There are several states which have either introduced, or have already signed a law requiring people to use their ID in order to access porn. Do you guys think this law will last, or will it end up getting repealed?

I mean, it's not like it'd be hard to bypass these measures anyway, what with all the VPNs available out there. So what's the point?

Also, sorry if I posted in the wrong category.

Oh geez, it's more than just Louisiana now? On paper, it sounds perfectly reasonable, but in practice, people (both adults and minors) are going to find ways to work around it, whether that's VPNs or simply using websites that don't respect these new laws. It sounds like these laws do nothing other than encourage people to break them. My gut says there's bound to be unintended consequences.

crocogator said:
Oh geez, it's more than just Louisiana now? On paper, it sounds perfectly reasonable, but in practice, people (both adults and minors) are going to find ways to work around it, whether that's VPNs or simply using websites that don't respect these new laws. It sounds like these laws do nothing other than encourage people to break them. My gut says there's bound to be unintended consequences.

Yeah, that's what the North Carolina announcement's talking about. It goes into effect tomorrow.

toradrow777 said:
There are several states which have either introduced, or have already signed a law requiring people to use their ID in order to access porn. Do you guys think this law will last, or will it end up getting repealed?

I mean, it's not like it'd be hard to bypass these measures anyway, what with all the VPNs available out there. So what's the point?

It'll probably stick around, depending on the cultural climate of the state. Don't even need a VPN to bypass the measures, Tor can get around it just fine.

That said, don't go disseminating obscene materials to minors in NC, it's a Class H Felony.

I fully expect this to backfire and cause more issues than less, in more than one way.

Way 1:
Let me make myself clear when I say this, persons under the age of 18 should not access porn or other adult content.
But to say that those under the age of 18 don't want to access it is a bold face lie. We were all kids once, and a good majority of us probably accessed porn as a minor despite the fact we were not supposed to. Hell, our parents probably accessed it(via magazines) before they were old enough.
Point being, when there is a will, there is a way. And this could lead to kids committing identity theft by using stolen IDs, their parents IDs, etc, or worse.
Schools are still a thing, right? Pandemic didn't kill physically going to schools, right? I could definitely see kids probably trying to do a "blackmarket" trading in schools for adult content, and if they can't access it online, it's entirely possible they will make stuff themselves, which will endanger them more than before.

Way 2:
Let's do identity verification to access socially controversial content! (If you think porn isn't socially controversial, you need to touch grass. I don't think it is controversial, but other communities and non-internet addicts may think it is) Nothing possibly can go wrong with requiring people to present their identity to access socially controversial content!
🚪💥🦶 ASHLEY MADISON HAS JOINED THE GAME
Any site that does identity verification will become a prime target for hackers, and will hold user data ransom either to the company OR the individuals.
One could say "Oh, well just outsource it to a third party!". Ok, let's say make a fictional company, let's call it "Veridentity". Our little company says they do "Identity verification", they don't mention that they do identity verification for adult websites, BUT they are the leading company who does identity verification for adult websites. See where I am getting at this?
It doesn't matter if veridentity does verification for maybe 2 or 3 alcohol websites, if their primary customers are adult websites needing verification, hackers will just say "Veridentity database leak! Porn website verification company!". As long as they can say that the majority use is porn, plausible deniability doesn't matter, people will see it and go "The chances of this one person being verified for a alcohol website is unlikely, it is definitely because they wanted to access porn".

Way 3:
We are seeing this now, NC is just going to get porn website ban. Sites that are open source, donation ran, etc, cannot afford verification. That includes e621. Maybe e621 can afford it with the bad dragon "fuck you money", but e621 is already ran at a loss last time I heard (This may have changed but I doubt it). Smaller sites or start-ups are effectively going to be locked out of opening because of this hurdle.

Something I would like to see is how these laws would apply to Twitter, or Facebook. Since sure porn isn't allowed on the later, they both have porn(though one a lot less than the other).

toradrow777 said:
There are several states which have either introduced, or have already signed a law requiring people to use their ID in order to access porn. Do you guys think this law will last, or will it end up getting repealed?

I mean, it's not like it'd be hard to bypass these measures anyway, what with all the VPNs available out there. So what's the point?

Also, sorry if I posted in the wrong category.

The law is going to last.

Its just a matter of how long.

