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.
You're not wrong, and there should be privacy measures in place, but if you're that concerned, just buy your porn in real life or get your porn from the millions of other websites.
Quitting your porn addiction is also a solution.
My problem is that it undermines the principles of online privacy and anonymity, and that that is its real goal.
You have to prove your age and identity and there's no way for a website to look at a picture of your ID and not know if it's fake or not or whether you're actually the person submitting that ID. A physical location has lesser restrictions because they get to see you in person and they can check your ID to see if it's fake or if the photo on the ID doesn't match the person presenting it.
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.
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.
if you tried to order a physical porn DVD to your house from any real company, it would have some form of ID check on it too.
IMO I don't think that's it.
If you were to pay for online porn, there would still be a delivery mechanism, just not a physical copy.
And, obviously, there's never been age verification for online porn until now.
The way it used to work is, just like with nicotine products, if you paid for it, there was a reasonable expectation that you were old enough to purchase it.
Expecting to fix that problem by banning porn is unreasonable.
Your issues are not the same issues that the law intends to fix.
If the internet had been invented a hundred years ago, or a thousand, it would still be mostly porn. This is human nature.
"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.
People wouldn't need porn as much if the entire dating scene wasn't a minefield being patrolled by wolves.
You're not wrong, but expecting to fix that problem in one generation is unreasonable. Most of those people are broken and can't be fixed. Your best bet is to raise future generations properly and that's a tough task as it is if people aren't willing to homeschool their children.
I will say this: the sexual revolution is what led to a lot of those problems and porn was a key driver, and still is till this day.
Hurting the big sites like pornhub is a huge victory in and of itself. They've allowed videos on human trafficking and minors. The victims have tried to get the videos taken down and pornhub denied their requests.
Thinking you were going to do away with all the of porn on the internet or stopping everyone from watching porn, and considering anything less a failure, is ridiculous.
Anyone who's against porn understands that this is a victory.
Porn is everywhere on the internet. It really is much easier to find another website than it is to vote. You can even go on reddit and find porn and I'm sure people will upload pornhub videos to reddit.
This is the worst thing that could happen to companies like PornHub, not some sorta QAnon conspiracy theory to get people to vote.
EDIT: for the record, sites with content that let's than 33% porn will be excluded from age verification. Twitter, FB, and Reddit will easily fall under that threshold.
I know people are going to freak out about digital ID requirements but it's important to remember that porn has age restrictions in real life and you're required to show ID proving that you're +18yrs old to view/purchase porn.
It really was only a matter of time before they would start checking for age on the Internet.
Also, this isn't anything new. If you've ever tried buying a firearm or nicotine products online, you're required to prove your age - just like in person. I, personally, have submitted an ID to purchase nicotine products.
I actually found it a bit hypocritical that porn had no age check while firearms/nicotine did because you at least have to make a purchase in the case of the latter, while porn can be found for free.
And, at the end of the day, you will still be able to find free porn all over the internet, so it's just the major sites like PornHub are gonna be taken down a notch.
In this context "Negro League" isn't a slur, it's what it was called. "Negro" was the PC term for awhile.
Just clearing it up that the way he pronounced it sounded like hard R
But if you say Negro League fast enough, it does sound like hard R so he may not even have said it, but still has to apologize for it.
If you want to use a Firefox-like browser, you can use a fork like Water Fox
Those forks still rely on Mozilla maintaining Firefox, just like Brave/Opera/etc rely on Google to maintain Chromium.
However, if you prefer forks, go for it.
FWIW, the only Firefox fork I've found that keeps up with updates is LibreWolf. I just found out about it so I can't vouch for it, but it says its main focus is privacy and security, which sounds promising.
but we can choose to not support Mozilla.
That's your absolute right to do so. And they're not a good company by any means.
The main point I'm making is you're going to support the enemy regardless of what you pick, so you might as well pick the browser you like.
They're already calling for him to be fired.
This guy probably doesn't hold a racist bone in his body and definitely wouldn't have gone to a black museum voluntarily if he did.
And he would've been better off not going because then he would have no reason to mention it and would've avoided this incident altogether.
According to one article I read
The slur had gone almost entirely unnoticed until that apology, after which some social media users went back and found the clip to share.
He tried apologizing and it's only then that it drew attention. You can't win.
They are women.
Here's a normal guy boxing against multiple women and beating them all up:
FTFY
Competitive is subjective.
Firefox is still a great browser and the only actual alternative besides Safari.
Your definition of competitive is one purely based on the default browsers installed upon an OS and phones which, not surprisingly, is how Google/Microsoft/Apple hold their share of the web browser market.
If Firefox were the default browser installed on 95% of the world's computers and smart phones, they'd have a monopoly on the web browser market share by default.
Your options are essentially Chromium-based browsers - it's built by Google, who finances Mozilla.
Google Is Paying Mozilla $450M Per Year To Be The Default Search Engine On Firefox
You'll always be supporting the wrong side in the browser wars so you might as well stick to the one you like.
The only time I've seen it be wrong is when it stated that only Congress has the right to pass gun control laws *according to the Constitution*, which is obviously false. The Constitution makes it perfectly clear that the RKBA shall not be infringed and, obviously, the original BoR is a prohibition on government.
It got me thinking: this could eventually be used to spread false information (it already was, actually) and people would just accept it as truth.
They changed the article headline.
Two sites to confirm.
a) Reddit's r/politics
b) @TRHLofficial
You can click on the r/politics link to the article and confirm that it's different than the thread title.
This is why archive sites are so important. The left not only changes headlines, but they delete articles and break links to their own sites.
EDIT: gonna leave some more links:
The Mugshot photo
Article vouching for mugshot photo and shows another photo