A federal lawsuit will be way more “annoying” than acquiring an in-state license, installing a VPN, or any number of other alternatives. Seems like this person is a front for moneyed interests.
So your stance is that people fighting for 1st amendment rights are actually just in it for the money, assuming they have an easy workaround they could just use as an alternative?
My stance is that the desire of the adult in this very exceptional situation to access pornography slightly more conveniently does not outweigh the benefits of doing something about children being exposed to sexual content.
It’s crazy that this is unreasonable. The Louisiana law just brings cyberspace and meatspace into alignment. You already need to verify your age to access adult spaces in the real world. If the porn industry actually made any good faith attempts to prevent access to their materials by children, like any topless bar would for fear of getting shut down, the law wouldn’t be necessary. But instead they take the opposite approach. And the content in the former is vastly more extreme.
It seems to me like the difference between where you and @xtian stand and where the plaintiffs in this suit stand, is simply whether it’s more important to protect freedom of expression or to minimize the access of minors to this material. Nobody disagrees that both are important, but one has to override here, and I think a lot of people are rooting for the one that’s in the Constitution.
I don’t even think I care to weigh in with my preference, other than to urge you to consider the reasons on both sides.
Potential questions you might ask are “who gets to decide what’s porn, now and in future? Do state governments have a good track record of making reasonable decisions on issues that interest a loud minority of religious people who control one party which controls the state?” And finally “Do we really bet that nobody will ever hack this DB and publish a list of people in Louisiana who look at porn?”
The constitution is constantly and dramatically overridden and overextended. Even the sense of porn being protected speech at all is one such case of its being stretched well beyond its intended limits. On the other hand, "hate speech" is exactly the kind of activity that it was intended to support. And organizations like the ACLU vehemently defend child porn, but equivocate on hate speech, an alternating undying adherence to the constitution when expedient even in the most contrived scenarios, and pretending that the constitution is passé or unclear when it comes to straightforward instances of its application. This is just political reality. So while I do have respect for the constitution as a cultural relic, I'm not overly concerned with strict constitutionality as such.
> a loud minority of religious people
If we put it to a plebiscite, the people would choose to prevent children from being exposed to porn. This isn't some fringe, Christian, right-wing perspective. It's the normal, working-class, common-sense opinion. Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption. It's certainly a very fringe opinion that porn is good for children.
You’re intentionally acting obtuse and missing the point to accuse me of a strawman.
That point wasn’t the sum nor the thrust of what I said, nor did I claim that the person I was responding to was personally putting that forward. Your reply, however, is both categorically untrue and an actual strawman. In such debates it constantly comes up that porn is “a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children. It’s highly doubtful that you’ve missed this if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the conversations around this. That, plus your intentional disregarding of the actual thrust of my argument, indicates that you aren’t acting in good faith.
Edit: and a soft-pedaled version of the same argument for children to be able to watch porn comes up in this very article
> a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children
Again, no one is saying this. This is a completely made up scenario. It's not even related to the OP, which is about legal adults being blocked as a side-effect of poorly implemented age restriction verification.
Are you referring to this line, and somehow changing "not really harmful" to "totally awesome", and "older teenagers" to "all children"? And then saying that this one little offhand line is what the plaintiff actually is bringing this lawsuit for?
> But I’ll also say this: Is it really a problem if 16- or 17-year-olds watch some porn?
Because, you know... Literal definition of a strawman:
> an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument
> Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption
Is that from this[1]? Because this is a meaningless question.
How many people think alcohol is bad for you? Compare this with how many people still drink alcohol anyway. And with how well prohibition worked (and alcohol objectively is bad for you).
~69% of US adult men age 30 to 49 watched porn from 2021 to 2022. Only 12% of them claimed they have never watched porn. [2]
And that's assuming some of the 12% are not lying. [3]
The answer to porn issues for minors in households is good parenting, not a clumsy state law-mandated technical solution.
