Searches for VPN Soar in Utah Amidst Pornhub Blockage

https://www.culturalcurrents.institute/insights/utah-pornhub-blocked

by freedomben • 3 years ago

217 283 3 years ago

culturalcurrents.institute

LinuxBender3• 3 years ago

Mirror [1]

[1] https://archive.is/a9wlZ

MuffinFlavored2• 3 years ago

Do we think VPNs will ever be banned in a state like Utah?

detaro2• 3 years ago

The "TikTok ban" draft (RESTRICT Act) is providing a template on federal level according to various comments on that.

MuffinFlavored2• 3 years ago

Is the "TikTok ban" draft (RESTRICT Act) for consumers/regular people or only government personnel?

Aka, are they really going to ban TikTok for regular people or just make it so govenment personnel can't install TikTok on their device? aka, only ban TikTok for government people and not regular people

struanr• 3 years ago

I feel like a VPN ban might be difficult to enforce due to corporate usage of the same technology

freedomben6• 3 years ago

I doubt they try to ban them, but I could absolutely see them push an age verification requirement for "personal" VPNs that allow you to get an out-of-state IP address since it "illegally circumvents state laws". So you can have a VPN, but if you are in Utah the exit node must also be in Utah. Corporate VPNs wouldn't be a problem legally because they already verify your identify for state tax purposes so there's nothing more for corporate to do.

Bonus: while your every access to porn is being logged for the state, they can log your VPN use too just in case there is anything relevant for law enforcement to care about.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF3• 3 years ago

A few years ago, Walmart stopped stocking (some) beer in Utah because it was too difficult for them to bother getting the 3.2% alcohol by weight beer which had been the limit in Utah at the time[0]. Ultimately Utah's legislature decided to change the 3.2% restriction. I suspect this will go that way; more services will just say that they don't need to serve that population and move on. There will be a lot of people saying they like using their VPN totally because it keeps me private online and VPNs will just be normalized.

[0] https://www.fox13now.com/2018/12/11/walmart-joins-the-push-f...

freedomben6• 3 years ago

It will certainly be interesting to see. Utah is an interesting case because generally speaking high percentages of the population will praise and promote "freedom" and "liberty." Of course with humans often stated/conscious beliefs and actions are often disjointed, but there's still an interesting angle there where the state is a lot more limited on what it can do in the enforcement arena before people start pushing back.

That said though, porn access in Utah would be a hard one for the average person to stand up for because the social pressure there is immense (speaking from experience here). The dominant religion teaches that "free agency" is an important and indeed essential aspect of our lives. We are here on Earth to grow and develop and learn to make good (i.e. obedient to God) choices. They even believe that a War in Heaven happened that split the masses because Satan (aka the Devil) wanted to force people to be righteous, but Jesus' plan was to give them choice. You would think they'd be a bunch of libertarians then, but no they clearly believe that God shouldn't force you to be righteous, but the state should. Furthermore God has told their prophets that things like alcohol, marijuana, porn, are wicked and sinful. Reducing or eliminating your access to them is for your own good (and the good of "society") and is therefore justified. I've tried pointing out that when it comes to enforcing your morals on others it can literally be taken to China-level authoritarianism with the same justication of "good for society," but that never seems to get anywhere.

spacebanana7• 3 years ago

Banning VPNs would be very difficult for a US state.

In China VPN restrictions are somewhat effective because of compliance from consumer platforms, ISPs and cloud service providers all operating inside a largely isolated pocket of the internet.

If any of those stakeholders refused to play along or could operate outside of enforcement range then the VPN ban would fail.

A ban isn’t truly impossible, especially with support from courts and the federal government, but I think it’s similar to the difficulty level of banning pirated content.

ignoramous• 3 years ago

That will accelerate the coming of on-device AI generated porn apps.

olliej• 3 years ago

The many (one would hope most?) tech and tech-adjacent businesses, the federal government, etc all require VPNs, so it would be hard to see how "ban VPNs for this already banned thing" would even work.

paxys3• 3 years ago

Probably not, but only because it would be too technologically complex for them to do. VPN companies don't operate in their jurisdiction and don't care about Utah law.

mindslight2• 3 years ago

This is fantastic news! Thank you government of Utah! Your authoritarian grandstanding isn't likely to do much over the long term, given basic American values like freedom of expression. But in the meantime it will encourage people to get educated on basic ways of evading censorship, while simultaneously discouraging other sites from hassling visitors based on IP address.

badrabbit7• 3 years ago

This is such an HN comment. Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters and that is totalitarian because they are controlling every aspect of government centrally with all decisions made my unelected leaders? No, because you disagree with it, that's it.

You know, I dislike both liberalism and conservatism but in the US specifically, I feel like there is a particular misunderstanding with liberally minded people about what the US is supposed to be. If your fundamental human rights or other protected rights are violated I get it, but watching porn is not a right if any kind, states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right. There is already a restriction on adult material that involved minors or unwilling participants, this simply expands it to all people, and there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates porn is harmful to everyone, period! Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life. The whole point of a federal union is you move to other states when you don't like the laws, and everybody gets to exist with the most ideal liberty vs restriction ratio.

For the "land doesn't vote" people who think the electoral college should be abolished? this is exactly why it exists, so crazy states line utah or missisipi don't have to leave the union. I am far from a secessionist but the electoral college was literally a critical component of the contract that states agreed to when joining the union. You need to understand that short of a global nuclear war, there are few things that are worse for humanity as a whole (even more so for americans) than a civil conflict between american states.

The whole point of post here is that so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there and existing (not future) rights of protected individuals are not violated, drop the exaggeration and tolerate them as you vehemently disagree with them.

seanp2k22• 3 years ago

This should be thrown out legally because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.".

It's religion as law disguised as "But think of the children!" as usual.

hodgesrm• 3 years ago

Thanks for an unusually clear exposition of how things can and do work in a functioning, federated system of democracy.

scarface746• 3 years ago

This is such an HN comment. Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters and that is totalitarian because they are controlling every aspect of government centrally with all decisions made my unelected leaders? No, because you disagree with it, that's it.

