of countries are great at suppressing the rights of their populace. Most do not hold themselves up as bastions of freedom while they do it. That's a Yankee thing.

            • Within countries that are great at suppressing the rights of their populace, the *populace* does not hod the country up as a bastion of freedom. However, the oppressive governments often do just that. They even try to market themselves via their names. The longer the country name, the more oppressive it tends to be. The People's Democratic Republic of Korea, for example. One would think from the name that it's the cradle of freedom and democracy. You hear statements out of Russia like "It's not just i
              • Russian courts work about the same as US ones- if you have the money and your face fits then they work for you,
                • Are you using hyperbole or are you seriously asserting that US courts (albeit not perfect) and Russian courts (which are more of a farce) are genuinely similar?

                  If you are really saying that, are you naive or trolling?

                  • Well... I would contend that US courts are more on the up and up. The disparity is legal and clear. It's less about dishonesty behind the scenes, and more about the fact that you get as much justice as you can afford. Poor people get the public defender. Rich people get the dream team.

                    A legal system that was truly intended to be equal would not permit this difference. But nobody pretends - at all - that the the intent is equality. The system is built by rich people, for rich people.

                    US court justice is for s

          • They really need to clean their own house before they say anything about "the liberals".

            There should be some kind of purity test to be able to talk about liberals?

            Hey, everybody! Over here! Found one!

            • No, I think they were saying that their moral turpitude is a little easier to swallow when not smothered in a thick layer of blatant hypocrisy to what the exact same people were saying in a different political climate. You know, like when the GOP used to be about small government, individual freedoms, and the rule of law; which they are demonstrably against today with their assault on reproductive rights and the broad assault on states' rights to enforce their sovereign laws because a few states had the gu

              • No, I think they were saying that their moral turpitude is a little easier to swallow when not smothered in a thick layer of blatant hypocrisy to what the exact same people were saying in a different political climate.

                There's a small chain of midwestern restaurants called "The Machine Shed." [machineshed.com] That sounds like something they might serve. You're not a copy writer for them are you, by chance, Fred?

          • Republican voters say "we want our freedoms!". Republican politicians (aka the Fascist Pig Party) say "sure thing!" then turn around and plan on locking down everyones' ' freedoms' as much as possible, stealing their money through higher working-class taxes so they can NOT tax The Rich and corporations, and when their constituents start to complain they'll point at so-called 'liberals', especially including gay, trans, and non-white people, who are likewise getting ass-raped, and say "see? We cracked down o

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by schwit1 ( 797399 )

          "isn't that the parent's job?"

          Now do guns and drugs. Yes, it is the parents' job but parents need help.

          • Guns? How the hell, as a parent, am I supposed to keep my kid from being shot in school?

          • And they already have it, in the form of parental controls on their devices and browsers.

            We don't need new laws for solved problems. We need people to accept personal accountability, and to use things that are already available to them and have been for years.

        • Re: The problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by i_ate_god ( 899684 ) on Thursday June 20, 2024 @12:19AM (#64562867)

          So in Canada you can drink, smoke, drive, vote, enlist, vape, and goto strip clubs legally at any age?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Bullshit you whiny piece of shit. Those states don't give a flying fuck about what kids do. It's all about controlling the adults.

        You and your ilk just fall back on "hurrr durrr tink of der childers" when you can't just come out and say you don't like something.

        Here's a clue you glue sniffing shitbag: Don't want children on the internet? Be a fucking parent. Make sure everyone you know with kids be fucking parents. Stop trying to make the government be the fucking parent. I don't have kids, and I shouldn't

        • Re:The problem... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @08:48PM (#64562557) Homepage

          No, it really is people who are frightened at the prospect that the next generation is going to be all sexually liberated because that means less power for the folks who claim it's a sin to think about the naughty bits between your legs.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Some of them seem to be worried that white people aren't having enough children either. Since lack of knowledge and education about sex tends to result in a higher birth rate, they want to keep people ignorant. Some want to ban contraception too.