It is from there. It’s not a meaningless question at all, but a somewhat useful proxy for gauging opinion on porn generally in the absence of polling on this specific issue. Your alcohol comparison is apt, and despite total prohibition being a failure (although dry counties exist today without descending into mayhem), most people don’t want their kid to be able to go buy vodka on a whim with no safeguards, and legislation reflects that. When children grow up in an unhealthy environment, it has negative consequences. You can blame parents all you want, but parents shouldn’t need to be tyrannical to enforce basic social mores that they and their neighbors agree upon.
If I don’t want my kid seeing 4K meticulously produced videos of surgically altered women getting violently choked out and treated like sex toys by random men, what is my reasonable responsibility as a parent? I have to know how to set up some sort of blocker on all devices, monitor their computer usage at all times, not get them a smartphone, not allow them to go to school with all of the other kids with smartphones, not allow them to have any friends over with smartphones, not allow them to go to friends’ houses where the same measures aren’t taken. What is my reasonable responsibility as a parent who doesn’t want my kids to drink vodka? Don’t leave it around, don’t buy it for them, don’t let them go to friends houses where the parents do either of the former. There’s a chance someone could sneak it onto a school bus, but it’s not always there just a tap away.
But your other numbers have no bearing on this at all. One can have vices, recognize them as such, and not want children to have those same vices. I smoke. I’d quit, but I do actually enjoy it. I try to do it away from people. I feel guilty when some kid comes up to me and asks about it. I tell them that it’s stupid and disgusting. I’m happy for measures to be taken to prevent them from taking it up. I’m fine with paying the extra taxes that are intended to discourage such an unhealthy behavior.
> basic social mores that they and their neighbors agree upon.
> not allow them to go to school with all of the other kids with smartphones, not allow them to have any friends over with smartphones, not allow them to go to friends’ houses where the same measures aren’t taken
There's some dissonance here.
When I was a kid my parents (and my friends' parents) didn't let us stay up all night watching TV. And the TV had parental controls so we couldn't watch the restricted channels.
They generally supervised our computer usage and computer time. They weren't hovering over our shoulders but they regularly checked in so we knew they were around.
It's often obvious when kids are doing something they know they shouldn't because they either get real quiet or real loud.
Parents on HN often say it's socially damaging to not let kids have smartphones because the other kids have smartphones.
If smartphones are such a big issue (and not just for porn) then why don't parents get together at a PTA meeting and agree to only get their kids dumb phones?
They'd all save money and even if it's only most of the parents that agree then the social standing argument should matter less.
> What is my reasonable responsibility as a parent who doesn’t want my kids to drink vodka? Don’t leave it around, don’t buy it for them, don’t let them go to friends houses where the parents do either of the former. There’s a chance someone could sneak it onto a school bus, but it’s not always there just a tap away.
You know pornography has existed for ages right? The pre-internet movie trope of teenagers keeping dirty magazines under their mattress is a trope for a reason.
The general problem has always existed. In my opinion it's a matter of being involved in your kid's life, making sure they know they can talk to you, and most importantly about establishing trust with your kid.
If you have good reasons your kid shouldn't look at porn, and you explain them, and they understand those reasons, and they trust you, and you trust them then I think in most cases you're probably going to be ok.
Sure, that last "and they trust you and you trust them" bit will fail sometimes. But that's why parenting is hard. And the lessons learned from breaking that trust will be important lessons on how relationships work.
I stole money from my sister a few times and my dad eventually caught me. It was a pivotal learning experience on relationships and trust for me.
As an aside, with regards to the vokda bit. Here in Louisiana there was alcohol at most parties I went to in high school. It was almost absurdly available.
Afaik it's was sometimes (usually?) even legal. Teenagers aren't allowed to purchase alcohol but possession/consumption on private property (or with legal guardian approval) can be. [1]
> When I was a kid my parents (and my friends' parents) didn't let us stay up all night watching TV. And the TV had parental controls so we couldn't watch the restricted channels.