Getting into the weeds a little bit: (USA) State-laws basically operate on the honor system. (As long as they don't violate federal law) State laws are REALLY hard to repeal because 'if you don't want it, you wouldn't have passed it in the first place'

crocogator said:
Oh geez, it's more than just Louisiana now? On paper, it sounds perfectly reasonable, but in practice, people (both adults and minors) are going to find ways to work around it, whether that's VPNs or simply using websites that don't respect these new laws. It sounds like these laws do nothing other than encourage people to break them. My gut says there's bound to be unintended consequences.

There's a law that's been in effect in Utah for a bit that made Pornhub blacklist the whole state, and as soon as it went into effect, the searches from Utah for VPNs skyrocketed. Looking at Google Trends now, North Carolina and Montana also have recent spikes in VPN searches due to similar bills being passed and the Hub responding. There might be something specific in North Carolina's new law that affects e621 while the others don't, however, since I'm still able to access the site just fine without the use of a VPN.

The whole point of these laws is to require sites to verify the age of their users via ID, but this poses a massive issue with data privacy and security. When a site has to store that kind of PII, there's so much more that needs to be done to secure the information sufficiently, and some of the requirements set forth in the laws may violate international privacy standards such as the GDPR. Therefore, it's easier to just geographically restrict users in areas with these laws.

So much for "small government" from these pearl-clutching right wingers, they just want a fucking nanny state.

How long do you think this age verification law will last?

At the very least until next year

The problem with the laws is the wording seems to put the onus on the companies that host the websites since it enables the ability to sue, so it just seems like a way to attack the companies that host material they object to because in reality people that want to view such things will. It will push those that want to view the content into more fringe places and create more issues than previously.

I also do not trust various companies with my ID, even Discords that require it I will avoid. So many data/privacy leaks, impersonation and ID theft will become a larger problem. So even as an adult, I would abstain from use of places that require it - but that's what the puritan companies and those in the Gov want despite the fact they use everything like everyone else. Rules for thee but not for me types.

Which states exactly? I haven't heard anything about these new laws but someone posted an image of a message you get if you access the site from North Carolina.

crocogator said:
Oh geez, it's more than just Louisiana now? On paper, it sounds perfectly reasonable, but in practice, people (both adults and minors) are going to find ways to work around it, whether that's VPNs or simply using websites that don't respect these new laws. It sounds like these laws do nothing other than encourage people to break them. My gut says there's bound to be unintended consequences.

What's funny is Louisiana seems to not give a crap about sites NOT showing real life videos or images. NC is going extreme with it.

I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

No one is objecting to trying to keep minors off our site, but this law will not prevent them in any way. It will create a massive privacy vulnerability relying on the competence of a third party commercial service.

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

You say that but I notice that you haven't posted your ID yet.

Sites need to make it easy to find the nearest legislator that passed these laws. These laws would last roughly 2 weeks.

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

Hard no

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

*Laughs in VPN*

imercenary said:
The law is going to last.

Its just a matter of how long.

Getting into the weeds a little bit: (USA) State-laws basically operate on the honor system. (As long as they don't violate federal law) State laws are REALLY hard to repeal because 'if you don't want it, you wouldn't have passed it in the first place'

What makes these recent laws especially tricky is that instead of banning something directly, they instead give private citizens the right to sue. Functionally, the effect is the same. But while a direct porn ban would be a 1st amendment violation and would (eventually) be struck down by courts, this approach exploits a loophole involving legal standing such that the courts won't touch it.

plsignore said:
What makes these recent laws especially tricky is that instead of banning something directly, they instead give private citizens the right to sue. Functionally, the effect is the same. But while a direct porn ban would be a 1st amendment violation and would (eventually) be struck down by courts, this approach exploits a loophole involving legal standing such that the courts won't touch it.

The gun and abortion laws are about to get nut-kicked over that smart-arssery. This 'loophole' is stupid in the 'too clever for his own good' sense. Just smart enough to lead to huge legal battles. The law doesn't like a smart ass. XD

toradrow777 said:
There are several states which have either introduced, or have already signed a law requiring people to use their ID in order to access porn. Do you guys think this law will last, or will it end up getting repealed?

I mean, it's not like it'd be hard to bypass these measures anyway, what with all the VPNs available out there. So what's the point?