      • Re:The problem... (Score:5, Funny)

        by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @09:38PM (#64562651)

        These states are just trying to keep kids from watching things they aren't mature enough to watch.

        True. Porn gives young people a distorted and unrealistic idea of how fast a plumber will come to your house.

        • I'm stealing that IRL. That's funny.

          I also think that there are a lot of step-moms who are suddenly running scared...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bob_Who ( 926234 )

          True. Porn gives young people a distorted and unrealistic idea of how fast a plumber will come to your house.

          Right. There goes all the unskilled child labor....

        • During the pandemic, my wife and the nanny were both home while the plumber came. I forget where I was at the time. Probably breaking into a gym to lift weights. The plumber declared that it was too small of a job to fix our toilet (yes, really) but wanted paid for the visit. I could not believe that between two women they couldn't convince him to fix the toilet. But maybe I've watched too many movies. I still taunted them quite a bit about it though.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

        These states are just trying to keep kids from watching things they aren't mature enough to watch.

        Weird thing about that is, in three of the states this applies to (Indiana, Kansas, and Nebraska), the legal age of consent is 16. So you've actually got this crazy situation where you've got teenagers who are old enough to consent to real sex but aren't allowed to watch it online.

        That's also one of the reasons why we made a big stink in Florida here about the "Don't Say Gay" law. 16 and 17-year-olds can legally hookup with their peers, up to 23 years in age, but they're too young to check out Gender Quee

        • So you've actually got this crazy situation where you've got teenagers who are old enough to consent to real sex but aren't allowed to watch it online.

          This is not unusual. It's the access to a commercial service that is restricted by age, not the sort of action that humans do. At 13 you're old enough to pick ripe fruits and let them ferment, but you can't purchase alcohol.

      • Yes, cause efforts in the past to keep kids from porn have been sooooo successful. Eyeroll. Dont get me wrong. I actually agree with you somewhat. I know families that have had to deal with this. Parents that are monitoring their kids internet use find out that their kid googles the term big-boobs, and what pops up is filled with hardcore sex pics. Generally , the good old days were actually much worse, but back then a kids first porn was usually their Dads stack of playboys. Maybe that was actually a healt

      • Citation needed. These states are just trying to keep kids from watching things they aren't mature enough to watch. I know that may be the unpopular opinion, but that is the case.They are not banning porn altogether, like some conservative countries do.

        No. These states are trying to parent from afar, because parents refuse to parent. We'll treat all citizens as if they are children, in order to protect the children. Porn is meh to me, but I get frustrated to no freakin' end that we have to keep giving things up for this safety net bullshit. Just give us all our padded rooms already and have done with it. Clearly, some won't be happy until *EVERYTHNING* is 100% safe and secure at all times. Even if they really aren't safe and secure, if we can just give th

      • Oh for fuck's sake, how many times do we have to go through these useless cycles of restricting something like this? It's the same every time: you want kids to stay out of it, they'll find a way to get around it anyway. Meanwhile it costs people money, and in this case, more of their privacy. In the end it just plain fails. Meanwhile if parents are so fucking concerned about their kids seeing porn, then perhaps they should stop being shitty parents and actually pay attention. It's not the governments' job t

      • Where are the PARENTS in this decision chain?

        Why should the STATE have to take legal action on what has been legally upheld as free expression over and over again, in order to enforce a tyrannical majority's views? Why shouldn't the parents be handling this through the multitude of solutions available that doesn't stifle 1st amendment rights?

      • well, ya see, there is no way to ultimately and flawlessly assure that someone is an adult. My 14 year old 'borrowed' mommy's credit card? Looked at some stuff that they really wanted to see? Wanked all afternoon, until they heard mommy's car in the driveway? Then canceled the membership (or forgot to as they were pulling up their pants.)

        That is reality. Laws like this place 100% of the blame on the website, while not admitting that they website is unable to 100% always ensure that anyone visiting it is o

    • Places most against porn are usually the places consuming the most and worst of it.