> They generally supervised our computer usage and computer time. They weren't hovering over our shoulders but they regularly checked in so we knew they were around
Right, and this would have been when you had the family computer in the den or something similar, correct? Maybe in your room. Not at all times in your pocket. And you never got exposed to anything graphic that you didn’t intentionally seek out? If not, your childhood was very different from mine and those I grew up with.
> Parents on HN often say it's socially damaging to not let kids have smartphones because the other kids have smartphones.
My daughter doesn’t have a smartphone, understands why, and isn’t too bothered by it. Her friends do have them and think it’s weird that she doesn’t. She’s a good kid, but it’s still is uncomfortable to be out of the loop on things like that. Socialization is an important part of childhood.
> If smartphones are such a big issue (and not just for porn) then why don't parents get together at a PTA meeting and agree to only get their kids dumb phones?
Because other parents want their kids to have smartphones. They don’t want them to be able to do certain things on them. Just like they might want them to walk down the street but not enter a BDSM club. Technology can be a great thing, and it’s not too much to ask to have access to it for your child without opening them up to everything anyone has ever put online.
> You know pornography has existed for ages right? The pre-internet movie trope of teenagers keeping dirty magazines under their mattress is a trope for a reason.
That’s a little before my time, but from what I gather nudie mags and grainy cable channels with simulated sex weren’t quite the same as the offerings on PornHub’s homepage. Just as sneaking into a slasher film was somewhat different than industrial accident videos.
> about establishing trust
Trust is important. So are reasonable safeguards.
> As an aside, with regards to the vokda bit. Here in Louisiana there was alcohol at most parties I went to in high school. It was almost absurdly available.
Absolutely. Vodka came to mind because Taaka was the go-to when I was growing up (also in Louisiana). But everyone knew there was alcohol at high school parties, including parents. Usually parents supplied it. It was an agreed-upon, healthy outlet. Taaka wasn’t something your 8-year-old could just randomly, inadvertently consume by playing Roblox.
> Afaik it's was sometimes (usually?) even legal. Teenagers aren't allowed to purchase alcohol but possession/consumption on private property (or with legal guardian approval) can be.
Right, and the barrier to purchasing is what I’m talking about. When my daughter is at an appropriate age, I’m fine with letting her drink. I’m fine with her doing normal growing-up things. That’s not at all what this is about.
The plaintiff is not a pornographer or anyone in the porn business, it's a normal person who consumes porn. What the pornography businesses want is irrelevant and I'm not sure why you brought them up in response.
>Seems like this person is a front for moneyed interests.
Of course, this is common practice. They need someone with legal standing to challenge it, so law firms will seek out an ideal plaintiff. But sometimes moneyed interests do align with the public good. This is very obviously an unconstitutional law that needs to be struck down.
Your second sentence doesn't follow from your first. Have you never fought something on principle, especially when a win could help others similarly situated?
I'm pretty sure they are porn actors, producers, and distributors whose principles are that they should be able to freely exercise their first amendment to perform, produce, and distribute porn.
All industries have a bad side to them but I guess you honing hard on the sex and drugs industry. Fossil fuels might kill us, but who cares. Funny how consensual actions upset some Americans, but the most sadistic violence is just fine with them.
> Sorry. What part of human trafficking is consensual?
The article was about porn. Consensual porn. It was you that decided to deliberately taint it by dragging in human trafficking. Because you don't like porn and can't accept that sex outside a rigid framework should exist so you try to deny other people the right to be themselves or have their own lives their way. Elizabeth Henson has more guts and morals and decency than you.
Weird. I haven’t seen that category on the porn sites.
> It was you that decided to deliberately taint it by dragging in human trafficking.
Hmm. I’m sure 100% of _sex workers_ are there on their own free will. Right?
> Because you don't like porn and can't accept that sex outside a rigid framework should exist so you try to deny other people the right to be themselves or have their own lives their way.
I never said I didn’t like porn. Nor did I suggest a rigid framework.
> Elizabeth Henson has more guts and morals and decency than you.
