How "Free" P*rn Sites Really Work And Their Secretive Owners
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (60)
sorted by:
You're right, but he's also got a point that there are a bunch of extremely pro-porn people who pop up from time to time.
Pro-porn? Or anti-banning adults from doing what they want with their own bodies?
Pro-porn.
Did I stutter?
Personally, I'm not for banning porn, because I think the ban would lead to even worse things than the porn does...and wouldn't even work. Prohibition doesn't work, and is a slippery slope of authoritarianism, generally.
I'll still criticize the, to quote OP, "it's actually healthy for you" retards. Porn sucks, and is unhealthy; anyone defending it on 'it's totally fine' grounds is just wrong. So I do mean "pro-porn" not just "anti-banning-porn," and I think the latter is largely the correct stance, actually.
A good portion of porn traffic is minors. All states are doing is asking for ID and the porn sites themselves are freaking out and blocking IPs.
That's down to parenting: it's not the role of government to regulate children's internet access, especially if it means regulating everybody else's as well.
Any website, every social media platform, forum, search engine or any other site that allows user interaction might potentially be a host for pornographic material. Digital ID laws are a recipe for requiring ID to access the internet as a whole, and that is why governments are pushing it.
Digital ID laws will not prevent children from being corrupted by nefarious actors, but they will be used to prevent you from speaking out against it.
I'm anti-porn. I'm also anti-porn-bans, and I've said this repeatedly.
Porn bans are a foot in the door for ending online anonymity, which in turn rolls back a ton of the progress we've made culturally recently.
As hilarious as it is, I think a "porn ban" would drastically damage the rightwing movement...not because they're reliant on porn, but because a lot of if is online.
"All." Again, that's massive, and hugely damaging to free speech. Porn bans are an absolute trap, and the people cheering them on really need to look at things, and look at places that have online verification.
That wouldn't be the case if they were supply-side focused. As you said, the current anti-porn agenda is just part of a larger push to expand state surveillance. It doesn't have to be done that way though. It's done that way because the people in charge don't care about effectively combatting porn, only consent manufacturing for their surveillance agenda.
Porn regulation is the foot in the door. An actual ban would have no impact on anonymity. Just a lot of sites being shut down by the DOJ.
But like you say, porn is just a convenient tool. The real intent is the de-anonymization.
Wrong. They want a free speech ban. Ending online anonymity is the endgame. They've just phrased it as a "think of the children" scheme, and people are falling for it.
I’m sure that also cuts into their legitimate traffic. I’d never provide my name and personal information to such a potentially embarrassing service with no non-embarrassing use. That’s basically begging for some data security breach to dump your porn tastes online.
As opposed to the anti porn people, who should never be criticized apparently