• unalivejoy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    892 months ago

    The “trustworthy” porn companies are unwilling to serve to regions that require them to store government IDs.

    Source: All the good porn sites blocked my state.

    • @kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      45
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Because that’s like them having to become HIPAA compliant. The amount of work with the potential of breaches and lawsuits isn’t worth it by any means.

      Also, I can’t recommend Mullvaad enough as a VPN. I’m on the east coast of the US and can exceed 1gbps down with a connection in Sweden, or max out my bandwidth on servers closer to me.

        • @kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          152 months ago

          That’s true, Mozilla VPN is mostly just a wrapper around mullvaad, so basically giving mullvaad their standard vpn rate and Mozilla another 5 dollars

  • VaultBoyNewVegas
    link
    fedilink
    582 months ago

    I’m not worried about pornhub/redtube/xhamster/xvideos/chaturbate/only fans leaking info but more someone hacking in. There’s a potential goldmine of blackmail/sextortion material from seeing what fetishes someone has.

    • @wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      222 months ago

      Even if they do need to authenticate some digitalid, there’s no need to store it and there’s no reason for it to link to an individual person.

      This is a very dangerous idea as is.

      • @platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        122 months ago

        And this won’t even stop kids from finding porn. I think it is based on good intentions but they are too proud to say “yeha, maybe this has more cons than pros”

        • @Gabu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          16
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          It’s obviously not based on good intentions… how can you be this naïve? If a conservative says “but think of the children”, you know fully well whatever they’re proposing is not for the wellbeing of children.

          • Exocrinous
            link
            fedilink
            English
            72 months ago

            When a conservative says “think of the children”, what they mean is “think of the queer kids that will be outed to their parents and sent to conversion therapy”.

        • ddh
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          Does anyone have a copy of Mike Johnson’s ID? His son is in for a lot of notifications.

    • Exocrinous
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      Also porn history is a really good clue to figuring out someone’s sexuality and gender identity. And useful to conservatives for demonizing queer people as sexual deviants. I 100% believe this is an indirect way of harming queer people by outing them and their sexual interests.

  • @ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    24
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Damn it! I come to Lemmy to laugh at US politicians saying stupid things! If the CPC win the election I fear c/memes is going to have more Canadian Content.

    • @Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      192 months ago

      To be clear: climate change requires individual responsibility. Keeping your kids off legitimate online pornography websites is too big for citizens to handle on their own and requires government intervention.

  • @unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    22
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    that this is not enough of a dipshit statement to exclude him from everybody’s good books is… like, what’s the point

    if you cannot plainly see that this is the most retarded suggestion it is possible to make under capitalism, it can only be because you have paid attention to no world event since like 1750

    the plastics recycling lie (it’s just been shown that plastics recycling does not work, can not work, and that the oil companies have known this, lied about it, and then made money selling additional recycling-related products since like the 70s) is so recent and yet still walks out there, with his bare face hanging out, and says this shit

  • BarqsHasBite
    link
    fedilink
    15
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Remember: to conservatives, private companies can do nothing wrong.

  • @abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    132 months ago

    Yeah it’s not the Porn companies I’m worried about, it’s the companies the porn companies use to store the data. Even if they don’t leak it, someone can will break in, either a bad actor or the government themselves because, let’s be frank, having a list of porn users and what porn they watch is going to be irresistible if they want to spark a scandal based around, say, rival politicians or activists.

    • @init@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I trusted my government to protect my info, and now I have LifeLock for life because of several breaches on their part. If data is stored, it is virtually certain some portion of it will get leaked.

  • Xyloph
    link
    fedilink
    102 months ago

    And here I was thinking banning flipper zeros was the top of our government stupidity

    • BreakDecks
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 months ago

      This is interesting. This incident resulted in the Video Privacy Protection Act. I wonder if you could apply this to streaming providers who sell your watch history to advertisers.

  • ben
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12 months ago

    I guess they were getting tired of doing well in the polls and wanted to shoot themselves in the foot a bit just to remember how it feels.

  • Scrubbles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -13
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    My hot take is I’m actually okay providing an ID to prove my age. Where it breaks down is these idiots in governments think the only way to do that is by having the sites maintain that.

    What should be done is have browsers like Chrome or Firefox. Implement a system that age gates websites, where you have to provide your ID to unlock your browser to allow you to see 18 and over material. The only thing the government would see it would be that you have unlocked 18 and above material, and sites would only have to change a metadata item saying that they are providing 18 and over material. This would be a low cost for everyone involved and would keep privacy in the forefront.

    Of course, privacy isn’t actually what they’re trying to get at, they want to spy on us and everything about us. It’s not about protecting the children, it’s about knowing everything about us, so a solution like that would never be implemented

    Edit: Downvote me if you want, but if the only alternative is to hand over my ID to porn sites who then will be forced to have those verified with the government then maybe it’s worth investigating some alternatives. I’m not saying my idea is rock solid folks, it just popped in my head, I’m saying we shouldn’t be letting 90 year olds in government decide what the best technical solution is, there are a thousand ways to skin a cat.

    • @fl42v@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      142 months ago

      Yeeeeah, nope. Seriously, all the ways of age verification suck 'cause age verification itself sucks.

      1. It’s unmaintainable for both websites and browsers (there’ll always be sites that say “fuck it”, and there’ll always be people to remove those checks from the browsers);
      2. It gives personal info to the entities that have no business handling it;
      3. [For sites] that would not leak the info: would you like an unsalted md5 with that?