Also, sorry if I posted in the wrong category.

as someone who was exposed to porn waaaaaaayyyy too young, i understand where they're coming from and don't want people to end up like me. but believe me when i say curious kids will find a way around literally everything. it's like the australian war on emus
also pretty much everyone uses (or should use) vpns nowadays. i just find it funny that porn is their biggest concern. hopefully people will yell into their voting ballots like a howler from harry potter

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

From someone who works partially within the IT-sec world and the storage of GDPR information, lol, lmao even.

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

This Helen Lovejoy "think of the children" tripe is nothing more than a foot-in-the-door. This is not about protecting children. Parents are meant to protect their children. This is about governments trying to have more and more control over the internet.

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

Kid wants to access porn. Kid steals dad or mom's wallet and uses their ID. How would the site possibly defend against that? Webcam pointed at the user at all times to verify they are who they say they are?

calydor said:
Kid wants to access porn. Kid steals dad or mom's wallet and uses their ID. How would the site possibly defend against that? Webcam pointed at the user at all times to verify they are who they say they are?

Well, you see, clearly we need to start putting RFID chips in people when they're born. That way we can just put readers in the mouse/smartphone and verify that way! I see no way this could possibly go wrong!

ravetheroom said:
This Helen Lovejoy "think of the children" tripe is nothing more than a foot-in-the-door. This is not about protecting children. Parents are meant to protect their children. This is about governments trying to have more and more control over the internet.

The usual suspects have been telegraphing (not the App) that pretty blatantly. It's like they see bad ideas implemented by horrible people, then think "Hey, we can get some of that! Also, I need makework for my cousin's no-bid contracts!".

203f98h2908h9f said:
From someone who works partially within the IT-sec world and the storage of GDPR information, lol, lmao even.

Isn't there some zero-knowledge proof out there (that basically makes Captchas and crappy SIM card-tied '2FA' obsolete), using chained public keys? So each site gets entirely different signatures from you? Not sure how that would play in GPDR world, or if it's actually effective against abusive tracking. Making it possible to just purchase a Captcha-pass leads to other kinds of abuse, though. Ironically, not by the people buying the passes.

I guess the joke now about 2FA is it stands for ToFakeAuthentication, steal SIM account. Reset password, and boom. Further insult to injury: Use their real user's own connection to do it. Oh look, you now have a Verizon IP address. This is beyond tonedeaf 'security'. :/ Meanwhile you can still use single-digit-character passwords, but by god they better be mixed-case! (LOL, no)

here is the thing about moral panics, they will find something new to get upset over. Republicans are stingy as hell and the states that do have these laws do not even enforce them at all. most of these laws' punishment is a civil lawsuit, but I don't know what kind of parent is going to go to a judge and say "I wasn't supervising my children and I let them watch porn" or forcing the attorney general to go through millions of porn websites and trying to threaten some random ass European website with a lawsuit in some backwater state.

The good news however people are suing these laws, likely that they gonna get ruled as unconstitutional and some of them are, as (Spoiler alert) they already were
https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/age-verification-resources/age-verification-lawsuit-status/
https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-bonta/
https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-griffin/

There's states that are actually going ahead with this trash? At least the UK gave up on their plans (and eventually repealed the law) to require ID for porn when they became the laughing stock of the world for trying to implement that.

Children want to access porn whether they're allowed to or not, and they're probably only going to end up in deeper and darker places looking for it. I could rant about all the ways this could backfire, but I think everybody who posted before me has it covered well enough.

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

The nothing-to-hide argument has been repeatedly used to justify surveillance in the name of preventing crime. However, real-world examples reveal that increased surveillance does not necessarily translate into increased security; in fact, it often does the opposite. With the large amounts of data collected and the opacity about the usage of such data, governments frequently violate the rights of citizens in a variety of ways. In western countries, increased surveillance has contributed to efforts to stifle the right to freedom of expression. You can imagine what other rights other countries are violating.

atomicblaze21 said:
The whole point of these laws is to require sites to verify the age of their users via ID, but this poses a massive issue with data privacy and security. When a site has to store that kind of PII, there's so much more that needs to be done to secure the information sufficiently, and some of the requirements set forth in the laws may violate international privacy standards such as the GDPR. Therefore, it's easier to just geographically restrict users in areas with these laws.

