[swatcoder]

You may be overestimating the reach of these small states when it comes to online content. These laws don't make porn any less available, it just changes who gets the traffic. And as others have noted, the operators who come out ahead are inherently the ones least aligned with the culture and values being asserted.

What the laws are really for is making voters in these states feel like their legislators are doing something, because proposing and voting on token nonsense like this is easy and negotiating effective change on meaningful policy is hard.

[camhart]

Striving to protect children isn't nonsense, even if the effort fails to accomplish its intended outcome. We need politicians who are more concerned with the rising generations, not less.

[swatcoder]

That applies to the voters, not the legislators. The legislators been around the block, they have lawyers, they have mentors, they have consultants, they have lobbyists. With the exception of the few loons who inevitably get voted in here and there, the careerists know exactly how something like this plays out.

Voters are presumably striving to protect children and want their legislators to do something. These legislators are in no position to do anything. But they can play pretend and only make the problem a little worse as they do. In politics, that's a win.

But it's not a "concern for rising generations".

[camhart]

> These legislators are in no position to do anything.

You're going to need to explain this more. All efforts start small. With support they grow and can accomplish things.

> But it's not a "concern for rising generations".

If "it" is referring to porn, then yes it is. Perhaps not in your view, or your social circles.