Protect Act Could Require Removal of All Existing Porn Online

https://reason.com/2024/02/12/protect-act-could-require-removal-of-all-existing-porn-online/

by delichon • 2 years ago

26 18 2 years ago

dotcoma• 2 years ago

OMG! who’s gonna use the Internet anymore? ;)

henriquez2• 2 years ago

So the issue is so-called “economic coercion?” By the same token can’t it be argued that work is inherently coercive, and therefore a form of exploitation? For example, I’d rather not work at all but then I’d be evicted. Can we ban work since it’s non-consensual? What’s so special about sex work that it gets a carve-out?

drdeca• 2 years ago

Are you of the opinion that “sexual assault” is not different in a morally relevant way from “assault”?

If not, then, it seems that we’ve established that in some cases, something being of a sexual nature, can be morally relevant.

henriquez2• 2 years ago

You’re right; sexual coercion is morally relevant, similarly to how certain crimes can be up-charged to “hate crimes” based on intent. But then one can’t argue that some forms of economic coercion are okay, while others aren’t (ie. sex-related). All we’d be splitting hairs over would be the degree to which how “not okay” a particular form of coercion is. Fundamentally, economic coercion is the basis of capitalism.

For what it’s worth I think it’s a free country and if college girls want to flash their titties on OnlyFans to gratify thirsty sexless losers then that’s between them and the IRS. There’s a reason prostitution is often referred to as a victimless crime.

jstarfish2• 2 years ago

Not quite. People think this is about OnlyFans thots or ex-boyfriends posting revenge porn but I think everyone's reading into it.

This smells like FOSTA/SESTA verbiage and the government is not quick to legislate porn, so I assume it's more about trafficking victims who were also filmed during their exploitation (as an additional revenue stream). Reference the part about abuse victims being retraumatized.

This bill retroactively imposes something like 2257 on all porn. It just happens to cover some additional cases.

aiisdoomed2• 2 years ago

That’s going to be quite a challenge were it to happen in europe. Online prostitution in west europe is the only way some people can achieve home ownership and financial freedom.

alberto1802• 2 years ago

As opposed to the US where every cashier at Dollar General owns a home and lives free of monetary worries

aiisdoomed2• 2 years ago

Both cashier and software developer in London or Berlin face similar issues - live in with strangers, are two to three pay-checks away from eviction, and cant start a family. Actually I think the cashier stands a better chance.

jigil• 2 years ago

Sounds good to me. If the publishers can't prove consent, they shouldn't be sharing it. The pornography industry already has a huge problem with consent, and the abuse of trafficked women is well documented. So anything that combats this is most welcome.

[1] https://nordicmodelnow.org/2022/08/13/pornography-as-crime-s...

instagib• 2 years ago

I think distributors of pornography have been consulted on this per their recent changes. No one wants to be wrapped up with revenge porn legality issues. The forms, trivial date revocation, post-consent revocation, detection, and such would reduce the number of distributors.

Title is sensational though because there are many willing people to give their consent in exchange for money at any given time. I don’t think the bill is intended to remove porn but it will be a nice side effect temporarily for the religious types. It is to allow sex workers to have capabilities to have content removed.

“A measure like the PROTECT Act might help stop the spread of nonconsensual porn on mainstream, U.S.-based platforms (though such images could still spread freely through private communication channels and underground platforms). But it would do this at the cost of a ton of protected speech and consensual creations.”

squigz• 2 years ago

I find it funny that they equate non US-based platforms with "underground" platforms

srackey• 2 years ago

Uhhhhh, how do you enforce this without a great firewall?

c0balt• 2 years ago

Most likely by legally "persuading" big distributors like aylo, formerly Mindgeek. Additionally, you will likely have the typical DNS/ ISP blocks. They may further also try to legally get them off service providers.

Piratebay, warez and other illegal content providers have encountered this challenge for a long time.

axismundi• 2 years ago

If you delete all porn, the rest of the Internet should fit on 2-3 servers.

kristopolous• 2 years ago

I might as well go back to dialup.

jstarfish2• 2 years ago

I don't trust the rhetoric of this article. It's creepy and hyperbolic, before we get to:

If your friend's nipple is visible through her t-shirt in a group shot, you may have to get a consent form from her before posting it and to show your driver's license and hers when you do. Or just be prepared to be banned from posting that picture entirely, if the platform decides it's too risky to allow any nipples at all.

So...you're trying to post a possibly-embarrassing photograph of someone, and you're complaining about having to get their permission?

In an article about a bill intended to curb this very behavior?

Seriously?

probably_satan• 2 years ago

Lol Mike pence and Warren hatch, one is afraid of his own wife and the other is probably afraid of his 12 wives. These dork republican't hypocrites need to retire one way or the other