So much for "small government" from these pearl-clutching right wingers, they just want a fucking nanny state.

First of all, the GDPR is not an international privacy standard but a European Union privacy standard. Second, politics are not unidimensional; just as there are right-wingers who want a nanny state, there are others that strongly oppose it, and left-wingers are no different in that regard.

electricitywolf said:
... You can imagine what other rights other countries are violating

I'll step in and, because the folks who think things like this are a good idea don't generally like to actually think, point at China outright for a classic example of abuse of information. Wanna disappear because you said something you "shouldn't" have and your ID is attached to it? Because this is how that happens.

electricitywolf said:
First of all, the GDPR is not an international privacy standard but a European Union privacy standard. Second, politics are not unidimensional; just as there are right-wingers who want a nanny state, there are others that strongly oppose it, and left-wingers are no different in that regard.

Considering the EU is a collection of ... I think it's 28 sovereign nations that does make it kind of international. International does not, as far as I am aware at least, mean that all countries on the planet are bound by it.

calydor said:
Considering the EU is a collection of ... I think it's 28 sovereign nations that does make it kind of international. International does not, as far as I am aware at least, mean that all countries on the planet are bound by it.

I suppose that I didn't exactly frame my position correctly. I meant that if a website wants to operate internationally, especially in the EU, they have to comply with these standards set by other countries. As these standards don't apply to these jurisdictions that put out these ridiculous laws, there is likely going to be conflict between the demands of one side and the established requirements of the other. This could be accidental or by design on the part of the legislators drafting these new bills, but the bottom line is that site owners usually have to take the side of the established precedent of privacy laws, so it's better for them to sacrifice a smaller amount of market share in the jurisdictions that pass anti-porn laws rather than lose the entire EU.

plsignore said:
What makes these recent laws especially tricky is that instead of banning something directly, they instead give private citizens the right to sue. Functionally, the effect is the same. But while a direct porn ban would be a 1st amendment violation and would (eventually) be struck down by courts, this approach exploits a loophole involving legal standing such that the courts won't touch it.

No, what makes these recent laws tricky is that the courts CAN'T touch it.

"Websites" can't sue for damages because they have to follow the law (and they haven't been "damaged" (yet?)), private individuals aren't subject to the law and the government obviously isn't going to sue itself.

So the only way to repeal/strike down the law is to have a proposal go through the whole state legislator system and strike down the law. And that process will take years/decades depending on how long/hard the anti-sex lobby fights it.

Something I don't think I've seen mentioned here is the parents themselves. I'm agreeing with everything above here, of course, but I'd like to add on that this whole law is taking the parenting away from the parents, creating a 'safety net' for the parents to not do their job fully. Instead of teaching children the dangers of pornography, what sex is, et cetera in a healthy manner, this is just... legislating it so the parents can pretend it isn't a problem. This is definitely on the NC state government for creating this poorly thought out law in the first place, but it's also on the parents to properly teach their children. Because the alternative is having the internet teach them, and that's probably far worse. As for how long I think the law will last? Realistically, probably a very long time. Both potential parties that could repeal the law are a bunch of old, cis, straight, male, white people (minus the few token diversity people so they look better) who generally stick to the conservative "family values" and have similar policies (albeit with one party more aggressive and extreme with their values and policies than the other). Chances are, it's going to be swept under the rug, and used to snipe out things the NC government doesn't like when they feel like it. At least, that's my honestly pessimistic view of it, so do as you please with this opinion.

chaser said:
🚪💥🦶 ASHLEY MADISON HAS JOINED THE GAME

This.
In my country there were 2 massive data leaks from a health insurer and an ISP/phone carrier where even victims who haven't been customers for years still had their data floating around in the database. State governments had to scramble to reissue drivers licences. These are companies who are supposed to have proper security teams and policies in place to try to prevent this kind of data leak.
Now imagine that a web site like Fur Affinity, who's admins who couldn't fix 1280px uploads for a decade, now needs you to upload a scanned copy of your drivers licence to prove your age before letting you see dog dicks.
post #414251

gattonero2001 said:
At the very least until next year

Lmao, wise ass.

I can understand why some might believe there is a need for these laws even though the real solution would be for parents to take responsibility for their kids and restrict what they can access online, but don't tell the deadbeats that, it hurts their feelings /s, but there are two major concerns I have.