You don’t know me, my morals or how decent I am. You instead project how you think I am based on you injecting words I didn’t say into a conversation. Weird flex.
> Weird. I haven’t seen that category on the porn sites
If you want to watch nonconsensual porn, I suggest you report yourself to the police. If you are unaware of a difference between consensual and nonconsensual porn, please report to a psychiatrist.
> Hmm. I’m sure 100% of _sex workers_ are there on their own free will. Right?
Right. But if you have any evidence that they are not, please report it to the police instead of complaining about it on a discussion forum. It is your legal and moral duty.
> I never said I didn’t like porn. Nor did I suggest a rigid framework.
Then explain what your position is and whether or not you actually do or don't like porn. Do you accept there is such thing as consensual workers in porn? If so, do you think they have a right to do their job? If not, why do you feel that you should control their employment prospects?
Please answer the questions because there are so many people like you who pop up in sex and drugs discussions and simply try and kill them because you are unable to accept other people's autonomy.
Again, please answer the questions so I can get some understanding of your worldview.
Okay, I appreciate this because it's constructive, upvoted. From this though, I don't understand why you would conflate consensual and nonconsensual work. It's unquestionable that trafficked women get forced into sex, but that's an issue for regulation and protection, not damning a whole industry or everything would get shut down.
To answer yours then "Do you feel the backpage ordeal was positive or negative for the sex worker industry?" I have no clue what this is about. I've been through the article twice now I can't see any mention of anything, a quick search through the HN comments, ditto, so where did this come from?
The issues about Backpage are not simple and I don't have time to do more than just skim it as I have some work to do now. I can't form a solid opinion, although it does give the impression that they knew they were doing something wrong. So let's tackle right and wrong:
Axiom: If it's between freely consenting adults then it's fine. If it's not between consenting adults then it's not fine and should be stopped. That is the simple basis of everything. Do you agree?
I know a little bit more about Craigslist and was annoyed when they shut down their contacts section. I had a limited degree of success finding casual sex on there, and I didn't appreciate American fundamentalists screwing that up (I'm in the UK).
"...This decision came after allegations by several U.S. states that the erotic services ads were being used for prostitution" – if prostitution is done between consenting adults, that cannot be wrong – see above. So why stop it? Some adults are forced into prostitution, some choose it and like it as a job (or at least make money from it and are okay with that). The former is wrong, the latter is not. I can think of 2 prostitutes I've known, male and female, both made good money and liked the job.
I guess that's it in a nutshell. Where do you agree or disagree?
(Like to mention that adults being forced into prostitution can happen not by force but by the need to pay bills. I remember a long while ago documentary where an American woman on the street said that she had kids to feed so "you get out there and you do what you have to do". It's possible economic circumstance is a bigger pressure to sell your body than coercion. I don't know).
Does that make her challenge to this censorship any less valid? Of course the porn companies are paying the legal bills. That's going to happen in any lawsuit of any broader political and economic significance. You're going to find someone with deep pockets and aligned interests.
But they're not trying to hide it. If you look at the actual lawsuit filed in court [1], you'll see that the first named plaintiff is the Free Speech Coalition [2], the 501(c)(6) trade association for the porn industry. They've been around since 1991 and have challenged a bunch of anti-porn laws.
Looks like the Lousiana government is taking a cue from big corporations and tracking people's online activity. What is this intended for? How are they going to prove they are not secretly selling online activity data? This is a massive privacy violation, especially when you think about how you can target ads to people by their porn fetishes now that you have direct identification of individuals by their ID and you've made it a crime to pretend to be someone else. But money is money.
You can say that about every information system. Even when it comes to our personal health information, nobody throws up their hands and exclaims, “keeping data safe is an intractable problem, we should abandon the whole idea.” You could make the same argument about porn sites themselves. They can’t possibly be trusted to safeguard users’ viewing habits, so we ought to shut them down. Then the state has no such information to track anyway. Win win.
