The State of Virginia will probably be blocked from accessing Breeding Zone

[Guest]

On 3/10/2023 at 9:36 AM, 120DaysofSodom said:

Isnt there already a "You must be 18 years of age or older to enter this website" sort of disclaimer on BZ before you are allowed into the site? I dont see how that is different from any other porn site. These laws set the precedent that just because somebody under the age of 18 can find a way to circumvent laws and do something illegal that they shouldnt be doing, that everybody else should have to suffer for it. And then where does it end? Are we no longer allowed to purchase alcohol and cigarettes and marijuana because a minor may illegally obtain them too?

 

 

“laws are being written by religious conservatives“ I’m not religious, but I support these laws 100%. 

[Guest]

On 3/10/2023 at 10:13 AM, rawTOP said:

1. The software that drives this site isn't capable of integrating with age verification services. Changing that would be cost prohibitive.
2. Even if it could handle AV, the reoccurring costs would be more than Breeding Zone makes
3. Even if the cost were affordable - it would block search engine spiders like Google (since allowing Googlebot/Bingbot through based on their user agent strings probably violates the law). Those search engines are  the primary source of new members
4. That will result in the slow death of the site - which is exactly why these laws are being passed - they want us to go out of business.

I've said this pretty loudly on the main adult industry forum - there is a completely different solution which won't put us out of business. They're called Private Access Tokens (aka PATs). Apple has already started to use PATs to replace CAPTCHA, and Google is working on implementing them as well. The idea is that your device knows more about you than anyone else. Apple and Google are using them to confirm that the user is human. They could also be used to confirm whether adult content blocks are in place on the device. Then the parent only has to do a minimal amount of parenting to turn on the adult content block. (And adults who don't want to see adult content can turn on the block as well). Then PATs can be used to confirm that adult content block is not turned on. It's quick, cheap and efficient. And PATs are completely privacy-protecting. There's no 3rd party who knows you're accessing adult content. There's no additional database that can be hacked since it happens in the moment with no logging.

Thing is, it's not age verification. It's verification of a lack of an adult content block. But it achieves the same goal. Actually, PATs would be more effective since the current laws don't apply to the major social media sites since the laws only apply to sites with >33% "harmful" content, and PATs are so quick, cheap and easy that even social media sites could be required to use them.

At the end of the day these laws are being written by religious conservatives with the goal of putting sites like this out of business. Our silence is allowing them to determine how children are protected. They are not the best people to be writing these laws - their goal is to put us out of business. If the tech industry worked with the adult industry we could do a better job at protecting kids and not put us out of business.

The laws in LA & VA want more than that. Yet those age verification pop-ups do help. It's pretty widely accepted that you'll never stop a kid who's determined to see porn. They will find a way to get around anything you implement. The thing absolutely no one wants and which needs to be addressed is kids accidentally seeing porn. The age verification pop-ups do help, but they're not perfect. Having to enter a birth date is even better. But the real problem is social media sites - and they're not covered by these laws - because the laws were written by people who want to put us out of business - "protecting children" is just a ruse.

Maybe porn sites should never be free. If you we had to pay for porn then a lot less minors would be exposed to porn on the internet. 

[ErosWired]

12 hours ago, Jackruby said:

 

 

“laws are being written by religious conservatives“ I’m not religious, but I support these laws 100%. 

You may support the laws’ (stated) intent, but do you also 100% support their consequences, even if those consequences are unintended? Even if those consequences infringe on other rights? Even if those consequences prove unconstitutional? Even if the laws aren’t actually effective in solving the problem of children seeing pornography? Do you imagine teenagers only get their first look at porn from visits to porn sites? The web is riddled with the stuff, and flows like water. Back before there was an internet, how did boys get their first look at a porn magazine? They didn’t all find their way into adult bookstores where someone could stop them by checking their age - they saw it because some buddy of theirs got hold of it and passed it around. The principle has not changed. The principle will not change. These laws will do bupkis to change it. They will only create barriers to adult access that put personal information at risk.

 

12 hours ago, Jackruby said:

Maybe porn sites should never be free. If you we had to pay for porn then a lot less minors would be exposed to porn on the internet. 