1) Security. Having to share your ID to visit a website is just begging to get your identity stolen, either via a man-in-the-middle attack or just a rogue site storing your data and selling it to the highest bidder (mind you, companies like Google already do this).

2) Privacy. You just know this will be used as a wedge to try and push for Chinese-style digital ID, completely eliminating online anonymity and effectively ending freedom of speech online.

imercenary said:
No, what makes these recent laws tricky is that the courts CAN'T touch it.

"Websites" can't sue for damages because they have to follow the law (and they haven't been "damaged" (yet?)), private individuals aren't subject to the law and the government obviously isn't going to sue itself.

So the only way to repeal/strike down the law is to have a proposal go through the whole state legislator system and strike down the law. And that process will take years/decades depending on how long/hard the anti-sex lobby fights it.

Not true, the law itself may be challenged on the basis of whether it's even legal to have such a law (whether it's constitutional or not). In the US, this could even go all the way up to the Supreme Court, in which case...good luck with that, because the Roberts Court is the laziest SCOTUS in the history of the United States. Not once have they taken a triple digit number of cases in a year since Roberts became Chief Justice (which doesn't surprise me - the guy's an institutionalist, he worships the status quo, and for that reason will drag his feet on anything that might change it).

It can also be struck down based on the law being enforceable, or any number of other problems (like the aforementioned potential for identity theft, which would be the angle I would use to argue against it myself).

faucet said:
There's states that are actually going ahead with this trash? At least the UK gave up on their plans (and eventually repealed the law) to require ID for porn when they became the laughing stock of the world for trying to implement that.

This is untrue - the Online Safety Act, which is what you're talking about here, became law in the UK and is in effect from next year. Sites like e621 that don't implement ID verification will be blocked.

Friend in NC can't access e621 or pornhub now... Rest in piss NC

volling said:
This is untrue - the Online Safety Act, which is what you're talking about here, became law in the UK and is in effect from next year. Sites like e621 that don't implement ID verification will be blocked.

I was referring to Digital Economy Act 2017, which very quickly got scrapped. I didn't realise the Online Safety Act did it too. It does at least seem to give better options than being forced to share your ID with a random third-party company. At the same time, many are very easy to abuse like stealing a credit card.

I have my doubts it'll get anywhere, still.

I think that it will last as long as people are figuring out workarounds to acess E621 or other websites that contains adult content

So, turns out this website IS a porn site after all! Interesting development.

char_aznable said:
So, turns out this website IS a porn site after all! Interesting development.

what gave you that idea?

https://twitter.com/FSCArmy/status/1742689927308189846

LMAO

thiccelle said:
https://twitter.com/FSCArmy/status/1742689927308189846

LMAO

"Joshua Casey" said:
sounds like the lawmakers are upset that the can't access their porn (and they're too old an tech illiterate to know how to use a vpn)

Sounds about right. Implement something stupid, realize it affects you negatively, try to back out of it.

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

Do you realize how many standards of ID there are in the world(let alone in the united states, each state has one, military variants, territorial variants, special issue versions, and others), and the potential fallout of those site's databases being breached and those ID scans suddenly becoming public, or perhaps people using other's IDs and thus causing them to be implicated in things they had no interest in, or even identity theft issues?

So between the difficulty of figuring things out as being real or not, and the risks associated with data leaks, I'd say it probably isn't worth much more than basic protections.

deadoon said:
Do you realize how many standards of ID there are in the world(let alone in the united states, each state has one, military variants, territorial variants, special issue versions, and others), and the potential fallout of those site's databases being breached and those ID scans suddenly becoming public, or perhaps people using other's IDs and thus causing them to be implicated in things they had no interest in, or even identity theft issues?

So between the difficulty of figuring things out as being real or not, and the risks associated with data leaks, I'd say it probably isn't worth much more than basic protections.

Never mind how it provides the perfect wedge to push for Chinese-style digital ID so that the government can track everything you do online with relative ease. Anonymity can be the difference between being able to express dissent or disappearing after even mildly criticizing the powers that be, and I don't trust the increasingly authoritarian US federal government not to abuse any power given to them.