The flag on a post can be removed when enough people with sufficient karma upvote it. a dead post can be vouched for and if enough high karma users do it it would be resurrected.
I hate to say it, but maybe that's been added to the unwritten list of third rail topics.
This recent post [0] in the same vein was flagged for hours, for no discernible reason. It was then quietly unflagged, after all algorithmic momentum was sucked out.
Even the adjacent comment itt [1] pointing out the bizarre flagging recently has been flagged to death. You might not see it without showdead on.
I think that's a bit conspiracy, "an unwritten list". If there was, DanG would preview them first, and there aren't that many so it would be quick and they'd never get on the front page. My guess is it's down to HN posters doing the flagging, and I am aware that some of them – who don't like porn or drugs – will simply use any method to try and kill discussion (these people are a bloody nuisance). Dan reviews then unflags them, I think that's all that's happening. I had one of mine recently flagged, then finally deleted after a few days – it took days. Dan is a busy guy here.
I have to admit, I am getting pissed off that when it comes to discussions of sex and drugs, where abusive flagging occurs and other misbehaviour like injecting negative comment or claims without providing any backup, there seems to be no dealing with the culprits and they're allowed to continue. Then again I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Dan does a good job and is very busy. But I wish he would handle it, or at least open up a discussion with us on how it might be handled.
Don't take me too literally. I'm not saying Dan keeps a list of banned topics, and checks posts one by one before approval.
However, there are groups who monitor this site for keywords, and flag posts that the community would otherwise be interested in discussing. They have a number of ways to do this, ranging from subtle to heavy handed. It's not hard to accomplish, technically speaking. You've seen what LLMs can do; and those tools have been available for years to some people. The benefits of doing so far outweigh the negligible risk for the groups involved.
The meta discussion around those topics is closed. Even posts asking for a discussion around them get removed, despite their immediate relevance to the tech and entrepreneur fields.
61 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadI don’t even think I care to weigh in with my preference, other than to urge you to consider the reasons on both sides.
Potential questions you might ask are “who gets to decide what’s porn, now and in future? Do state governments have a good track record of making reasonable decisions on issues that interest a loud minority of religious people who control one party which controls the state?” And finally “Do we really bet that nobody will ever hack this DB and publish a list of people in Louisiana who look at porn?”
The constitution is constantly and dramatically overridden and overextended. Even the sense of porn being protected speech at all is one such case of its being stretched well beyond its intended limits. On the other hand, "hate speech" is exactly the kind of activity that it was intended to support. And organizations like the ACLU vehemently defend child porn, but equivocate on hate speech, an alternating undying adherence to the constitution when expedient even in the most contrived scenarios, and pretending that the constitution is passé or unclear when it comes to straightforward instances of its application. This is just political reality. So while I do have respect for the constitution as a cultural relic, I'm not overly concerned with strict constitutionality as such.
> a loud minority of religious people
If we put it to a plebiscite, the people would choose to prevent children from being exposed to porn. This isn't some fringe, Christian, right-wing perspective. It's the normal, working-class, common-sense opinion. Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption. It's certainly a very fringe opinion that porn is good for children.
That point wasn’t the sum nor the thrust of what I said, nor did I claim that the person I was responding to was personally putting that forward. Your reply, however, is both categorically untrue and an actual strawman. In such debates it constantly comes up that porn is “a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children. It’s highly doubtful that you’ve missed this if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the conversations around this. That, plus your intentional disregarding of the actual thrust of my argument, indicates that you aren’t acting in good faith.
Edit: and a soft-pedaled version of the same argument for children to be able to watch porn comes up in this very article
Again, no one is saying this. This is a completely made up scenario. It's not even related to the OP, which is about legal adults being blocked as a side-effect of poorly implemented age restriction verification.
Are you referring to this line, and somehow changing "not really harmful" to "totally awesome", and "older teenagers" to "all children"? And then saying that this one little offhand line is what the plaintiff actually is bringing this lawsuit for?
