[hattmall]

You had to show ID to buy porn magazines, go in a strip club or even the adult video rental room.

It's pretty insane that we have no check for an unlimited amount of free porn with all kinds of extremes.

It fucks up a lot of kids (and adults).

Showing porn to a random kid on the street would have you catch a charge if not something worse, but somehow on the Internet it's just fine?

[jzb]

"It's pretty insane that we have no check for an unlimited amount of free porn with all kinds of extremes."

And... we still don't. Porn is available through a lot of channels to anybody who knows how to look, all the NC law (and others) is doing is applying pressure to a handful of businesses and encouraging bad practices in the form of having to handle IDs.

I'm the first to acknowledge it's sometimes worth doing something imperfect if it'll improve things, even if it's not 100% effective. But this isn't likely to be 10% effective, much less 90% or 100% effective. Anybody who wants to can dredge up tons of porn on any number of other sites, torrents, etc.

As others have said, it's one thing to have to flash an ID at a convenience store or to enter a business where there's nudity, etc., but here you're requiring people to pass their info online. That's bad policy, and I doubt it's even in good faith that the legislators really think it'll do anything to curb access by those under 18.

It's designed to target sites like PornHub and to give government a cudgel against all kinds of content that most wouldn't consider "porn" to begin with. And they want to go after LGBTQ+ content on the basis that it's LGBTQ+ -- not that it's necessarily adult in nature. [1]

There's little chance that you're going to come anywhere close to preventing motivated people from seeing porn on the Internet laws and policy like this. If you have kids that you don't want accessing porn, then you need to take steps to monitor their access and have the hard conversations with them.

(I am less alarmist about the "dangers" of kids accessing porn, but I will agree that unfettered access at a young age especially if parents aren't teaching their kids adequately about sexuality and that porn isn't a good representation is not great.)

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/17/masculine-policy-the-gop...

[dgacmu]

"NC legislature accidentally endorses Mullvad VPN" could be a parallel article to this one. It would be interesting if someone analyzed the growth in VPN use following the enactment of this law.

[jzb]

Indeed. I'm pretty sure VPN subscriptions had a nice little spike at the end of December in NC.

[whatshisface]

They are leaving it out where anyone can get it (if their parents aren't watching), not showing it to unsuspecting pedestrians. Maybe teenagers have too much autonomy online but it's the place of their parents to take it away from them - not the state of North Carolina.

[hattmall]

I think a reasonable analogy would be putting TV's playing porn outside of a school and covered them with a cloth and sign that said adults only. What would my liability be then? And I also sell advertising on the side of the tvs?

[JohnBooty]

    I think a reasonable analogy would be putting 
    TV's playing porn outside of a school and covered 
    them with a cloth and sign that said adults only.

Well, no. Anybody entering or leaving the school would have no choice but to see the covered TVs. Whereas porn is generally not showing up online unless you are looking for it.

Strongly suggest dropping the analogies entirely.

Like many digital concepts this just will never map cleanly to a real-world analogue.

This is like the millions of bad analogies related to music downloads back in the Napster days. Please, stop. This is an issue worth discussing, but every analogy is bad and every analogy pollutes and enshittifies the discussion.

[maxbond]

Though porn advertisements can pop up when you're just minding your own business. The other day a friend of mine was doing perfectly mundane research, and they were shown ads with full nudity. (Yes, I know, they should install an ad blocker, that's not the point.)

That I do think is pretty messed up, and potentially something to pass legislation about. Some people want to opt out of pornography altogether, and their choice should be respected. As should the choice of people who do consume pornography, but aren't choosing to do so at this moment.

[JohnBooty]

I don't know the answer but yeah, I'm definitely on your side about it being a problem.

I saw a bunch of super explicit stuff, unbidden, on my Twitter/X feed the other week and it made me not want to use it any more.

I love porn, but it absolutely should not be shown to me without my consent.

[whatshisface]

Based on the growth of some "romance boutiques," who seem to be able to open chain stores anywhere, the liability is nil.

[hattmall]

They allow kids to go in?

[whatshisface]

To be honest, I don't know - but the billboards are everywhere and not subtle at all.

[itishappy]

No, they check IDs.

Source: Was a kid.

[likeclockwork]

If you give your kids unrestricted access to a gun they can shoot themselves.

Why should minors be allowed on the internet unsupervised at all?

[kazinator]

> You had to show ID to buy porn magazines

Not to someone wearing a Google Glass device, taking a snapshot of it.

[stickfigure]

> It fucks up a lot of kids (and adults).

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.