Future of porn (and this site) is really uncertain right now…

[rawTOP]

Some good news… The Independent did an article on the bills that Sen. Mike Lee introduced…

https://apple.news/AHdJq7h95TsONTKaKe3T8ew

For starters the article clarifies that he introduced two bills (not one). SCREEN is about age verification, and the other is about redefining obscenity. The article does a good job of explaining each, in context (which I won't rehash here). Then it goes on…

Quote

 

The senator’s broader attack on the porn industry [premably the obscenity bill] has yet to notch a single cosponsor as of this weekend; very little significant legislation of any type is likely to pass the near-evenly-divided upper chamber in the coming weeks or months, and Mr Lee’s bill has a steeper battle uphill than most.

One of the most conservative members of the Senate, Mr Lee failed to win even his own fellow Utah Senator Mitt Romney’s support in his reelection bid this fall. Evan McMullin, an independent backed by Democrats in an aspirational but ultimately futile effort, fell 11 points short of the incumbent in last month’s midterms.

 

So this means that some adult industry people who were predicting that the bills could see significant support from both parties are most likely wrong. Luckily no one seems to like this guy. And if they don't like him, they probably can't be bothered to get his bills out of committee or vote for them.

🤞

[PozBearWI]

Thanks very much for the update and link @rawTOP

Jim

[Close2MyBro]

Talk about shooting a hole in your own boat

[Zencoli]

I’m going out on a limb because this site has a history of attacking me every time I speak, but;

 

would TOR Network possibly work? We would be slowed to dialup, but content would be on the deep web, which is impossible for the states to independently or unilaterally block in totality. 
 

or maybe if you want a more simple solution, would it not be wiser to move all porn servers to (just for convenience) Montreal, Canada, then provide for users at $100, or to be honest if it’s our stuff I’d pay $1000 for a “streaming service USB”?

[UKFFBBBtm]

3 hours ago, rawTOP said:

Some good news… The Independent did an article on the bills that Sen. Mike Lee introduced…

[think before following links] https://apple.news/AHdJq7h95TsONTKaKe3T8ew

For starters the article clarifies that he introduced two bills (not one). SCREEN is about age verification, and the other is about redefining obscenity. The article does a good job of explaining each, in context (which I won't rehash here). Then it goes on…

So this means that some adult industry people who were predicting that the bills could see significant support from both parties are most likely wrong. Luckily no one seems to like this guy. And if they don't like him, they probably can't be bothered to get his bills out of committee or vote for them.

🤞

Just did a quick google search of him and IMO he looks like the typical repressed right-wing nut job

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, Zencoli said:

I’m going out on a limb because this site has a history of attacking me every time I speak, but;

 

would TOR Network possibly work? We would be slowed to dialup, but content would be on the deep web, which is impossible for the states to independently or unilaterally block in totality. 
 

or maybe if you want a more simple solution, would it not be wiser to move all porn servers to (just for convenience) Montreal, Canada, then provide for users at $100, or to be honest if it’s our stuff I’d pay $1000 for a “streaming service USB”?

The problem isn't where the data is housed. Most attempts to ban porn (of whatever type) online aim to restrict the residents of X from accessing such content regardless of where it's housed, and because the website is "sending" the material into that jurisdiction, it's theoretically subject to local laws (to the extent such laws are constitutional, that is).

[Zencoli]

4 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The problem isn't where the data is housed. Most attempts to ban porn (of whatever type) online aim to restrict the residents of X from accessing such content regardless of where it's housed, and because the website is "sending" the material into that jurisdiction, it's theoretically subject to local laws (to the extent such laws are constitutional, that is).

Well actually that’s where the second one comes into play then… if you have to purchase a “flash stick” given the cost of the “flash stick” being set hypothetically at $100 or $1000, you need to attend your local post office with photo id to pick it up.
 

This would verify the adult content is indeed going to an adult, and allows the device said “flash stick” to access those parts of the web. Secondly the cost is ample enough that even a high school student won’t be able to save a pay cheque or two to buy one. 
 

this would also (I think) work to kill the bill by allowing the adult industry to adjust to these new implementations of archaic laws, preemptively. Can’t say these websites are a problem when they have secured themselves using an already established (government mandated) process for identifying the users of the site, while proactively keeping it out of the affordability of the typical market that would be argued as concerning for exploit. 
 

short: the “obscenities” and such would not be able to be accessed without this flash stick. The children can’t pick up these devices from the post office the only source for them.  

[UKFFBBBtm]

2 hours ago, Zencoli said:

Well actually that’s where the second one comes into play then… if you have to purchase a “flash stick” given the cost of the “flash stick” being set hypothetically at $100 or $1000, you need to attend your local post office with photo id to pick it up.
 

This would verify the adult content is indeed going to an adult, and allows the device said “flash stick” to access those parts of the web. Secondly the cost is ample enough that even a high school student won’t be able to save a pay cheque or two to buy one. 
 

this would also (I think) work to kill the bill by allowing the adult industry to adjust to these new implementations of archaic laws, preemptively. Can’t say these websites are a problem when they have secured themselves using an already established (government mandated) process for identifying the users of the site, while proactively keeping it out of the affordability of the typical market that would be argued as concerning for exploit. 
 

short: the “obscenities” and such would not be able to be accessed without this flash stick. The children can’t pick up these devices from the post office the only source for them.  

I don't want to pay anything for what I can currently get for free

[ErosWired]

17 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

but it is fine for people to make their own choice

I actually get very tired of hearing this, as though all choices are equally valid and have no effect on anyone but the chooser. That’s just bullshit. This legislator may make his own choice to villainize sex, but he’s also going to take that conviction and make it the law of the land so that everybody has to live as he sees fit. 

