this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
1100 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3434 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 71 points 10 months ago (4 children)

best of all, this strategy isn't going to decrease viewership, probably increase it. it's also going to increase the usage of vpn's.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 38 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

VPNs will be their next target. This isn't an accident. They are setting up the framework for China like internet censorship laws, but they are going to take this way fucking farther than China ever has. They are building a system for state laws to establish interstate autocracy on the foundation of abortion and trans panic.

[–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago

So it's bodily autonomy, identity, sexuality, privacy that's on the chopping block...

Seems like democracy is going to be pretty hollow without at least a little free expression.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 27 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's likely just going to drive it off to the less centralized websites that won't block anyway because they are just so used to ignoring the requests. The only reason PornHub has to pay heed is because they try to go at it the "legal" route.

[–] scottywh@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Hell, there's a shitload of porn on Reddit and Lemmy that isn't geofenced or age restricted.

This is just a silly waste of resources.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The most effective regulation here is from payment handlers.

Not sure what eventually became of this, but MasterCard shitcanned PornHub a few years ago. See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52543508

I also see a statement from 2022 reinforcing that decision. https://www.mastercard.com/news/press/2022/august/mastercard-statement-reinforcing-adult-content-standards/

I guess even that's not very effective since PornHub is obviously still in business. I wonder what their numbers looked like before and after.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Pornography access seems very close to people's heart in here but the claim "it won't decrease viewership, probably increase it" has zero chance of being true.

However insignificant it might be, any amount of faff will lower participation and there isn't a single person in the world thinking "I don't watch pornography or allow my children to watch pornography but now the gubbermint is involved we're going to do nothing else but watch smut".

There are so many shit takes in this thread that I have to assume they're from children upset about their pornography being cut off.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Those who want porn will get it. It’s a need, like alcohol and tobacco. It being illegal will make teens even more interested.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

It’s a need, like alcohol and tobacco

Two things that demonstrably haven't grown more popular when they've been made less accessible, despite those restrictions not having 100% success rate.

And although I don't fundamentally object to any of them, calling alcohol, tobacco and pornography a "need" just makes you sound like even more of a child.

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 1 points 10 months ago

Maybe participation would be lowered, just not to the extent "they" hoped for. I have personal experience with this - we had some major social media sites blocked, and for a lot of people that was a final push to learn to avoid censorship, even if not in the best way (by sketchy free VPNs). So if you take away something very important, it might turn a person from someone who didn't go to blocked sites into someone who isn't bothered by blocking.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Its not about blocking it, its about making it criminal so they can eventually loop in certain people who partake in it.

I think one legislator even said so brazenly this is all about limiting access to LGBT people.