Three points.

The will of the majority should never limit the desires of the minority as long as it doesn’t impinge on someone else. Would you use the same justification for laws against miscegenation and “sodomy” (ie non heterosexual sex) because that’s what the “conservative lawmakers” wanted”? Why the carve out against “protected individuals”? All of our rights should be protected against religious fundamentalism. Freedom of religion also should be freedom from religion.

We see all across the United States even in conservative states that when abortion rights are put on the ballot they are consistently passing even against the will of the legislation.

I can assure you as a resident of Florida and more specifically Orlando, the number of people who want hundreds of thousands of dollars and energy wasted going after “woke Disney” is small - yet the legislation is passing laws and spending money left and right.

dgacmu2• 3 years ago

but watching porn is not a right if any kind

That's not really true, depending on how you define "porn". There are very strong first amendment rights around producing and consuming all sorts of potentially objectionable content:

https://reason.com/2019/10/04/pornography-is-protected-by-th...

Is it a "fundamental human right?" Dunno, I'm not the arbiter of that. But the US supreme court has repeatedly ruled that it is a constitutional right to be able to do so free of government interference. That doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have access to it - it's a free market and others 1st amendment rights allow them to choose what they provide. But the government can't stop you, and that's a right.

anigbrowl2• 3 years ago

watching porn is not a right if any kind

While I have little interest in porn, I have a right to publish it under the first amendment and that necessarily includes a right to view it.

states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right

And I can reject those restrictions insofar as my own person is concerned. There's a stronger argument for states mediating conflicts of interests between persons (eg police existing because not everyone is able to provide their own security) but your interpretation is a recipe for overreach.

echelon• 3 years ago

Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters

Oppression of the minority.

but watching porn is not a right [of] any kind

It should be.

there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates porn is harmful to everyone, period!

"there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates [gay sex] is harmful to everyone, period!"

"there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates [free speech] is harmful to everyone, period!"

"there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates [freedom] is harmful to everyone, period!"

The whole point of post here is that so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there and existing (not future) rights of protected individuals are not violated, drop the exaggeration and tolerate them as you vehemently disagree with them.

States are test tubes. When the rights in different states are unequal, you set the stage for a Supreme Court case.

Sadly, I'm not sure the Supreme Court would help ensure adults can continue existing in a non-surveillance, non-nanny state.

Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life.

Absurd and incorrect puritanical view. You're basically stating that you believe having children or getting into hetero-normative relationships is more important than not developing lung cancer.

mindslight2• 3 years ago

Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters and that is totalitarian

I mean yes, democratic authoritarianism is still authoritarianism. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner and whatnot. Our affinity for democracy is not because it's perfect system that we can entrust anything to, but rather because it's the least worst option for deciding some things.

so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there

You're leaning on both the democratic and representational fallacies. At best you can say this law reflects the implied will of 55% of the state's population (or however much), but it's wrong to imply that the law reflects the deliberate views of everyone who lives there. Which is why we have the basic concept of rights that transcend the whims of representatives elected by a mere plurality.

I do value the idea that states should be free to set their own policies and have some competition between them, but as I've gotten older I've come to respect that a lot of people get stuck in their circumstances for whatever reason and guaranteeing basic rights to them isn't terrible. And communications you make from privacy of your own home most certainly fall in that category.

If your fundamental human rights or other protected rights are violated I get it, but watching porn is not a right

This statement is the standard refrain of everyone who wants to diminish individual freedoms. "Rights are important, but <specific behavior> isn't a right". Meanwhile pornography has indeed become part of 1A jurisprudence. Legally I know things are a bit up in the air these days with the Supreme Council embracing collectivism to justify prohibiting fundamental medical care, but I personally view digital freedom as flowing from the general right to be left alone coupled with computational complexity (cryptography).

As such, talking in top-down prescriptive terms about what "ought to be" is trumped by what can be accomplished by individuals with computers. Despite the sarcastic moralizing, I really do think the existence of this law is great - people have been giving away too much of their digital autonomy in favor of convenient system-condoned offerings, and this law interrupts that pretty hard.

didibus2• 3 years ago

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These are the goals of the US, one of them is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Where liberty in this context means:

As used in the Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the freedom to act according to one's own will.

Everything else is trying to achieve the above stated goals. The current set of constitutional articles describing how the political processes are setup, the bill of rights, the laws that are put in place, the courts, all that is just the mechanisms that hopefully allows us to deliver the stated goal.

The Constitution might never have been ratified if the framers hadn't promised to add a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution gave citizens more confidence in the new government and contain many of today's Americans' most valued freedoms.

Furthermore, to really drive the point that the constitution was going to truly and seriously protect people's freedom, and that it wasn't just empty words, the bill of rights was added, but obviously not able to cover all scenarios and liberties ever current or future, but at least a large set of them made explicit.

So no, I'd have to disagree with you, states cannot just restrict any aspects of your life that isn't explicitly listed in the bill of rights, because the constitution itself sets out to say that the government as described in the constitution is meant to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The amendments were added for clarification to specific rights, not as an exhaustive list, they don't set out to say, those are the only freedoms that are guaranteed, they simply explicitly state that those are very clearly guaranteed as described so that it be harder to abuse power and enact laws that go against the constitution's goals.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I will say, one thing I'm a bit confused about, and I think is a debate today, is the tenth amendment:

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think this is a hotly debated one. In the case where federal government would want to restrict freedoms, it's pretty clear that it says they cannot act with power that isn't explicitly stated.

But what if a state wants to restrict freedom further?

I know this is a debate in legalizing Marijuana for example. Some people say it's not up to the federal government to make it legal or illegal. Then it would be up to each state. But making it illegal would seem to go against the constitution goals as signed by the states, that they should secure the people's liberties, and amendment IX which says that not enumerating such a right does not deny the people's right to it.

- https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... - https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc... - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/liberty - https://www.theintelligencer.com/commentary/article/What-lib...

scarface746• 3 years ago

states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right

And you’re okay with that?

Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life

And we don’t outlaw cigarettes. We force manufactures to put clear disclosures on them and let adults make up their mind.

why it exists, so crazy states line utah or missisipi don't have to leave the union.

Would we really lose much if they did? Both states take more money from the government than they pay in and are two of the main ones who love to cry “socialism”.

than a civil conflict between american states.

Yes just like that horrible civil war that broke out after Brexit.

yegor3• 3 years ago

NordVPN is probably raking it in right now with the amount of BS marketing that they do....

graypegg• 3 years ago

Really gives some insight to why VPN companies have been fighting for mindshare the past few years. Just waiting for a case like this to pop up and be the first service people think of.

millzlane• 3 years ago

It worked for https://greenhealthdocs.com/ in Maryland. They advertised heavily before legalization framework was in place.

People didn't know they just needed to fill out a state form that's approved automatically pay $50 to the state, and pay a small fee $75-$80 to a certified doctor, dentist, nurse, or midwife for a cannabis recommendation.

Instead, they greenhealth charges 200 bucks to people.

mardifoufs• 3 years ago

Is it BS in this case though? VPNs are the best tool in this scenario, and when you want to avoid geoblocking in general.

TedDoesntTalk2• 3 years ago

FoxyProxy gives each user a dedicated server for the same price as NordVPN shared servers.

rpastuszak2• 3 years ago

NordVPN actually inspired me to work on my current personal project: a "human" ad blocker for sponsored content on Youtube: https://github.com/paprikka/butter

I'll push a more stable version later this week. Feel free to spam me via the email in my profile desc if you have any feedback or ideas.

yegor3• 3 years ago

How does it work? I personally use this one https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y...

It requires users to provide timestamps for "sponsored by" content, so the player skips over it.

judge2020• 3 years ago

The ROI on VPNs with even a little marketing is huge and you don't need tons of networking people to scale.

yegor3• 3 years ago

That's not true. Ask me how I know. :)

commandlinefan• 3 years ago

Somewhat ironic that they're going to be paying for the VPN (on top of already paying the ISP) while still not actually paying for the content itself.

smolder3• 3 years ago

Paying for porn would support the industry! That would be immoral! Just looking is okay, though.

blacksmith_tb• 3 years ago

Ah yes, in fact looking for free costs the providers something, so it's clearly an ongoing campaign to drive them out of business, hallelujah.

barbazoo• 3 years ago

How do you know that they aren't?

zsz• 3 years ago

Given how well the porn industry does regardless of the rest of the economy, it would be interesting to see how they would do if a sizeable portion of "users" actually paid for their services.

Enterprising individuals might consider next how the same industry could counterintuitively profit from such legislation, by starting their own VPN service (which would, for example, not suffer from similar dropouts, connection resets, bandwidth related issues, etc. as competing services). I guess it would finally put to rest the question we've all been asking ourselves all along: are people using VPN services primarily to hide their piracy-related activities, or has it been mostly to hide their sexual fetishes?

vidarh2• 3 years ago

There was a period of "Adult Verification Services" being widespread and turned into a mechanism for monetizing content around 20 years ago.

fullsend• 3 years ago

OnlyFans is probably just a slice of this. So is Twitch in some ways.

lttlrck• 3 years ago

Pornhub should launch a VPN. Get the money that way instead.

jonathantf2• 3 years ago

https://www.vpnhub.com/ is run by the same parent company.

notfried• 3 years ago

In March, why was Virginia the highest state in the U.S. for searches for VPN, with a score higher than Washington, California and New York, per the article?

boc• 3 years ago

Government employees and contractors

m463• 3 years ago

spies doing remote work

kibwen2• 3 years ago

CIA operatives in Langley inflating the numbers, clearly.

JumpCrisscross4• 3 years ago

CIA operatives in Langley inflating the numbers, clearly

This was my first thought, too. But these aren't data for VPN usage. Just searches. Why would Langley have a bunch of people Googling VPNs in March?

booleandilemma• 3 years ago

What kinds of porn do Mormons like?

knicholes• 3 years ago

There's a site that caters exactly to Mormon-themed porn, and having been a "Mormon," or a "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" for a couple decades, I can vouch that it is truly hilarious. Here's some stats per state, in case you were wondering about any others:

https://wour.com/nsfw-pornhub-reveals-most-popular-searches-...

nashashmi6• 3 years ago

It is unbelievable the amount of targeted advertising they do to religious groups to somehow dislodge them from their previous strictness. Mormons are not alone.

walrus01• 3 years ago

Heterosexual missionary position in a dark room under a blanket between married couples for the purposes of procreation only

reducesuffering• 3 years ago

Soaking

falcolas• 3 years ago

When I first heard of this practice - soaking - I would have sworn someone was making a joke.

Nope. Real.

Right up there with abstinence only sex ed.

0xbadcafebee• 3 years ago

People in really long plain clothes/bonnets/hats, and MFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

erenyeager7• 3 years ago

Actually I think this is really good that we see more regulation around access to pornography, because many damaging aspects of it have been raised more in public awareness and these companies have made a lot of money off of addicting populations from a young age with harmful content without paying for the consequences. Social media companies should be included also, considering how many children and teens are on social media platforms looking for sexual activity with adults.

atleastoptimal2• 3 years ago

The issue is porn is a natural addiction. Young people, especially young men will always be horny and seek out porn. The only deterrents to it are religious and cultural shaming. Is the solution to regulate porn with "education" so people know what healthy use is or not? Because while it seems reasonable to provide guidelines, 99% of people will ignore them.

erenyeager7• 3 years ago

Sometimes what seems natural is because the water was poisoned for so long. Yes, it is natural to have sexual desire, but is unfettered spread of porn with a few taps easily accessible at any age really something we should accept? And young men need a lot of support, in my anecdotal experience it is too easy for so many to fall down negative paths with little support network to prevent it.

Now with AI it is even more dangerous, we have deepfakes (see recent Canada news on deepfakes of children), and the spread of more isolation and addiction with the internet “drugs” compared to genuine in person interactions with friends and family.

Technology like smartphones helped us in many ways but also they became a new way to suffer and amplified some existing problems. Shouldn’t we regulate the worst of it?