There is no way to lock all pornography behind an impervious paywall, and even if you could, that would mean that the right to view porn would be restricted to those who could afford it. The poor don’t have the same right to sexy as the rich? Fuck that noise.

But pornographic video is simply a data stream like any other, and on a free and open internet, it’s going to continue to flow just like water. These laws are basically trying to plug holes in a sieve. If the framers of these laws in LA and VA intended to shut down a site like BreedingZone in a state, they might be celebrating their success - but what’s the very, very first thing we did on hearing the news? Started talking about the easiest way for people in LA and VA to circumvent the law and carry on as usual.

These religious types who foist these anti-pornography laws are also the types that teach their children to be ashamed of their own sexuality and their own bodies, and block attempts to ensure public education about sexual health and reproductive practice. They make these porn laws because they’re afraid their children will get wet - because they refuse to teach them how to swim.

[120DaysofSodom]

17 hours ago, Jackruby said:

 

 

“laws are being written by religious conservatives“ I’m not religious, but I support these laws 100%. 

Parents should monitor their own children's behaviors on the internet. There is a disclaimer stating that you must be 18 years of age or older to view pornographic content on the internet and there are options parents can use to privatize sensitive media in almost all social networks like facebook, instagram, tik tok, and twitter.

People that live in the Commonwealth of Virginia shouldnt be banned from accessing a website like Breeding.Zone because a minor somewhere has the potential to wander into the site. That is the fault of the person accessing the website for breaking the law, not the site owners. To redirect blame to the site owner is ludicrous, but not as ludicrous as the idea porn should only be available to those that want to pay for it. It would make more sense, if any law should be required, to place blame on the parents for their children accessing pornographic content in the same way they can be charged with neglect for their children having access to ammunition and firearms, or to alcohol. Lock up the computers. Monitor their behavior. You know.... this thing called parenting.

[rawTOP]

I spent a fair amount of time this weekend and this morning drafting an 8 page (!) explanation of how to protect kids from accidentally seeing porn without infringing on people's free speech rights or their right to privacy. I then emailed it and sent it registered mail to Senator Schumer's legislative director. If anyone can get a good child protection law through Congress it's Schumer. The question is whether their eyes will glaze over when the read the details - so I had an older, (well-known) straight fetish producer who's a bit of a Luddite read it to make sure it was understandable. He liked it, but it wasn't the first time he heard me explain the concept.

If I don't hear from Schumer's office in 2 weeks I'll send it to a Congressperson who's  from Silicon Valley who has staff who are technical enough to understand it, and Big Tech connections connections who can validate that it can work technically. And if I haven't heard back from someone two weeks after that I'll alternate Senators & Congresspeople with technical expertise every two weeks until I hear from someone. Hell, I'll even hit up Mitt Romney if I run out of Democrats since I could see him supporting my approach. (Mormons tend to be fairly level-headed and practical on stuff like this).

"Be the change you want to see in the world" - right?

 

On 3/10/2023 at 9:01 PM, ellentonboy said:

I just have a question for @rawTOP and I apologize if I am asking the same thing you have heard thirty times.  But why is this getting no press coverage, why is it that no one, BESIDES YOU, is telling us that certain sites will be blocked.  I live in the land of DeSatan (Florida) who  he  would be the first governor or legislature to try a stunt like this, but I am surprised that there is little or no media coverage.  What about all those who pay for a hook up site like Grindr, are they going to have to use a VPN in those states or  just understand their state is taking their hard earned money from them, because most sites are not free?

It is getting some press coverage, but not a lot. California also passed a law last year. The big social media companies pretty quickly filed a lawsuit to challenge it on First Amendment grounds. The thing is the Republicans wrote their laws so the government wasn't involved. Like many of the recent anti-abortion and anti-trans laws they get private citizens to file the lawsuits. So there's no way to file a lawsuit to challenge the lawsuit - we have to wait until someone is sued.

I think a lot of porn companies are either unaware of the new laws (they went into effect quickly) or they assume someone will file a lawsuit challenging the laws (which is impossible), so they don't think they're a threat.

Some paysite owners are making the tours PG-13 and then choosing a commercial service for age verification when someone from a restricted state goes to buy a membership. While the cost of those commercial services is cost-prohibitive for sites like this one, it's not in the context of someone buying a membership.

