PornHub traffic in Louisiana drops 80% after digital ID requirement
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (94)
sorted by:
Expecting to fix that problem by banning porn is unreasonable. Most of the internet is porn. The only way to achieve the boomercon goal here is totalitarian control over internet activity that would make every leftist cum like gangbusters.
Here you conflate causes with consequences. If the internet had been invented a hundred years ago, or a thousand, it would still be mostly porn. This is human nature.
Your issues are not the same issues that the law intends to fix.
"Porn" back then was women showing their ankles and even people back then found that reprehensible.
Either way, this whole conversation is steering off-topic.
You don't like the law? Okay, fine, don't care.
I don't like internet regulation period, even when its stated goals conform to my moral sensibilities, because I have enough common sense to know that that is not the real goal.
This has always been the problem with boomercon politics. It's always, "Freedom! Free speech! School choice! Medical freedom! Free to own guns! Free to pray in schools! Oh, but you better put your jackboots down on video games and porn, because I don't like the way other parents raise their children, so I want the government to do it for them!"
The thing is, there's age restriction on porn in real life. Unless your position is that there shouldn't be an age restriction on porn period, opposing an online age check would just be hypocritical.
And just because people will still get porn doesn't mean it's going to be pointless.
We have laws against murders and that doesn't stop people from committing murders, but it doesn't mean we do away with all laws against murder.
ID requirements in real life don't give the state and a hundred third parties the power to track every other purchase you make and every other place you visit. Internet ID checks do have that effect, and I would argue that that is the point of this law. My problem with it is not its stated goals, which I'm sympathetic to. My problem isn't even that it won't work, which it won't. My problem is that it undermines the principles of online privacy and anonymity, and that that is its real goal.
Is it just "boomercon" politics that does that? I see similar issues with politics in general. Like the rural/urban cultural split, but rural areas are expected to obey laws put forward by urbanites. Also more obviously, legislation pushed forward by lunatics that's intended to manipulate sane humans. There's always a message that it's for everyone's own good, but it rarely is.
Man, what a scholar of history we have here. DAE not know the ENTIRE WORLD was run by 1800s-era Puritans, for all of human history?
It's really funny to see how little the average American nowadays knows about anything outside a very specific part the continental US at a very specific time.
No, the law intends to yet again restrict competition to make marriage look better. Tradcucks and women have absolutely no shame in rigging things like this.
While women are stealing jobs, pushing their shit credit scores and piles of student debt on the rest of society, at least the GOP is focusing on the real issues! /s