I found more dangerous than porn is the ability to communicate with random adults online as a child, with often sexual endings. I remember growing up as a teen, there were sites like Omegle and then chat apps like kik and Snapchat and then Reddit, all these places had avenues for teens and children to communicate and swap pictures with adults, etc. with little to no regulation or consequences for these companies.

nashashmi6• 3 years ago

Absolutely agree about this. the ways in which this industry tries to catch your eyes and tries to grab your attention is both outrageous and evil. yes, every advertising network tries to do that, but there is no advertisement that leads to more harm than this one, and the more frequently they can be stopped, The healthier society will be.

ethbr0• 3 years ago

Social media companies should be included also, considering how many children and teens are on social media platforms looking for sexual activity with adults.

No considering.

"Social media companies should be included also."

Period. Because in their current form and business model they're harmful to pre-adults.

formerly_proven• 3 years ago

On the latest Jonathan Haidt discussion here a parent posted a lengthy rebuttal about someone pointing out the various resources found on YT. Their a-yo and b-yo sons only watch utter trash, Mr. Beast, videogames, 10 minute ads, all that stuff, and they watch it for hours on end. What a terrible platform. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I only do wonder who has custody of their kids, who handed them the iPads, who gives them internet access, and who watches them watch trash all day, day in and day out?

themitigating5• 3 years ago

Prove damage

erenyeager7• 3 years ago

I can anecdotally tell you growing up as a child and then teen with internet access with little regulation led me (was a minor back then) to having virtual sexual interactions with adults and other minors. I’m sure pictures are stored in a server somewhere still. Lots of emotional damage and shame and regret from those interactions and how much time I wasted and feeling used by adults. And there were a lot of minors my age addicted and having sexual interactions with adults online, and even more nowadays. It took a long time for me to find support and slowly leave my addictions and obsessions, felt imprisoned by my own desires. Luckily, having good friends and company around me and telling some close friends about my struggles and finding support groups online helped me get better. Also found much comfort in religion and spiritual guidance.

seydor5• 3 years ago

people will still be making porn for free if commercial activity is banned. always have been. It's likely that people watch more porn-hours on twitter than on PH. Social media competition treadmill otoh is unhealthy AF

sophacles4• 3 years ago

Citation needed for literally everything you said.

What constitutes "damage"? What if we pretend that the sky-wizard delusion didn't care that children were aware of nipples - would it still count as damage? What populations are 'addicted'? What constitutes 'addicted' (and harmful content? and consequences?)

This whole thing reads like something gpt would spit out at the prompt: Write an extremely vague and histrionic blurb about {INDUSTRY} that can be used to trigger moral panic. Oh and throw in a bit about social media too.

erenyeager7• 3 years ago

Maybe you don’t know but many children, teens and adults are meeting up physically and having virtual sexual interactions and also pornography is a major way these start, not to mention the amount of teen and child pornography online that is proclaimed “over 18” because the uploader lied about their age. I already wrote in another comment about my own experience as a survivor of online sexual abuse from adults and porn addiction as a minor. Data on finding out how many

It is a real problem, and we are being harmed. Obviously in many places sending explicit pictures as a minor is a crime, and finding adult study participants willing to talk about their sexual interactions with children is tricky, but you can find a lot online about negative consequences of general sexting among minors.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6650829/ [2]: https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/November-2... [3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014019712...

By the way, you can word your comments in a far less offensive and respectful manner. You should engage with the content instead of make mockery of users, per the guidelines of this site.

wepple• 3 years ago

What is the device based authentication the PH page mentions?

I’m a little scared to search for it whilst in a public space

banana_giraffe• 3 years ago

It's a call out in the law that allows access to such material if authenticated with a Mobile driver's license, aka mDL ( https://dld.utah.gov/utahmdl/ ), aka ISO 18013-5.

selimthegrim2• 3 years ago

You would think Louisiana would follow suit as they have one as well

wcoenen• 3 years ago

I'm not seeing any such trend at trends.google.com:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US-UT&q=VPN&hl=...

Waterluvian• 3 years ago

Ah I found it. Adjust query to a much shorter window.

mirekrusin• 3 years ago

past 7 days

danielodievich• 3 years ago

I have a favorite Utah story that is I think appropriate here. Many years ago as a young and green consultant I was sent to Salt Lake to help with some ASP.NET/C# app with Utah Department of Liquor. I was told to look for the tallest building in SLC and the warehouse did not disappoint, it was huge (well, SLC is really flat and squat too). They showed me the warehouse full of really fancy robotic stuff (all made in Utah, and they were correct to be proud of it). We got to work looking over the code of the app, and along the way they learn that I am originally from USSR/Russia. "Oh" the devs say, "do you want to see our Russia module"? I am of course intrigued, and discover that during the process of organization of 2002 SLC winter Olympics (Mitt Romney's baby/rise to prominence), there was a huge diplomatic incident. The rules of State of UT at the time limit the number of bottles sold to any one in a given transaction, and the Russian delegation was refusing to come to Utah because they would not be allowed to buy as much liquor (likely vodka) as they wanted to. This got escalated to the highest levels of State department, and the intrepid UT legislature found a way! They [very quickly] passed the law that any person with Russian citizenship could buy whatever the heck they want in any amount. Now it was up to the poor saps in the UT Dept. of Liquor to implement it. But you couldn't just rely on people showing passport! No, the software team feverishly coded up the "Russian Module" that implemented passport number validation, making sure that if you did show a red passport with double-headed eagle, its number was valid. There was serious collaboration on the numbering schemes and maybe even some proto API validation to the Russian Federation servers. Yeah, legit module. Used for 2 weeks, and then decommissioned as the law sunset very rapidly.

So, where there is a will, there is a way. And a VPN.

cpursley5• 3 years ago

Funny story if true.

But honestly, the whole "Russian vodka bears blyat" stuff is disrespectful (and wrong). Because Russians actually prefer whiskey & brandy!!

Also, Russia is not even in the top 15 countries in terms of alcohol consumption. Ukraine is higher, Finland is higher, Ireland is higher.