      Yes, that is true, but it doesn't follow that it is the same people doing the banning and consuming.

      Top ten states for online porn [cnbc.com]

      Number one is Utah.

      The only blue state in the top ten is Hawaii.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Top ten states for online porn

        Gives subscriptions per 1000 broadband users. Which probably involve a credit card and log in identification. So it looks like the red states are OK with leaving an identity trail if it's an adult doing the watching. So, no fears of some "dark state" porn consumers database.

        The claim that it's kids where they draw the line and the numbers seem to support that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jmccue ( 834797 )

      I have visited some of those States, the thing that amazes me is all billboards I saw advertising these topless eating places.

      Where I am from, I have never seen billboards like that, nevermind topless diners. And that is a ultra blue place I am from. In fact, I would think eating at one of those places would be a bit unsanitary.

      So I tend to think, as what seems to be par for the course, many people decrying the most about "sin" are the ones who probably frequent places like that.

      • In fact, I would think eating at one of those places would be a bit unsanitary.

        Why? It's not like boobs are shedding pathogens more than any other bit of exposed skin.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jmccue ( 834797 )

          Why? It's not like boobs are shedding pathogens more than any other bit of exposed skin.

          Many small businesses at the beach have no bare feet, no shirt, no service, and to me there has to be a reason for them turning away customers. Some of these are just ma and pa type gift shops or places to eat. So they need all the customers they can get. Also, being shirtless makes it hard to shoplift.

          So, topless to me is the same as no shirt. Plus the waitresses (and waiters) sometime will carry multiple plates on each arm. That is why I think what I do.

      • In fact, I would think eating at one of those places would be a bit unsanitary.

        Do you think they're rubbing their tits on your food? Do you think that a "topless diner" wouldn't still be inspected and approved by the state health department? Why would there be any sanitation issues?

    • Places most against porn are usually the places consuming the most and worst of it. Porn hatred is usually hypocrisy or self-hatred.

      Here's a reference diagram [imgur.com] of where Pornhub will be blocked starting on July 1st. His comment checks out.

  • This is about ending internet anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @08:14PM (#64562467)
    They're going to have a giant database where they can track everything you do on the internet and they're going to pinky swear they won't use it against you. Maybe they won't get the chance but you bet your ass they're planning to do it.

    There is an entire world of people who want you to sit down, shut up and do what you're told and are more than happy to use violence against you if you don't. But on the internet they don't know who you are and worse you can organize against them on the internet...

    They will be damned if they're going to let you do that. America has a ruling class but you told when you're in grade school we don't so we all like to pretend they're not there

    • Dude. Do you know how the internet works? Every fucking GET request you send has your IP address attached to it. Unless you made an effort to obfuscate your origin, you've never had anonymity; you were merely lost among the others.

      Orwell wrote that there's nothing quite so private as a noisy room.

      • I'm aware and I'm also aware that ISPs don't appreciate a constant stream of requests for their users identities. Not because they give a fuck about privacy but because it gets very expensive very fast. This would be quick cheap and easy. It wouldn't involve the ISP it wouldn't involve a government program funded by my taxpayer dollars.

        • Accessing a database you already maintain in order to operate costs you nothing. Again, you've been mistaking nobody giving a fuck about you for an invisibility cloak.

          • Everything costs money since someone has to actually spend time vetting the query and then getting the information from the database or do you actually believe that every service has an open search portal that anyone can use to look up ip's in and it has zero costs?

            You are also dismissing the fact that just because nobody "cares" about a specific person's information currently doesn't mean it'll stay that way if it gets easier to get that information and correlate it with other sources.

            If you actually belie

    • If it comes down to that, then it'll be one less bill I have every month, since I for one just won't have internet at all anymore. Either that or it'll be the cheapest plan possible and won't get used much except for my DVR. If they want to wreck e-commerce they can go ahead and do that, I'm sure I'm far from alone when I say I'd just stop bothering with the internet.

  • Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Froboz23 ( 690392 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @08:17PM (#64562475)
    In unrelated news, VPN usage is expected to grow by 600% in Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, and Nebraska.

    It will be interesting to see if any of these states try to outlaw the use of VPN. To protect the children, of course.

    • As a passing thought, I wonder what the polls will reflect in November in these mostly red states. How many foiled fappers will flip in the voting booths? Could porn be enough of an issue that there might be a voter backlash?

      Headline: Foiled Fappers Flip Fap Foisters.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ls671 ( 1122017 )

      In unrelated news, VPN usage is expected to grow by 600% in Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, and Nebraska.
      It will be interesting to see if any of these states try to outlaw the use of VPN. To protect the children, of course.

      I wonder how accurately they can ban ips form those states. In Canada at least, I know ISPs share their dynamic ip pools across provinces. I haven't checked yet for the States but maybe American ISPs share their dynamic ip pools across states as well. It would seem most likely to me, at least for some providers.

      So geolookups might return the wrong province/state although the country is usually always accurate.

      I do geoblocking for all web sites I host which are more or less like intranets which are only acce

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bob_Who ( 926234 )

      When the Mongolians invaded China they told the Emperor in Peking.

      The Emperor shrugged, "Eventually, they will be Chinese"

      ...Eventually we will all be Chinese.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dargaud ( 518470 )
        Or like Coluche said: "In an egg there's white and yellow. Mix it up and there's only yellow."

  • Did they forget Florida? (Score:3)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @08:27PM (#64562497) Homepage

    I thought Florida passed a similar law recently, too.

  • Back in the day, pr0n shops were in out-of-the-way places and you'd supposedly both be embarrassed to see someone you knew frequenting one.

    It's 2024 and the pr0n has been readily available to any and all for close to 30 years.

    Do you still really not want pr0n showing up on your credit card statement for your wife to see?

    I guess I should look at your wife before I decide if that question is meant fecetiously or seriously.

    • Re:Does the pr0n still carry a stigma? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @10:01PM (#64562709) Homepage

      Do you still really not want pr0n showing up on your credit card statement for your wife to see?

      I'm fairly certain the folks who are paying for the paid sort of porn aren't overly concerned about it showing up on their credit card statements. No, the problem is that we're fundamentally breaking the internet when we're passing laws requiring sites to follow the rules of all the places they could possibly be accessed from, rather than just the regulations of the locale in which the business physically resides.

      Imagine if Slashdot had to comply with China's rules, and we couldn't say Xi Jinping looks like Winnie the Pooh. And whoops, there goes all the porn because there's still quite a few countries that outlaw that sort of stuff entirely.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bob_Who ( 926234 )

        Asian Panda Porn Too Foo Young ?

        That's the best idea since teenage mutant ninja turtles and fortune cookies!

  • It's nuts (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 )

    Religious nutters get their nut by refusing you your nut. It's nuts.

  • These age verification laws seem to be becoming popular in many states. At the rate they keep passing these laws, YouPorn is going to run out of states to block and it going to have to start playing ball with the regulators.

    Of course, if people need to enter a credit card number before they can watch their fake step-sister incest porn (seriously, why is this the most popular genre right now?), they might just decide to pick another site or sail the seven seas for their smut.

    • they might just decide to pick another site or sail the seven seas for their smut.

      Hell, piracy already is illegal and the government hasn't had much luck stopping that. That's ultimately what's going to happen here, PornHub, or a competitor wishing to usurp their market will just setup shop in some country that DGAF. These states will have to set up their own version's of China's great firewall if they really want to enforce their stupid laws, or more likely they'll just pat themselves on the back and pretend they solved the "problem".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BeTeK ( 2035870 )
      At this rate some kind of VPN service is almost mandatory when browsing internet. Region locks/laws makes internet usage without vpn almost unusable.

    • These age verification laws seem to be becoming popular in many states.