The legal talk to schizoposting pipeline has begun

dimoretpinel said:
The legal talk to schizoposting pipeline has begun

If you think there aren't politicians who would absolutely use this as an excuse to grab more power and expand the surveillance state, I have a bridge in a swamp you might in interested in buying. One need only to look at how the surveillance apparatus of the state has grown in the last 25 years or so to see that this is a valid concern.

Now, how would they do this? Simple. The process works like this: create a moral panic (or take advantage of an existing one), implement a "solution" that is guaranteed to fail (by design) to address it, and then when people point out that it doesn't work, use that as an excuse to demand power beyond the scope of the original problem they were supposed to be trying to solve (and in theory people will be more willing to support it after the "half measure" failed). This law passed in North Carolina could be step 2 of that process. That or it could just be a kneejerk response, and believe me, I hope that's the case, but I'm far too cynical to give them the benefit of the doubt.

dimoretpinel said:
The legal talk to schizoposting pipeline has begun

If only you knew how bad things really are.

lance_armstrong said:
If only you knew how bad things really are.

It's hilarious in a dark humor sort of way. Addams Family politics is for real, though. We have the darkest jokes outside of ICP lyrics making decisions.

Tinfoil but the politicians who made this bill probably invested in VPNs beforehand

One of the scariest things about these laws I don't see anyone talk about is that these laws open the door for criminals and give them a legal reason to steal personal information.
If you remember that Ashley Madison hack from 2015, all sorts of people got their lives ruined, politicians, celebrities, and Just normal Joes. and if it goes for all porn websites everyone is fucked.
Here is the thing about porn. it's one of those things people say they have strong opinions on, usually complain about all sorts of prudish shit or "porn addiction" blah blah blah but then consume in secret anyway.

I think WHEN not how, because these systems are already being abused by hackers for online gambling. But when these systems get compromised it's going to be catastrophic.

thiccelle said:
One of the scariest things about these laws I don't see anyone talk about is that these laws open the door for criminals and give them a legal reason to steal personal information.
If you remember that Ashley Madison hack from 2015, all sorts of people got their lives ruined, politicians, celebrities, and Just normal Joes. and if it goes for all porn websites everyone is fucked.
Here is the thing about porn. it's one of those things people say they have strong opinions on, usually complain about all sorts of prudish shit or "porn addiction" blah blah blah but then consume in secret anyway.

I think WHEN not how, because these systems are already being abused by hackers for online gambling. But when these systems get compromised it's going to be catastrophic.

Like i said, By making the porn websits require people to give their ID to see adult coltent will only make people go to sketchier porn websites, You know thoses one that you cant breath without getting a AD for a scam or a malware disguised as a cleaning app? so yea it thoses ones

I sure do love not living in the US

I fucking hate living in [STATE] right now for this reason. At least I have a job now, so I can probably pay for a VPN.

socialgutbrain777 said:
I fucking hate living in [STATE] right now for this reason. At least I have a job now, so I can probably pay for a VPN.

People managed to find workarounds that does not require you to use VPN, but idk if they work 100%

zerorm said:
Not true, the law itself may be challenged on the basis of whether it's even legal to have such a law (whether it's constitutional or not). In the US, this could even go all the way up to the Supreme Court, in which case...good luck with that, because the Roberts Court is the laziest SCOTUS in the history of the United States. Not once have they taken a triple digit number of cases in a year since Roberts became Chief Justice (which doesn't surprise me - the guy's an institutionalist, he worships the status quo, and for that reason will drag his feet on anything that might change it).

It can also be struck down based on the law being enforceable, or any number of other problems (like the aforementioned potential for identity theft, which would be the angle I would use to argue against it myself).

The law(s) were legally voted for and signed by their respective state governments. Its legal to have such a law (so long as its constitutional), so no. You have no basis, so you have no say.

mta_2_train said:
People managed to find workarounds that does not require you to use VPN, but idk if they work 100%

If so, that's great. I really hope E621 doesn't block itself in my state because we had a dumbfuck politician sponsor a shitty copycat bill and it went into effect on the 1st. I'm really stressed out because I enjoy looking at art and posting comments here.

socialgutbrain777 said:
I fucking hate living in [STATE] right now for this reason. At least I have a job now, so I can probably pay for a VPN.

The Opera browser comes with a free VPN. It's probably not as secure as a paid one, but it should be enough to get you around the block.

imercenary said:
The law(s) were legally voted for and signed by their respective state governments. Its legal to have such a law (so long as its constitutional), so no. You have no basis, so you have no say.