But the worst offender: Russian vodka is not made of potatoes!! They use grains. It's actually the Polish who use potatoes.

LastTrain2• 3 years ago

Also, there is absolutely nothing “flat” about Salt Lake City.

juujian• 3 years ago

The divergence could be because plenty of Russians distill their own liquor

epolanski• 3 years ago

Also, Russia is not even in the top 15 countries in terms of alcohol consumption

That depends on which stats you take and for which country.

But Russians are always among the top in the world, especially males.

Also don't forget in Russia muslims make 14% of the population which lowers the nation averages a lot.

cobaltoxide3• 3 years ago

Many sources put Russia in the top five for incidence of alcoholism, and the life expectancy of Russian men is famously diminished due to their high intake of alcohol. The life expectancy of Russian women is 13 years longer than for men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_in_Russia

"A recent study blamed alcohol for more than half the deaths (52%) among Russians aged 15 to 54 from 1990 to 2001.[14] For the same demographic, this compares to 4% of deaths for the rest of the world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Russia#Alcohol_consu...

I don't think it's just a stereotype.

hunter2_• 3 years ago

There's a great Russian restaurant in NYC known for their infused vodkas, and this part of their website sheds some light on the history of vodka in that region: https://www.russiansamovar.com/vodka/

Not doubting you in the slightest, just adding some flavor.

maximinus_thrax2• 3 years ago

Maybe not in alcohol consumption. But in alcoholism, Russia takes an honorable second place after Hungary: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alcoholis...

_a_a_a_• 3 years ago

An article a few years ago in New Scientist said that alcohol consumption was nothing exceptional in Russia but the way it was consumed was contributing to excess deaths. Something to do with fall-on benders called Zapoi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapoy

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_c...

Germany #6 with 13.4 litres/year pure alcohol equivalent

Russia #18 with 11.7

UK at #25 with 11.4

united states at #46 with 9.8

china at #83 with 7.2

pengaru2• 3 years ago

I dunno man. Unless I'm misremembering the show, there's a pretty good video record of Anthony Bourdain constantly being served Vodka like it's water in Russia.

The impression I got was that they just consume a lot of strong booze, which happens to be vodka due to being the cheap default, not that it's their preferred drink. Whiskey and such is aged costly stuff, isn't vodka much cheaper to bring to market?

cobaltoxide3• 3 years ago

I googled to try to find some reference to this alleged law, but found nothing.

lolinder4• 3 years ago

The only result I found was this thread.

mrkstu• 3 years ago

This seems to be referring to it[0]:

“During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (UDABC) relaxed enforcement of Utah's alcohol laws. This led to the passing of less restrictive laws effected in May 2003. This came after complaints, particularly after an incident in which an International Olympic Committee official complained.”

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Utah

akiselev• 3 years ago

I've been an avid Hacker News reader for over a decade and this is by far the funnest/funniest/most fun anecdote I've read. That includes all of the comments on the HN highlights page [1].

My nationality has nothing to do with it ;)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/highlights

xutopia• 3 years ago

I'm just so surprised by how bad politics has become in the USA. It's like they want to have charia law... or Christian law as it were.

Fauntleroy• 3 years ago

Utah is a remarkably special part of the US, in this regard.

asdff2• 3 years ago

There's the landed elite ski crowd in Utah, but I guess they just fly into their timeshare in park city for 5 days a year and don't much care what happens outside that idyllic vacation.

throw_m239339• 3 years ago

I'm just so surprised by how bad politics has become in the USA. It's like they want to have charia law... or Christian law as it were.

The USA are diverse and laws greatly vary from state to state. Talking about "US politics" when a single state does something is absurd.

Furthermore, many European countries like France are about do the same thing with online porn, no later than this year, are you also going to accuse France of wanting to have "charia law"? That's preposterous. France couldn't be further from a very religious country.

I'm not saying these kind of laws are efficient at stopping minors from watching online porn, I'm just saying that your characterization of USA as a country is wrong.

themitigating5• 3 years ago

Roe v Wade is a good country wide indicator. Trump specifically said he would appoint judges to overturn it during one of the debates.

The majority voted for him.

gleenn• 3 years ago

I think that in general, as an citizen here that most people definitely think about laws as generally similar across states with the odd things like liquor laws frequently standing out. The current push towards emphasizing state's rights is a slippery slope the conservatives have been abusing quite handily like they did with the new ban on abortion. The minute they got invalidated Roe v. Wade, suddenly it immediately swung towards a federal ban on abortion. States rights are important but again, as a citizen, you know the couple things your neighbor state does differently but only recently has this felt like it split so far.

callalex• 3 years ago

I don’t want to put words in your mouth so please correct me, but are you asserting that laws restricting porn are not religiously motivated?

Also o/t but France might not be the best example to use of healthy politics that represent the will of the people right now…

dragonwriter• 3 years ago

Talking about "US politics" when a single state does something is absurd.

This specific Utah porn ban is part of a broader legislative trend, e.g., https://news.yahoo.com/anti-porn-bills-8-states-231013009.ht...

kypro• 3 years ago

There's loads of laws defining what permissible sexual behaviour is though?

This is only unusual in the sense that generally Western countries are in favour of porn. I think you could make a good argument against the universal availably of porn given its negative effects on the individuals that engage in it and on society as a whole – similar to arguments against drug use or prostitution.

I'm not saying I'm in favour of banning porn or anything, just that where we draw the line on what's permissible behaviour between consenting adults seems largely arbitrary and mostly down to cultural factors rather than a fundamental analysis of harm.

Mistletoe• 3 years ago

What are these negative effects on individuals? I often wonder if our lower violent crime rates compared to the past largely come from humans staying in and watching porn and playing video games.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601...

pengaru2• 3 years ago

I'm just so surprised by how bad politics has become in the USA. It's like they want to have charia law... or Christian law as it were.

There are a lot of Americans who think the country's going to shit because of a lack of religion and morals and think they can MAGA by going hard that direction.

It's insanity.

spacephysics• 3 years ago

A good argument can be made that our lack of a unified morality (or at least more unified than today) led to better individual outcomes.