      What’s the alternative? To not fucking verify the age. I’m really confused how even normies aren’t tired of that “protecting the kids” bullshit. Oh, they’re worried? How about trying to be a better fucking parent so that their kids don’t hesitate to talk to them about stuff or at least setting up parental control software.

      • Scrubbles
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Great, your opinion that it sucks is noted, and ignored by the governments. Which is why I’ve thought about things that could be proposed as actual solutions. Dislike it all you want, they’re going to get it one way or another. UK, USA, and Canada are all trying to push legislation that would force porn providers to verify IDs and store their users.

        Sorry I wasted my breath with my terrible idea that would only keep your porn history private from the feds. Guess we should just give up and not pitch any other ideas.

    • clif
      link
      fedilink
      132 months ago

      The sites shouldn’t have to maintain that but browsers should?

      Also, some browsers are open source.

      There’s so many problems with this idea that I don’t know where to start. But, I do see where you’re coming from.

      • Scrubbles
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        Sure there are, and there will be ways to get around it, it’s a jumping off point. I can say firmly though I’d much rather have a token stored in my browser proving I’m over 18 vs every porn site knowing exactly who I am and the government knowing every porn site I visit. I’d rather give up some freedom from my browser to keep privacy vs giving all of my data on my kinks to the government.

        Guess I’m trying to say “There are other ways of solving it that don’t require handing over all of my data to the government or have them track me site to site”

    • @Gabu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      92 months ago

      Here’s a crazy idea: don’t fucking do any of that. What benefit is there to doing it in the first place?

      • Scrubbles
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -12 months ago

        See the problem is that they’re going to do it anyway. So if the “don’t fucking do it” is off the table, which I hate to tell you but it pretty much is, then wouldn’t it be at least good to have a privacy based approach?

        • @ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Here’s an analogy.

          You don’t eat your shit, right?
          But what if you put a lot of sugar on it? Doesn’t it sound much better? At least it has some good flavor that way, and with enough sugar you won’t even see the brown parts of it. This way it doesn’t seem that bad.

          Of course, not eating shit is off the table. You’ll eat it, and you will be happy if you’ve got sugar.

          • Scrubbles
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 months ago

            Right, I’m saying that’s not an anology, because it’s coming whether you like it or not. There is no “choice” you have here to just not eat it, unless you count not viewing porn as the choice here.

            • adderaline
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32 months ago

              if you think bills like this aren’t at their core designed to erode user privacy, you’re fooling yourself. there is no “privacy based approach” to destroying user privacy, and the ultimatum you’re proposing is not real. stupid laws fail all the time. the fact that people are trying to make ID verification a thing doesn’t make it inevitable it will become a thing, and in fact, opposing it is the best chance we have at making it fail.

              your argument to the inevitability of shit-eating just makes you an advocate for the legislators who want us to eat shit.

              • Scrubbles
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                That was my point though, I even said it in my original comment? That there are valid privacy-focused ways to solve the problem, I gave an example, and then said “That’s not the point though, they want to spy on us.” So, I don’t know what you’re trying to convince me of? The point I was trying to make?

                My only difference is that I think it’s coming whether we like it or not. In the US it has bipartisan support and even though we call our congressmen they don’t listen.

                If it was truly to support the children and it was safe, secure, and private to prove I’m over 18 to access sites, I’d even be in support of the bills - but it’s not so I’m not.

                • adderaline
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  there isn’t a problem to solve. the fact legislators want to do this is the problem. quibbling about how exactly they’re gonna implement the torment nexus is secondary to the goal of resisting the torment nexus.

                  like, if your whole thing is “this is happening, its self-evidently about surveillance, and we can do nothing to stop it” and you start proposing ways for us to be surveilled “safely, securely, and privately”, you are pro-surveillance. you are supporting the bills, right now, with the rhetoric you’re using. like, imagine doing this about any other political issue.

                  “i don’t support the death penalty, but we can’t stop the government from implementing it, so here’s the way I’d murder prisoners.”

                  “we can’t stop them from banning abortion, and I hate that, but I’ll suggest we put the limit at 10 weeks. that seems reasonable, right?”

                  your idea for “solving the problem” involves doing the thing that both restricts what information people can access, and tracks their legal identity, but in a way that is maybe marginally less stupid than tech illiterate legislators can manage. the fact that you would be fine with the bills if the intent was just to ensure kids can’t access “pornography” in a private way kind of reveals your biases here. it would not be a good idea even then.

                  what counts as pornography is socially defined. a tool which allows the selective restriction of pornography is also by definition a tool that encourages the redefinition of pornography to encompass whatever it is governments don’t want people to learn about. especially in the US, it would become a tool for the censorship of minorities, the banning of books, and the removal of queer people from the internet. that’s why these laws are being proposed. its not ambiguous at all. like, even if it is inevitable it will pass, the priority doesn’t then become “how do we make this bad idea more efficient?”, it becomes “how do we subvert this unethical restriction on our communications?”. assuming that we can do nothing to stop this ensures that we won’t. its a good thing nobody’s buying your bullshit.

    • @Mahonia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      172 months ago

      Nevermind the infringement on human rights and the conservatives’ historical tendency to cater to corporate interests. Affordable housing wasn’t a priority under Harper either.

    • @Gabu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      92 months ago

      Whether you’re a troll (it’s 2024, grow up) or someone whose brain is literal mush, do the world a favor and cut your internet access…