It was once legal to have slaves too, that didn't make it right. There's a lot of bullshit going on in the United States right now, lots of corruption in politics.

kinestae said:
I'll be honest. I'm perfectly fine with using my ID to access porn. If a company can't keep minors from accessing adult content, then maybe it shouldn't exist.

Fuck. That. Shit.
Nobody wants their personal info linked to porn. There's a reason most people use incognito mode when searching porn, and it's not to hide it from their internet provider, obviously. They wanna keep their horni life seperate from their real life, and using your REAL LIFE ID to access porn violates that. Bruh, if you're OK with using your ID to get porn, just use your real name as your username. Save the hackers some trouble.

bl1nd_eye said:
Fuck. That. Shit.
Nobody wants their personal info linked to porn. There's a reason most people use incognito mode when searching porn, and it's not to hide it from their internet provider, obviously. They wanna keep their horni life seperate from their real life, and using your REAL LIFE ID to access porn violates that. Bruh, if you're OK with using your ID to get porn, just use your real name as your username. Save the hackers some trouble.

I just don't want my ID stored online anywhere outside the DMV's website. No one should have permanent access to that information.

bl1nd_eye said:
Fuck. That. Shit.
Nobody wants their personal info linked to porn. There's a reason most people use incognito mode when searching porn, and it's not to hide it from their internet provider, obviously. They wanna keep their horni life seperate from their real life, and using your REAL LIFE ID to access porn violates that. Bruh, if you're OK with using your ID to get porn, just use your real name as your username. Save the hackers some trouble.

people who think that incognito mode is an effective method of doing anything other than having a standalone instance with fresh cookies are fools. using incognito to look at porn is effectively the same as going into your history and clicking "delete last hour" after looking at porn.

if you live with anyone that wants to snoop on your web activity there's honestly easier and more effective methods than logging on to your computer or phone and looking at your browser history when you're not around. and you're also obviously not going to be anymore safe from hackers just because you're using it either.

I fucking swear, ever since retards started parroting the words "porn addiction" things have gotten worse. I am tired of pretending its not, I think we need to speak up against this anti-porn movement because if they keep pushing for shit like that, what else is next?

Like books that are not even porn are getting banned in libraries for being "pornographic" fucking, YOU CAN'T EVEN FUCKING JOKE ABOUT PORN OR SEX WITHOUT BEING LABELED OR SAY ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT SEX OR PORN AROUND THESE PEOPLE AS THEY WILL LABEL YOU AS A "Porn addict"

I don't care if its real or not, I don't give a fuck, I don't wanna live in a fucking Surveillance nanny state where I am constantly monitored and if I complain I am a "Porn addicted groomer who wants to destroy the cHiLdReN" then getting thrown in jail for "wrong think"

Fucking... MONITOR YOUR DAMN FUCKING KIDS ITS NOT HARD

thiccelle said:
I fucking swear, ever since retards started parroting the words "porn addiction" things have gotten worse. I am tired of pretending its not, I think we need to speak up against this anti-porn movement because if they keep pushing for shit like that, what else is next?

Like books that are not even porn are getting banned in libraries for being "pornographic" fucking, YOU CAN'T EVEN FUCKING JOKE ABOUT PORN OR SEX WITHOUT BEING LABELED OR SAY ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT SEX OR PORN AROUND THESE PEOPLE AS THEY WILL LABEL YOU AS A "Porn addict"

I don't care if its real or not, I don't give a fuck, I don't wanna live in a fucking Surveillance nanny state where I am constantly monitored and if I complain I am a "Porn addicted groomer who wants to destroy the cHiLdReN" then getting thrown in jail for "wrong think"

Fucking... MONITOR YOUR DAMN FUCKING KIDS ITS NOT HARD

LOL, about 40 years too too late for that train. Notice the redirect.

Oh wait, there's more . Of course that was the same year of the infamous Miller test.

Kind of hilarious result when looking up the John Birch society, another group known for censorship in the mid-20th century.

I remember the 1990's cryptowar and how it's having a sequel 30 years later from people who should know better (and probably do, but need a hot issue to wind people up with).

keeping underage persons off of adult sites would be immeasurably fantastic. on the other hand, requiring private info be given to third party companies is scary (hell, since its the US government we're talking about, if they were regulating the service it would be even more scary than numerous third parties).

in terms of time period, it will last likely until after everyone commenting here is dead.