 

19 hours ago, Jackruby said:

“laws are being written by religious conservatives“ I’m not religious, but I support these laws 100%.

Maybe porn sites should never be free. If you we had to pay for porn then a lot less minors would be exposed to porn on the internet. 

So you're OK with this site shutting down if enough states enact similar laws? I'm thinking of banning you just so you can experience what that would be like.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, rawTOP said:

So you're OK with this site shutting down if enough states enact similar laws? I'm thinking of banning you just so you can experience what that would be like.

Now you are being the religious right. 

[rawTOP]

8 hours ago, Jackruby said:

Now you are being the religious right. 

As he requested, he’s now banned for a long time. 

[bbfarm]

RawTop, Please let us Virginians know maybe a day ahead of time?   I’ve been a regular contributor and user of this site for years and years.  I’ll miss it horribly, and would appreciate the ability to enjoy one last day, when that day comes.

There has been zero news about this VA bill in any local sources I follow, and I stay pretty informed.  

Bummed.   

[viking8x6]

On 3/10/2023 at 10:13 AM, rawTOP said:

I've said this pretty loudly on the main adult industry forum - there is a completely different solution which won't put us out of business. They're called Private Access Tokens (aka PATs). Apple has already started to use PATs to replace CAPTCHA, and Google is working on implementing them as well. The idea is that your device knows more about you than anyone else. Apple and Google are using them to confirm that the user is human. They could also be used to confirm whether adult content blocks are in place on the device. Then the parent only has to do a minimal amount of parenting to turn on the adult content block. (And adults who don't want to see adult content can turn on the block as well). Then PATs can be used to confirm that adult content block is not turned on. It's quick, cheap and efficient. And PATs are completely privacy-protecting. There's no 3rd party who knows you're accessing adult content. There's no additional database that can be hacked since it happens in the moment with no logging.

Thing is, it's not age verification. It's verification of a lack of an adult content block. But it achieves the same goal. Actually, PATs would be more effective since the current laws don't apply to the major social media sites since the laws only apply to sites with >33% "harmful" content, and PATs are so quick, cheap and easy that even social media sites could be required to use them.

At the end of the day these laws are being written by religious conservatives with the goal of putting sites like this out of business. Our silence is allowing them to determine how children are protected. They are not the best people to be writing these laws - their goal is to put us out of business. If the tech industry worked with the adult industry we could do a better job at protecting kids and not put us out of business.

Thanks, @rawTOP, for this excellent explanation of the superior technological approach. Now I have solid ammunition to use when dealing with my legislators. Because just saying "this law is a bad idea" is at least helpful - they do, to some extent, listen to their constituency - but having a solid case to make for a BETTER solution carries much more weight.

[Vancrawman]

50 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

Thanks, @rawTOP, for this excellent explanation of the superior technological approach. Now I have solid ammunition to use when dealing with my legislators. Because just saying "this law is a bad idea" is at least helpful - they do, to some extent, listen to their constituency - but having a solid case to make for a BETTER solution carries much more weight.

Forgive the dumb question, but how is this even enforceable? How does a State know which sites its residents are going to? 

[PozBearWI]

2 hours ago, Vancrawman said:

Forgive the dumb question, but how is this even enforceable? How does a State know which sites its residents are going to? 

Essentially by IP Address.  

[Theo8]

On 3/10/2023 at 11:45 PM, BBBottomBitch said:

So fucking ridiculous. I know my phone knows my location but would that really be all that's needed to keep me from viewing this site? If I cross over to DC or Maryland, which are both close by, it'll allow me access then? It just seems like a lot of work for a bullshit reason (I don't think kids are that affected from coming across porn, either accidentally or purposely). 

And if I am banned from viewing the site, add me on Twitter- BBBottomBitch or telegram- BottomBitch1. 

just added you on Twitter

[viking8x6]

6 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

9 hours ago, Vancrawman said:

Forgive the dumb question, but how is this even enforceable? How does a State know which sites its residents are going to? 

Essentially by IP Address.  

...which is why using a VPN will get around the blocks. The VPN host is connecting to the network, so the sites you connect to see its IP address rather than yours.