> But I’ll also say this: Is it really a problem if 16- or 17-year-olds watch some porn?
Because, you know... Literal definition of a strawman:
> an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument
Is that from this[1]? Because this is a meaningless question.
How many people think alcohol is bad for you? Compare this with how many people still drink alcohol anyway. And with how well prohibition worked (and alcohol objectively is bad for you).
~69% of US adult men age 30 to 49 watched porn from 2021 to 2022. Only 12% of them claimed they have never watched porn. [2]
And that's assuming some of the 12% are not lying. [3]
The answer to porn issues for minors in households is good parenting, not a clumsy state law-mandated technical solution.
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph...
[2] https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps...
[3] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-...
If I don’t want my kid seeing 4K meticulously produced videos of surgically altered women getting violently choked out and treated like sex toys by random men, what is my reasonable responsibility as a parent? I have to know how to set up some sort of blocker on all devices, monitor their computer usage at all times, not get them a smartphone, not allow them to go to school with all of the other kids with smartphones, not allow them to have any friends over with smartphones, not allow them to go to friends’ houses where the same measures aren’t taken. What is my reasonable responsibility as a parent who doesn’t want my kids to drink vodka? Don’t leave it around, don’t buy it for them, don’t let them go to friends houses where the parents do either of the former. There’s a chance someone could sneak it onto a school bus, but it’s not always there just a tap away.
But your other numbers have no bearing on this at all. One can have vices, recognize them as such, and not want children to have those same vices. I smoke. I’d quit, but I do actually enjoy it. I try to do it away from people. I feel guilty when some kid comes up to me and asks about it. I tell them that it’s stupid and disgusting. I’m happy for measures to be taken to prevent them from taking it up. I’m fine with paying the extra taxes that are intended to discourage such an unhealthy behavior.
> not allow them to go to school with all of the other kids with smartphones, not allow them to have any friends over with smartphones, not allow them to go to friends’ houses where the same measures aren’t taken
There's some dissonance here.
When I was a kid my parents (and my friends' parents) didn't let us stay up all night watching TV. And the TV had parental controls so we couldn't watch the restricted channels.
They generally supervised our computer usage and computer time. They weren't hovering over our shoulders but they regularly checked in so we knew they were around.
It's often obvious when kids are doing something they know they shouldn't because they either get real quiet or real loud.
Parents on HN often say it's socially damaging to not let kids have smartphones because the other kids have smartphones.
If smartphones are such a big issue (and not just for porn) then why don't parents get together at a PTA meeting and agree to only get their kids dumb phones?
They'd all save money and even if it's only most of the parents that agree then the social standing argument should matter less.
> What is my reasonable responsibility as a parent who doesn’t want my kids to drink vodka? Don’t leave it around, don’t buy it for them, don’t let them go to friends houses where the parents do either of the former. There’s a chance someone could sneak it onto a school bus, but it’s not always there just a tap away.
You know pornography has existed for ages right? The pre-internet movie trope of teenagers keeping dirty magazines under their mattress is a trope for a reason.
The general problem has always existed. In my opinion it's a matter of being involved in your kid's life, making sure they know they can talk to you, and most importantly about establishing trust with your kid.
If you have good reasons your kid shouldn't look at porn, and you explain them, and they understand those reasons, and they trust you, and you trust them then I think in most cases you're probably going to be ok.
Sure, that last "and they trust you and you trust them" bit will fail sometimes. But that's why parenting is hard. And the lessons learned from breaking that trust will be important lessons on how relationships work.
I stole money from my sister a few times and my dad eventually caught me. It was a pivotal learning experience on relationships and trust for me.
As an aside, with regards to the vokda bit. Here in Louisiana there was alcohol at most parties I went to in high school. It was almost absurdly available.
Afaik it's was sometimes (usually?) even legal. Teenagers aren't allowed to purchase alcohol but possession/consumption on private property (or with legal guardian approval) can be. [1]
[1] https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/underage-drinking/state-...