Sure there are aspects that needed to progress for a better change, no doubt about it.

But without a moral framework, many are either reluctant or ignorant of the extra work involved in making moral choices for oneself, and aiming not to succumb to a fad ideology (this goes for both sides), a false god as it were.

int_19h2• 3 years ago

If you go far enough right, some people want exactly that, and aren't shy about spelling it out: https://archive.is/2kwW6

ubermonkey3• 3 years ago

Given that VPN services typically require a credit card, and credit cards are unlikely to be available to most minors -- or at least provide plausible deniability to the providers -- this is probably 100% okay with the porn-banning Utahns.

UncleOxidant• 3 years ago

The Opera browser has a free VPN built-in. It would be interesting to see data on Opera and Tor browser downloads there in the last week.

ubermonkey3• 3 years ago

I had no idea! Yeah, that would definitely be interesting.

coretx2• 3 years ago

Opera is no longer Norwegian. It's Chinese these days so that's exchanging one security problem for another.

bauruine• 3 years ago

Pornhub redirects Tor users to their .onion which has been broken for at least months.

If someone has a contact there please tell them to fix it.

seanw444• 3 years ago

They don't though. A lot of VPN services operate for free. A lot of my classmates in high school used free VPNs to bypass the school internet filters.

I wonder how their business continues to operate if their product is free...

celestialcheese• 3 years ago

Hola VPN, one of the largest free ones, is operated by BrightData. They make money with their residential and mobile proxy service. By using Hola, you act as an edge node in what is essentially a legal botnet, and Bright Data charges like $10/gb to clients who want to use it for scraping,etc.

seydor5• 3 years ago

Well there is only one solution: they should require that all porn be paid-for by credit card. Utah will make PH rich to protect their boys

rafark• 3 years ago

Not really. There are tons of free VPN apps in the AppStore that anyone can download and use. I have a couple that do the trick and I have never used a credit card to use a vpn.

ubermonkey3• 3 years ago

I had no idea! I have used VPN services, but not much since I stopped traveling so much. Thanks.

capableweb5• 3 years ago

Given that VPN services typically require a credit card, and credit cards are unlikely to be available to most minors

Easy, even minors can acquire cash and send (international) envelopes, so send cash over to Mullvad together with your account number and you anonymously get access to a VPN.

vidarh2• 3 years ago

My son is 14. He got his first VPN for free several years ago to evade bans on various game servers. Had he not wanted to tell me, he could've easily hid it.

woodruffw4• 3 years ago

I was able to get a debit card at 13 or so without my parents knowing; I'm sure enterprising (read: horny) teenagers in Utah are at least as clever as I was, which wasn't particularly clever.

Besides, there are plenty of VPNs that don't require any sort of digital payment. Mullvad somewhat famously accepts cash[1], and they're the whitelabeled service behind a lot of other providers.

[1] https://mullvad.net/en/pricing

KomoD3• 3 years ago

At what age do people in the US get debit cards? I had one when I was like 12

LinuxBender3• 3 years ago

At least in most of the US a minor must have a parent sign for their account and it is a linked account of the parent meaning they can review transactions and set spend limits but there is probably a way around this. Part of this is banking regulation as explained to me by a bank and part of this is that a minor can not legally enter into a binding contract though many companies would have kids think otherwise.

csomar• 3 years ago

You are severely underestimating how smart these little things can be if they are determined enough.

paulpauper• 3 years ago

I used to use VPNs. What a waste of money. Nothing but captchas, broken functionality, slowness, etc. It's obvious that at least some VPNs use low trust IPs and are blocked and filtered. You are better off just getting an E2 instance

aqfamnzc• 3 years ago

That's not been my experience. I run an always-on VPN on my laptop and phone and never have issues. What service did you try?

paxys3• 3 years ago

You need to find a better provider. I have regularly used Private Internet Access, PureVPN and Torguard and have never had this experience with any of them.

NikolaNovak• 3 years ago

I don't understand pornhubs statement. What is device based authentication and why is it the best?

seydor5• 3 years ago

So this was all a plot of the VPN industry?

Educating people how to use VPN is a very double-edged sword, because people will also learn that they no longer need to pay Netflix et al.

themitigating5• 3 years ago

No, it's Christian facism or were you joking?

lolinder4• 3 years ago

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. ... All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

-- George Orwell, What is Fascism?, 1944

https://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

andrewclunn• 3 years ago

Conversely, one could set their VPN to Utah as a quick child protective measure

knaik94• 3 years ago

Blocking porn in this way doesn't meaningfully improve the protection of children. This kind of law often also negatively impacts access to sexual education.

bigmattystyles• 3 years ago

Is the law written such that the vpn is liable now or is it treated like the ISP?

b8• 3 years ago

Lot's of Porn sites don't follows Louisiana's/Utah's ID laws etc. Including Reddit for now. I found out that my Google Fi data connects to an out of state tower which lets me bypass the sites which did implement law abiding walls/blocks.

I wonder if more states interact such laws if Usenet/Torrenting will have higher demand as well.

Thorentis• 3 years ago

Sad that porn use has become so widespread. People don't like to think about it, but I think the mass exposure to porn of the high speed internet generation will have serious negative effects.

capableweb5• 3 years ago

Sad that porn use has become so widespread

Has it really though? Based on Google search traffic, "porn" as a keyword is actually declining since ~2013: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=porn&hl=...

And before internet porn, the same people watching it online today would have browsed magazines or watched VHS/betamax with the same content.

eternalban3• 3 years ago

have browsed magazines or watched VHS/betamax with the same content.

Who was this guy with stacks of new magazines on demand to say nothing of thousands of VHS/betamax to go through. /g

HN needs to discuss these matters with a bit more honesty:

Porn consumption is driven by the dopamine reward system. Porn is not music. You can listen to a song a zillion times (if you like it) but a specific item of pronography will very rapidly fail to arouse in repeated viewing. New material is required.

Another aspect of porn consumption is that this 'need for variety' also creates plateaus at the content genre. Stronger material is required, progressively.