1. to repeal this law, a legislator/activists would have to rally under the flag "we want to repeal the law keeping kids away from adult sexual behavior." i'd hope no one would be dumb enough to actually paint a target on their rear and bend over in front of a camera for the whole world to see, in such a way. i recall when california initiated a legal revision that reduced the sentence given to male child rapists who attacked a male child. this was only to bring it down to a singular penalty regardless of victim/perpetrator gender, as that one, specific case was written to incur a vastly larger sentence; and yet, the country was rocked with news of "california reduces child rape penalty for gays." it'd be another one of "those type" situations if it was attempted to be repealed. much too easy to misrepresent, in brief.
2. there is nothing inherently wrong with the law. adults must provide ID to engage in all other adult activities (name change, weed, cigarettes, liquor, gambling, (NV's legal) prostitution, buying firearms, huge etc.). the law is fixing an existing issue, yet the problem at hand is that it is doing so by creating other, separate inconveniences.
3. as stated, anyone can buy a VPN. literally not an issue. furthermore, many humans are quite more monkey than some others, and the species as a whole is renown for thinking with the dick rather than the brain. if a good half of us can't be trusted to run to the convenience store to get a wrapper before risking a lifelong disease/creating a new life, you can bet that same half won't hesitate to give a shady corporation their ID when they've already gotten riled up and have one hand on the meat flag. it will be gotten used to, and quickly at that.

i for one am grateful that the US has opted to be the test dummy on this issue

post #2198219

The US doesn't need to "test dummy" it, the UK already is... in spite of quite literally everyone on Earth telling them that using what is effectively government-mandate man-in-the-middle attacks is idiotic, and that the requirement to "scan" for offensive materials is quite literally impossible.

I seen some people saying that this are the early steps for requiring a ID to make a account on a social media like facebook, twitter, reddit, discord and other social medias that i don't remember the name
But i cannot confirm it

mta_2_train said:
I seen some people saying that this are the early steps for requiring a ID to make a account on a social media like facebook, twitter, reddit, discord and other social medias that i don't remember the name
But i cannot confirm it

If this does happen then RIP internet anonymity.

alphamule said:
The usual suspects have been telegraphing (not the App) that pretty blatantly. It's like they see bad ideas implemented by horrible people, then think "Hey, we can get some of that! Also, I need makework for my cousin's no-bid contracts!".

Isn't there some zero-knowledge proof out there (that basically makes Captchas and crappy SIM card-tied '2FA' obsolete), using chained public keys? So each site gets entirely different signatures from you? Not sure how that would play in GPDR world, or if it's actually effective against abusive tracking. Making it possible to just purchase a Captcha-pass leads to other kinds of abuse, though. Ironically, not by the people buying the passes.

I guess the joke now about 2FA is it stands for ToFakeAuthentication, steal SIM account. Reset password, and boom. Further insult to injury: Use their real user's own connection to do it. Oh look, you now have a Verizon IP address. This is beyond tonedeaf 'security'. :/ Meanwhile you can still use single-digit-character passwords, but by god they better be mixed-case! (LOL, no)

Thought I already replied to you, sorry for the delay.
Don't know that specific PoC, but I wouldn't be surprised. You're correct however that captcha's and MFA tied to sim cards is a no-go; only MFA software tied to specific devices works.

203f98h2908h9f said:
Thought I already replied to you, sorry for the delay.
Don't know that specific PoC, but I wouldn't be surprised. You're correct however that captcha's and MFA tied to sim cards is a no-go; only MFA software tied to specific devices works.

It's stupid, because smart cards and enclaves (that can run open-source and verifiable code not some Intel 'we promise' BS) have been a thing for years.

So, anything changed or NC is still with the age verification thing?

socialgutbrain777 said:
I fucking hate living in [STATE] right now for this reason. At least I have a job now, so I can probably pay for a VPN.

I don't live in an identity requiring state (at the time of posting this) but I use protonVPN anyways for security. Its free and I havent had any problems with it

Wouldn't a state preventing access to obscene material be in violation of the Supreme Courts ruling in Stanley v. Georgia (1969)?