If a man chooses to believe that people of color are inferior and uses racist language according to that choice, is that also just fine? Of course it’s not fine.

If a man decides homosexuality is unnatural and an affront to God, is it just fine for him to make that choice? No, it isn’t, because in one way or another, subtly or overtly, he’s going to act on that conviction at some point, and what he does will be wrong. If his son comes out as gay and he chooses to send his son to conversion therapy, is it just fine for him to choose that for his son? No, it isn’t, because his actions will likely cause harm to his son.

If a man decides he wants to smoke while standing at a gas pump, is it just fine for him to make that choice? No, it isn’t, because he runs the risk of destroying life and property.

 I could do this all day, because there’s no end to the examples of ways some personal choices are not fine, and can’t simply be accepted because it’s “their personal choice.”

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, UKFFBBBtm said:

I don't want to pay anything for what I can currently get for free

I get the sentiment, but things move from the "free" to "paid" categories all the time. Air for your tires at gas stations used to be free, until they realized people would pay 50 cents or more for the ability to top up a tire's pressure. Pay toilets used to be a big thing but have largely moved to a free (if restricted access) model for most businesses.

There's a cost to delivering porn on the internet, in terms of servers, bandwidth, and the like, even before we calculate whether performers get paid or not. Those costs get covered somehow - frequently by advertising, although the "fans" model is gaining traction. Still, one way or the other, "free" comes at a cost, to someone, somewhere.

[BootmanLA]

11 hours ago, Zencoli said:

Well actually that’s where the second one comes into play then… if you have to purchase a “flash stick” given the cost of the “flash stick” being set hypothetically at $100 or $1000, you need to attend your local post office with photo id to pick it up.
This would verify the adult content is indeed going to an adult, and allows the device said “flash stick” to access those parts of the web. Secondly the cost is ample enough that even a high school student won’t be able to save a pay cheque or two to buy one. 
this would also (I think) work to kill the bill by allowing the adult industry to adjust to these new implementations of archaic laws, preemptively. Can’t say these websites are a problem when they have secured themselves using an already established (government mandated) process for identifying the users of the site, while proactively keeping it out of the affordability of the typical market that would be argued as concerning for exploit. 

short: the “obscenities” and such would not be able to be accessed without this flash stick. The children can’t pick up these devices from the post office the only source for them. 

I know plenty of high schoolers who could easily save up $100 from a single paycheck. $1,000 would take a few weeks, perhaps a few months, but it's still not out of range.

Secondly, a LOT of porn consumers are not about to go down to their post office with ID and demonstrate to the government that they're purchasing porn. Aside from the general privacy issues involved, who's to say the government wouldn't keep a record of all such transactions, and if later these flash sticks are de-legalized, going after those who have them?

Add in that many modern internet devices, including most tablets and phones, can't use flash drives.

Most importantly, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. 

[hntnhole]

8 hours ago, ErosWired said:

If a man chooses to believe

This phrase is the crux of the issue.  I think we get to make our own choices about everything when that choice affects no one else but the one making that choice.  No one gets to make choices (other than the obvious, like murder, etc) that will impact others negatively. 

Anyone can choose to believe that a dandelion is actually a manifestation of Gawd Almighty, and as long as that dullard keeps his/her belief in the dandelion private, it's ok with me. It's when that person tries to expand that belief into forcing it upon others that the problems start.  

[ellentonboy]

I still think no matter what steps the government tries to take to limit access to adult material, the porn industry will be one step ahead of them.  It's just a feeling, not based on any hard facts, but there is no way the adult entertainment industry is going to just throw their hands up in the air and give up.  They'll find a way to distribute it.  Sure, they can try to pass laws that would require those purchasing adult material to show ID, I know have had to show my driver's license for certain packages.  I don't think it will get that far.

Frankly, I don't think this is every going to happen.  I can't imagine elected officials getting their collegeus to back a bill to limit access to porn, when I would estimate msybe 90 percent of the males on Capital Hill have porn on their personal laptops or personal smart phones.

[hntnhole]

6 minutes ago, ellentonboy said:

90 percent of the males on Capital Hill have porn on their personal laptops or personal smart phones.

Only 90 ???? 

I doubt there are 90 individuals in the entire Government that don't have porn of some type on their computers and/or phones ..... and those that rail the loudest against porn probably have two computers/phones full !!!  

[ellentonboy]

Just now, hntnhole said:

Only 90 ???? 

I doubt there are 90 individuals in the entire Government that don't have porn of some type on their computers and/or phones ..... and those that rail the loudest against porn probably have two computers/phones full !!!  

Well I hate to use the terms "ALL" or  "100 percent"  but I thought 90 percent would be a fair estimate (I did subtract Mitt Romney, only because of his religious beliefs - I know, I know not a valid reason).  I've heard the Pope says nuns watch porn - I wonder if they monitor their devices?   

One thing I did want to mention, I was with the Federal Government for many years, and at the end of my career, we were issued government phones and a laptop.  Just for the record, if they found porn on your devices, OR, at a work station that you sat at that IT could prove someone had accessed an adult website, it was an automatic two week suspension.  Now if it you got caught again, you were terminated.  It did not happen in my agency, but a friend of mine works for the National Weather Service and a co-worker got caught twice  accessing porn at his work station.  How stupid can you be? He was fired, and this was a guy that has a wife and kids.  The last time my friend saw him, he was working as a "greeter" for Walmart.  So they are a little more conscious on that subject than one might think.