      Of course. The State wants to see your communications to see if you are an ally or an enemy, and this is one way to chip away at the concepts that are supposed to be keeping our communications secure. All States are either doing it or trying to do it. Not all are trying to use this particular backdoor as its use is too obvious.

  • Porn is good for you (Score:4, Funny)

    by fjo3 ( 1399739 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @09:59PM (#64562701)
    It made me the man I am today - unemployed, single, and living in my mom's back yard!

    • It made me the man I am today - unemployed, single, and living in my mom's back yard!

      Well, you're kinda supposed to move on to more sustainable forms of employment once you notice that your OnlyFans' primary audience demographics has shifted towards gay men who are old enough to be your grandfather.

  • Effect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dotslashdot ( 694478 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @11:18PM (#64562795)
    This basically means everyone in age verification states are subject to blackmail since it is only a matter of time before the verification sites are hacked like Ashley Madison was. And honestly this is designed to deter access by adults because it is forcing them to out themselves about a totally legal but frowned upon activity.

  • Regarding first amendment protection, we heard similar false claims about sales taxes on Internet sellers: "Oh no, you'll kill e-commerce!"

    If these guys are too lazy to screen for children, let them boycot specific states. It may even free up time for better activities by the locals.

  • At some point it got big and corporate with a stale catalog and way too many step-person issues, that probably only Americans care about, since incest mostly preoccupies religious nutjobs. Here in Yurup we're all inbred XD

  • And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Miles_O'Toole ( 5152533 ) on Thursday June 20, 2024 @03:16AM (#64563063)

    Mike Oxabiggun, CEO of upstart VPN service Wanksharke, said today that the number of multi-year contracts with his company has exploded all over Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky and Nebraska. The Indiana, Idaho and Kansas start dates are mostly scheduled for June 28, while the Kentucky rise will occur largely on July 11.

    "I think these state legislators will find that this whole thing has really blown up in their face. Wanksharke's VPN is a powerful tool to erect a rigid bar between your computer and the prying eyes of any state government. You can beat a lot of things, but you can't beat Wanksharke!", Oxabiggun ejaculated.

    He was obviously delighted over the speed with which the rise came. "You have to hand it to these keystroke kings", he gushed. "They can type faster with one hand than I can with two. We look forward to serving them in the years to come", he concluded.

  • Thanks for making it simple.

  • Personally, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have a (c'mon it's a relatively low bar) restriction for online pr0n to make it nominally harder for kids to access. Anyone who REALLY wants their pr0n fix can just join one of those sites and have nearly infinite content to keep their Astroglide salesman in business.

    I think it's hilarious that there's the cadre of folks that are all up in arms about it.

    #Metoobin

    • The reason you're confused is because you think the reason Pornhub exists is to make money.

      Of course they don't mind making money one bit, but their primary goal is enact social change. Al Goldstein has a famous quote about that.

      If luring children onto the sites wasn't one of their goals then they would be more than happy to exclude users who don't pay and whose viewing on the site only exposes them to liability, but the fact that they freak out so much as soon as anyone suggesting reasonable measures to me

  • When the web was new, we added "parental controls" (ie, block lists) just like TV has, to address this exact problem. Only the device end can credibly know if the owner is a child, an adult, or a dog.
    • That worked well when the number of devices were limited and they were expensive. It doesn't work well now because devices are ubiquitous and you can buy one at Walmart for $99. A block list isn't going to prevent a kid from accessing what they want. Of course, kids have always gotten their hands on age-restricted purchases. But age-restricting has also reduced usage and been fairly effective with physical goods.
  • A determined-enough resident of those states will always find a way.

  • Why are they blocking access for random US states when they're a Canadian company? I doubt these states can claim jurisdiction over Canada.

    • Because it's easier and cheaper to just shitcan any IP at the edge that is in that geolocation than it is to deal with lawsuits from states' Attorneys General for flagrantly violating their regressive shitty laws - which, by the way, is exactly what the people passing these laws want.

      And if you think that a state AG wouldn't try to go at these guys when their party just passed some trash like this, then you haven't been paying attention.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close