At the dawn of the new year, Pornhub will leave Florida. Thanks to a harsh new age verification law that takes effect on January 1, the porn giant will no longer do business in the sunshine state. The law mirrors similar laws passed in other Republican led states where Pornhub has stopped doing business.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 hours ago

    This is just a blatant power grab. It’s not about porn, after all if they were really concerned about nsfw sites they’d be happy with how easy the site is to regulate. If they wanted to they could potentially find a way to bring in tax revenue with it.

    This is all about control and getting people used to having the government invading their privacy. Over time they’ll shift and start invading other online spaces.

  • cum@lemmy.cafe
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Reminder that verification laws do not work and are straight up fascist.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Not in FL, but in another GOP state that I’m sure will join the bandwagon eventually. I knew there was a reason I’ve been hoarding “data”.

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    Always pull out. Even if you’re wearing a condom. Even if she says she’s on the pill.

      • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Yeah I dont know why I always get downvotes from folks saying to pull out. Its a good idea in addition to other birth control methods.

  • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I don’t know economics, but is there a way to buy stocks in some VPN providers? Seems like they are about to do well.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Yes - a stock exchange - but Florida is only a small part of the overall market and most people will just tolerate the ban.

      • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Yeah, but how many VPN providers are public companies? I’m guessing not very many given the reporting requirements public companies face.

          • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Never said they were.

            That list of public companies mostly sell networking gear that you can use to configure VPNs. I don’t think that’s what the post I originally replied to was talking about. I think they were talking more about VPN service providers like NordVPN, ExpressVPN, PIA, ProtonVPN, etc.

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Those are companies that provide VPNs. Every product you just listed is also a legit business.

              • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                18 minutes ago

                I never said they weren’t legit. I said they likely would never go public and be listed on stock exchanges due to all the requirements that entails.

                These companies I listed provide VPN services to people who want a level of privacy in their internet usage. That list of public companies you mentioned sell VPN hardware mostly to corporations that want to secure their own private traffic between different locations. Huge difference.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I have two reactions

    1. Oh no, anyway. VPNs exist
    2. This is scary, these Verification Laws are killing the internet even more painfully than the corporate takeover.
  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    But, isn’t Florida where they make some of the porn?..California, Florida, Nevada. The rest is the other parts of the world or people in their bedrooms or hotel bedrooms.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The law doesn’t technically ban porn. It just sets arduous requirements on distribution of porn. They can still produce it all they want, but Florida is now a difficult market to sell it in.

      I expect to see a rise in European or other foreign porn sites. These will be able to safely ignore any “requirements” from Florida.

      • ubergeek@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        Any corporation not based in Florida can safely ignore Florida laws. This is just PH making a statement, like they have been in other states.

        • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          15 hours ago

          That gets complicated if they’re in the US. Technically, they only need to follow laws in places where they have a presence. But there are US courts that have ruled that operating a web service available in their jurisdiction counts. Then there’s all the stuff about interstate commerce and enforcement, lawsuits and criminal charges, etc. for a simple example, look up Media Matters and Twitter.

          Conversely, if they are entirely outside of US jurisdiction, Florida can file (and win) lawsuits to their heart’s content. It only matters if they can collect or enforce an injunction, or at least enforce a block.

            • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Seems they are officially based out of Cyprus, with a large parent (equity) company operating in multiple countries.

              I’m betting at least some of those operations are in the US, although I couldn’t easily find a list to confirm. They could also have employees, such as developers, or operate data centers in the US. HQ isn’t especially meaningful in this context.

    • d00phy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, it kind of writes itself, but yeah. Sometimes the easy ones are, in fact, the best ones.

      • toynbee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        First time I heard it as a joke was from George Carlin discussing how wars are inherently phallocentric.

  • FurtiveFugitive@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    1 day ago

    There will now be over 115 million Americans affected by this growing ban. Now over one third of the population, yes a full 34.4%, will not be able to access pornhub in their state without using a VPN. And we all know they are coming for the VPN next.

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day ago

      The real issue is that most people dont know how to use vpns. So they just go to sketchier websites.

    • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      And more importantly, these laws are written so broadly that these age verification laws can be applied to any website that the state government doesn’t like whether they host porn or not. CNN posts article about killings in Gaza? That’s not appropriate for children so ID needed. Left-wing forum that’s critical of the local Republican government? Well that’s not appropriate for children either so we’ll need to see the IDs of everyone that has ever visited the site.

      I hope these laws get overturned sooner than later but I won’t hold my breath.

      • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        CNN posts article about killings in Gaza?

        The only killings in Gaza CNN would post about is IDF and hostage deaths.

        • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I literally thought the same thing while writing it, but still wanted to use a mainstream source as an example.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Slippery slope is nonsense. We dont allow a bunch of other things for children, its not any different because the company would rather stop selling altogether then to adjust for regulations.

      A lot of people here are acting like free access to any type of pornography is a net benefit for society as well, which I find strange.

  • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    While Pornhub pulling out of Florida (US) may not be the end of the [email protected], the underlying trend of pornography criminalisation for “modesty” can easily translated into sexual control and control of sex.

    As we all know by now, sexual control is gendered against women and queers, racialised, et al.

    Control of sex on the other hand is well substrated in Anti-Choice or bodily autonomy-denying discourse as well as population control for classist, racist etc. motives.

    Since when is Florida scared of sex? Since it hates minorities. (IMO)

    • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      19 hours ago

      people can dress it in whatever positive or negative light they want over the p*rn issue. the larger issue at hand IMO is that its the government stepping into people’s private lives and telling them how to live. “Your culture is immoral, you need to learn morals and modesty. you are being reprimanded for your immoral behaivor” These views are Considered Immoral by some but perfectly fine by others.

      lets call it what it is, its the people who err on the bible thumping side of the fence, trying to enforce their views on the rest of the people.

      I’m a supporter of more scrutiny in general when it comes to kids having access to stuff online, (A lot of stuff, not just 18+ things). but that’s obviously the avenue that the Morality Police are trying to take to go after society in general

      • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I’m a supporter of more scrutiny in general when it comes to kids having access to stuff online, (A lot of stuff, not just 18+ things). but that’s obviously the avenue that the Morality Police are trying to take to go after society in general

        The smokescreen of supposed enforcement of children’s rights is so thick, that the issue they say they try to address cannot be discussed even among the adult electorate.

        Children cannot comprehend pornography, but so are the proponents of sexual control. Our current societies do not have adequate education of sexuality, even or especially for adults.

        A theoretical child in a theoretical society, that has no concept of sexuality, a “pure” child so to speak, will be unfit as an adult for a sexually-controlled society, because it will very likely be unable to say no to coercion. Children and adults cannot resist coercive societies without education.

        Pornography is a market with low elasticity. States banning markets essentially lose significant control over the exchanges. States already ban coercive pornography (not very good, but idealistically), but allow consensual pornography. Banning pornography altogether mingles coercive pornography with consensual pornography in black markets. Uneducated adults will not understand coercion in black markets of pornography.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Is “coercion pornography” rape or rape play? I assume you mean that once pornography is illegal well get the same results as the war on drugs; things that would generally be innocuous becoming tied to criminal activity.

    • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s much broader than sex though:

      Florida’s law is HB3. The law is broad. It requires a website that provides material that is “harmful to minors” to provide a means of “anonymous age verification” to its minors. What does it mean for material to be “harmful to minors?” According to the law any material that “the average person applying contemporary community standards would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.”

      I guarantee this will be used (or at least attempted) to silence political speech critical of local governments. It’s far too easy to come up with even the weakest justification for why something isn’t appropriate for children and Republicans have an army of useful idiots ready to parrot their rhetoric and convince everyone else who isn’t paying attention to what’s happening.

      • ubergeek@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I guarantee this will be used (or at least attempted) to silence political speech critical of local governments.

        Its real target is less pron, and more “So, you think you’re maybe gay? Here’s what you can do…” or “If your family hates queer people, and you’re queer, here’s help for you:…” information.

        Anything to keep “teh gays” from “converting kids to trans”.

    • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      further, paradoxically, denying access to porn puts women in more danger. most porn consumers will probably just get a vpn and roll with it. but enough of them will translate their frustration into violence against women for it to be a problem. we know this because we’ve seen it before. sex work is degrading, dehumanizing, and exploitative, but banning it consistently makes it worse, not better, for the people most endangered by it.

      • ubergeek@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        further, paradoxically, denying access to porn puts women in more danger.

        That’s… Part of the goal. Women “need to know their place” and all, per the GOP.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          oh no i know. it’s just they always sell these policies to women who aren’t endangered by them by saying they’re meant to make women safer. it’s like saying “we’re going to make communities safer by criminalizing drugs.” to demographics who were never endangered in the first place it makes sense. to people who understand the interrelation between class and crime, it immediately raises risk flags. the best way to get people to stop selling drugs is to give them money to buy food another way. the best way to get people to stop doing drugs is to get them into a healthcare facility and address the issues the drugs dull. criminalization just makes engaging in these survival tactics more dangerous

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Former child here. Children will figure out how to get access to anything they need. They’re not the target audience here. Or at least it won’t work that way, even if intended to.

        Since this says “material that is ‘harmful to minors’” and not specifically pornography, it could also be used to silence dissenting opinions, etc. Reading anti-republican propaganda? Better be ready to show you ID for that…