And strength in porn is not a mere matter of explicitness (which also plateaus in a given genre). Taboos and norms operate at this level, when the genre gets stronger, which by the perverse inherent mechanics of how porn and male brains interact, it must get more subversive.

So, yeah, back in the day you could get your Playboy at the 7 eleven but other materials required a visit to dodgey quarters. You also paid substantially for the privilege. And kids most certainly did not have access to hard porn. So at say 20 bucks a pop for DVD (2 hours of happy time max?) or close to 10 for a magazine (these are 20th century dollars btw) not that many people were even practically capable of getting hooked on porn. It could not even happen.

Today you have free porn on tap, and algorithms (based on well understood mechanics of porn by its peddlers) that continually goade you into 'stronger' content.

deet2• 3 years ago

These stories about Utah and the comments people make here on HN disappoint me. So many of them are based on prejudices and biases.

I've lived in many places in the USA, from SF to Chicago to NYC to Utah. And honestly, they're just not all that different.

People's sterotypes of the predominant LDS (Mormon) religion make them believe that Utah is unique and a theocracy.

In reality much of American law is based on very similar Christian moral standards. Most states are majority Christian, the laws reflect that. The difference in Utah is that it's mostly _one_ religion, rather than say a mix of various protestant and Catholic faiths.

Try walking around fully naked in any of the places I mentioned above, like into an office building or a university or other establishment, and I guarantee you that those more liberal places will also not tolerate that behavior. Not due to any direct harm you'd be causing, but due to moral standards encoded into culture and law.

Same with alcohol, tobacco, and all the other "vices" people believe are banned in Utah (they're not). If you drive around downtown Salt Lake City, you'll see bars, signs for cannabis cards, smoke shops, and even a some decent breweries. It feels a lot like most American cities. (Granted that elsewhere in Utah like in Provo, you see many fewer of these). Nearly every state allows, but restricts and limits all of these substances and activities in various ways, from licensing to age limits, and Utah is not really very different.

For porn specifically, there have been laws on the books in many states to restrict access to minors for a long time. In the age of magazines, do you think it was legal for a business in California to sell such materials to a minor? If not, why not? Because it was either deemed harmful or immoral, beliefs eventually rooted in religion.

Beyond that, is Utah actually different than other places most Americans would respect for being more "level-headed", like the UK (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-porn-ban-digital-economy-...) or Germany (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/germany-porn-laws-age-checks)?

Now, this specific law is impractical, Utah simply does not have the market power to induce a player like Apple or Google to make device-level age verification the way that Pornhub is suggesting. So the state of Utah has put into effect a law that will result in reduced access to porn (followed by subversion through VPNs) rather than actually age verification. And in the process the state is hurting its reputation.

But the generalizations here about the state due to religious and political biases are just not helpful.

seydor5• 3 years ago

very similar Christian moral standards

American puritanism is cultural and not just a result of christianity. Many pious christian countries have always had legal prostitution and more lax attitudes to nudity/porn

gjsman-1000• 3 years ago

Please provide examples. Porn production used to be death penalty material in England after the printing press was invented.

shrimp_emoji• 3 years ago

Thanks for your level-headed comment, friend. I have just one note.

is Utah actually different than other places most Americans would respect for being more "level-headed", like the UK (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-porn-ban-digital-economy-...) or Germany (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/germany-porn-laws-age-checks)?

In these places, you can go to jail for posting a slur on Twitter or doing a Nazi salute.

In America, that is (or should be) considered insane dystopian bullshit, not "level-headed" policy.

Also, both those places have a comically naive and hamfisted understanding of the Internet, and America is usually above that (as every modern country should be). Didn't England try to ban encryption, and didn't Germany censor all of YouTube with GEMA via a super-literal interpretation of copyright violation? Are these places that sound appealing to live in as a technophile? "Das Internet ist Neuland." *puts on 3D glasses*

freedomben6• 3 years ago

I mostly agree with your comment (I grew up partially in Utah, and moved there as an adult for many years), but I think you're being a little too black or white.

Same with alcohol, tobacco, and all the other "vices" people believe are banned in Utah (they're not).

Yes they are "legal" now (well, cannabis legality is pretty debatable), but there are some significant restrictions on their use that are absolutely not all that typical. Like, in Utah there is a state-enforced monopoly on liquor stores (from a state that in most cases would decry such anti-free-market practices). There are also draconian bar regulations. They have loosened up some of those things a bit (especially after the 2002 olympics), but there are still significant impediments, particularly if you're outside of SLC. In SLC there are enough non-Mormons that you can find plenty of bars and stuff. I remember not too long ago when "bars" were banned in Utah. You had to be a "private club" so the "bars" would charge a cover, call it a "membership fee" and when you went in you were joining the private club for one day. The radio ads that played always ended with a fast talking "xyz is a private club for members only" lol.

tflinton• 3 years ago

Utah actually has a rolled out Mobile ID program where you can choose which data to share, including just if you’re over 18 or 21. It can be validated via Utah’s public mID certificate.

Easiest solution would be to implement that on sites requiring a DOB. Maybe then more than a miserable 24K of people would have them.

sophacles4• 3 years ago

Lots of people on here claiming vague "porn does damage" hysteria. Curiously, not one mention of what the damage actually is though. This leads me to believe it's pure nonsense born out of some religious delusion. Maybe not though so in all seriousness:

* What is the damage? (not yet another "it's harmful" sentance, I'm literally asking for details to learn what you mean, if anything).

* What is "widespread"? Presumably this can be presented in terms of % of population or other actual data shaped way.

* What is the "addiction" boogeyman in this context? What are the dreadful consequences you hint at? (again, please don't just bring the vague bullshit about "its addicting, lots of companies make money from it" - actual data is my request)

* What are the actual studies backing whatever articles you got your information from - do they even exist? Were they put out by some religious think-tank or by people who do science?

I'm going way out on a limb here, trying to assume you all are making good-faith claims rather than faith-based wishes. Currently I really suspect this is more motivated by a cult that has old dudes interrogate children about their genitals grasping at control over those genitalia than any reasonable problem solving.

davidgh2• 3 years ago

Here are a couple of references for you.