> They generally supervised our computer usage and computer time. They weren't hovering over our shoulders but they regularly checked in so we knew they were around
Right, and this would have been when you had the family computer in the den or something similar, correct? Maybe in your room. Not at all times in your pocket. And you never got exposed to anything graphic that you didn’t intentionally seek out? If not, your childhood was very different from mine and those I grew up with.
> Parents on HN often say it's socially damaging to not let kids have smartphones because the other kids have smartphones.
My daughter doesn’t have a smartphone, understands why, and isn’t too bothered by it. Her friends do have them and think it’s weird that she doesn’t. She’s a good kid, but it’s still is uncomfortable to be out of the loop on things like that. Socialization is an important part of childhood.
> If smartphones are such a big issue (and not just for porn) then why don't parents get together at a PTA meeting and agree to only get their kids dumb phones?
Because other parents want their kids to have smartphones. They don’t want them to be able to do certain things on them. Just like they might want them to walk down the street but not enter a BDSM club. Technology can be a great thing, and it’s not too much to ask to have access to it for your child without opening them up to everything anyone has ever put online.
> You know pornography has existed for ages right? The pre-internet movie trope of teenagers keeping dirty magazines under their mattress is a trope for a reason.
That’s a little before my time, but from what I gather nudie mags and grainy cable channels with simulated sex weren’t quite the same as the offerings on PornHub’s homepage. Just as sneaking into a slasher film was somewhat different than industrial accident videos.
> about establishing trust
Trust is important. So are reasonable safeguards.
> As an aside, with regards to the vokda bit. Here in Louisiana there was alcohol at most parties I went to in high school. It was almost absurdly available.
Absolutely. Vodka came to mind because Taaka was the go-to when I was growing up (also in Louisiana). But everyone knew there was alcohol at high school parties, including parents. Usually parents supplied it. It was an agreed-upon, healthy outlet. Taaka wasn’t something your 8-year-old could just randomly, inadvertently consume by playing Roblox.
> Afaik it's was sometimes (usually?) even legal. Teenagers aren't allowed to purchase alcohol but possession/consumption on private property (or with legal guardian approval) can be.
Right, and the barrier to purchasing is what I’m talking about. When my daughter is at an appropriate age, I’m fine with letting her drink. I’m fine with her doing normal growing-up things. That’s not at all what this is about.
What exactly are you referencing here?
It doesn't prevent access to most sites, which don't implement it, or porn on sites like twitter or google, which the law doesn't cover.
So some kids are maybe stopped (via this law) from a few sources of porn content while the vast majority are still there.
While the law is very annoying for all the adults that want to use some of the bigger porn sites.
"This week, a coalition made up of people who make adult entertainment and people who simply enjoy it filed a federal lawsuit."
Since they're the one funding the lawsuit, what they want is extremely relevant.
Of course, this is common practice. They need someone with legal standing to challenge it, so law firms will seek out an ideal plaintiff. But sometimes moneyed interests do align with the public good. This is very obviously an unconstitutional law that needs to be struck down.
Is that a problem?
Sorry. What part of human trafficking is consensual? Just trying to follow your logic here.
> but the most sadistic violence is just fine with them.
You seem to be projecting.
The article was about porn. Consensual porn. It was you that decided to deliberately taint it by dragging in human trafficking. Because you don't like porn and can't accept that sex outside a rigid framework should exist so you try to deny other people the right to be themselves or have their own lives their way. Elizabeth Henson has more guts and morals and decency than you.
Weird. I haven’t seen that category on the porn sites.
> It was you that decided to deliberately taint it by dragging in human trafficking.
Hmm. I’m sure 100% of _sex workers_ are there on their own free will. Right?
> Because you don't like porn and can't accept that sex outside a rigid framework should exist so you try to deny other people the right to be themselves or have their own lives their way.
I never said I didn’t like porn. Nor did I suggest a rigid framework.
> Elizabeth Henson has more guts and morals and decency than you.