Compulsive Internet Pornography Use and Mental Health: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Sample of University Students in the United States https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7835260/

Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/

hgsgm3• 3 years ago

Men can't win. After centuries of being regarded as sex fiends who can't last nore than 2 minutes in bed, now "difficulty achieving orgasm" and "decreased libido" are considered dysfunctions.

locustous4• 3 years ago

What is the damage?

Where to begin. I'll be as straight forward as I can.

Porn use cultivates lust. A false form of love that seeks easy sexual satisfaction instead of a stable long term committed relationship that's best for kids. Porn is a pretty major contributor to divorce and otherwise blowing up relationships. Some women will tolerate it for a time, or try to and even claim to succeed. But it eats at them and contributes greatly to their unhappiness.

It's another form of infidelity, which is quite infamous in human society since forever. Numerous literature pieces.

It's basically a love receptor inhibitor. The deeper you are in it the harder it will be to really love a woman. A real woman requires TLC, a great deal of it, a porn woman does not. How much energy do you thing goes into a relationship if all male sexual satisfaction is tied solely to it's health?

If you've been in it since youth you probably have never experienced the kind of real love I'm talking about. I know because I was there, myself, for years. I walked a life of porn for many years and it's taken many years to overcome that addiction. Night and day.

whalesalad• 3 years ago

What’s wrong with sex for fun? That’s the moralistic religious conditioning that has us here in the first place.

hulitu• 3 years ago

Porn is a pretty major contributor to divorce and otherwise blowing up relationships

Citation needed.

Usually a man's porn collection is not "public". If one shows it to his wife then ...

sophacles4• 3 years ago

Porn use cultivates lust.

Citation needed

A false form of love that seeks easy sexual satisfaction instead of a stable long term committed relationship that's best for kids.

This assumes that everyone must want kids, and the everyone must act only in support of those who have them.

Also going to need some citations for what a true form of love is - that's something that humans have been arguing about for at least as long a writing has been around.

Porn is a pretty major contributor to divorce and otherwise blowing up relationships. Some women will tolerate it for a time, or try to and even claim to succeed. But it eats at them and contributes greatly to their unhappiness.

Here's a crazy idea: maybe you should consider women as real people. A group of individuals who have their own sets of preferences and opinions.

Going to need a lot of actual data that all women think exactly this way.

Further, I'm going to need some serious explanation why it makes sense to go into a marriage where either one person doesn't express their true opinions of porn watching or the other lies about it. It seems irresponsible to enter into a life-long contract without understanding the terms.

It's another form of infidelity, which is quite infamous in human society since forever.

Viewing porn is only infidelity if it's secret and against the partner's wishes. Generally the problem isn't the actual action, it's the deceit and breaking of a promise that's hurtful in those situations.

Numerous literature pieces.

Which ones? show your work - I'm not big on "just trust me bro" from internet strangers, especially ones with such weak arguments.

It's basically a love receptor inhibitor. The deeper you are in it the harder it will be to really love a woman. A real woman requires TLC, a great deal of it, a porn woman does not. How much energy do you thing goes into a relationship if all male sexual satisfaction is tied solely to it's health?

Love receptors... gonna need some serious citations for that to be anything other than a pathetic attempt at giving a shit opinion credibility by faking sciencey words.

Se also the whole bit above about how you really should accept that women are actually people.

f you've been in it since youth you probably have never experienced the kind of real love I'm talking about. I know because I was there, myself, for years. I walked a life of porn for many years and it's taken many years to overcome that addiction. Night and day.

I'm glad you found something that brings you satisfaction.

I don't see how that means your weaknesses are mine. Your story is evidence that one can find happiness despite the world allowing others to seek their own path. Why do you need to force your view on everyone else - the law doesn't force you to watch porn, you have a choice - why do you need to make other's choices for them? I get it - you were weak and made bad (to you) choices - that really suggests you shouldn't be making choices for anyone else, you aren't great at it (the evidence presented suggests you have a 50% success rate at choosing things wisely).

nunez• 3 years ago

Women watch porn too you know

uptownfunk• 3 years ago

Access to porn destroyed a lot of my friends lives growing up. 20+ years later they still haven't picked up the pieces. The lack of self-control, addiction, relationships, social life (no I am not saying porn caused it explicitly, but it is hard to deny there is some relationship).

Can I think of any examples of people it helped? Not really.

Does that mean we should block it? Ultimately that's for the courts to decide.

Should we think about the impact to children? Once adults have fully formed brains and self-control mechanisms built up porn is probably not as high of a risk, but for children in middle and high school it doesn't seem like this is the right thing .

kaba04• 3 years ago

no I am not saying porn caused it explicitly

Then that’s just a baseless claim on which a law was made.

didibus2• 3 years ago

Seems personal freedoms are being restricted at an all time high in the country who values freedom the most. I would hope this eventually rallies people from both sides of the political spectrum, civil liberties are the bastion of a free and democratic country.

When it comes to liberties that affect one self, it should be a no brainer, government has no business there. When it comes to liberties that one person doing something can impact negatively others, than courts and legislation can come into play to make sure everyone's liberties are upheld, but honestly I'm seeing much too many things being taken up here, the bar for harm to others should be pretty high, it should follow a similar reasonable doubt process as criminal charges, you should show harm without reasonable doubt.

mariojv• 3 years ago

I’m curious, how would laws like the one Utah passed be enforced if a company doesn’t have a presence in Utah? Do Utah courts rely on the cooperation of courts and banks operating outside Utah to enforce fines and the like?

I suppose if your bank operates in Utah or wants to do business with Utah entities, it could be enforced coercively that way. As laws in different states diverge further and further, it makes me wonder to what extent states stopping cooperation with each other is possible, or if entities will start operating entirely within a particular “safe harbor” state to protect themselves.

MrBigOcean• 3 years ago

Seems like the type of porn that is popular is problematic for some reason?

"Lesbian Porn Is Utah’s Porn Of Choice"

https://www.bustle.com/articles/156093-heres-the-most-popula...