You don’t know me, my morals or how decent I am. You instead project how you think I am based on you injecting words I didn’t say into a conversation. Weird flex.
If you want to watch nonconsensual porn, I suggest you report yourself to the police. If you are unaware of a difference between consensual and nonconsensual porn, please report to a psychiatrist.
> Hmm. I’m sure 100% of _sex workers_ are there on their own free will. Right?
Right. But if you have any evidence that they are not, please report it to the police instead of complaining about it on a discussion forum. It is your legal and moral duty.
> I never said I didn’t like porn. Nor did I suggest a rigid framework.
Then explain what your position is and whether or not you actually do or don't like porn. Do you accept there is such thing as consensual workers in porn? If so, do you think they have a right to do their job? If not, why do you feel that you should control their employment prospects?
Please answer the questions because there are so many people like you who pop up in sex and drugs discussions and simply try and kill them because you are unable to accept other people's autonomy.
Again, please answer the questions so I can get some understanding of your worldview.
> Do you accept there is such thing as consensual workers in porn?
Yes
> If so, do you think they have a right to do their job?
Yes
Do you feel the backpage ordeal was positive or negative for the sex worker industry?
To answer yours then "Do you feel the backpage ordeal was positive or negative for the sex worker industry?" I have no clue what this is about. I've been through the article twice now I can't see any mention of anything, a quick search through the HN comments, ditto, so where did this come from?
Was just wondering your thoughts as this conversation is productive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage
Axiom: If it's between freely consenting adults then it's fine. If it's not between consenting adults then it's not fine and should be stopped. That is the simple basis of everything. Do you agree?
I know a little bit more about Craigslist and was annoyed when they shut down their contacts section. I had a limited degree of success finding casual sex on there, and I didn't appreciate American fundamentalists screwing that up (I'm in the UK).
"...This decision came after allegations by several U.S. states that the erotic services ads were being used for prostitution" – if prostitution is done between consenting adults, that cannot be wrong – see above. So why stop it? Some adults are forced into prostitution, some choose it and like it as a job (or at least make money from it and are okay with that). The former is wrong, the latter is not. I can think of 2 prostitutes I've known, male and female, both made good money and liked the job.
I guess that's it in a nutshell. Where do you agree or disagree?
(Like to mention that adults being forced into prostitution can happen not by force but by the need to pay bills. I remember a long while ago documentary where an American woman on the street said that she had kids to feed so "you get out there and you do what you have to do". It's possible economic circumstance is a bigger pressure to sell your body than coercion. I don't know).
But they're not trying to hide it. If you look at the actual lawsuit filed in court [1], you'll see that the first named plaintiff is the Free Speech Coalition [2], the 501(c)(6) trade association for the porn industry. They've been around since 1991 and have challenged a bunch of anti-porn laws.
[1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23855279/henson-decla...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Coalition
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36363110
Is this because I vouched for an article last week?
This recent post [0] in the same vein was flagged for hours, for no discernible reason. It was then quietly unflagged, after all algorithmic momentum was sucked out.
Even the adjacent comment itt [1] pointing out the bizarre flagging recently has been flagged to death. You might not see it without showdead on.
0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452226 1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36482768
I have to admit, I am getting pissed off that when it comes to discussions of sex and drugs, where abusive flagging occurs and other misbehaviour like injecting negative comment or claims without providing any backup, there seems to be no dealing with the culprits and they're allowed to continue. Then again I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Dan does a good job and is very busy. But I wish he would handle it, or at least open up a discussion with us on how it might be handled.
However, there are groups who monitor this site for keywords, and flag posts that the community would otherwise be interested in discussing. They have a number of ways to do this, ranging from subtle to heavy handed. It's not hard to accomplish, technically speaking. You've seen what LLMs can do; and those tools have been available for years to some people. The benefits of doing so far outweigh the negligible risk for the groups involved.
The meta discussion around those topics is closed. Even posts asking for a discussion around them get removed, despite their immediate relevance to the tech and entrepreneur fields.