[chimeracoder]

> If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII.

Yes, and that is exactly why Morality in Media (the right-wing, evangelical group behind these laws) has been proposing them. Their goal is to outlaw pornography (and other "immoral" content) on the internet by making it so difficult to access or provide legally that nobody will bother.

> I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN better than adults.

You're making the mistake of assuming their goal is to prevent kids from being able to access pornography. It is not. Their goal is to make it so financially impractical to run any service that publishes (or allows people to publish) pornography, LGBTQ content, or anything that they deem "immoral" that nobody even tries. And it's working: many services which used to allow that content before 2017 no longer do, and it is much, much more expensive (and difficult) for the remaining folks to find platforms or hosting providers to continue to do so.

[caminante]

I was curious about the origin. It may not be what you expect.

> These bills didn’t originate from some evangelical PAC or conservative think tank. Their actual origin was, ironically, The Howard Stern Show. [0]

While it seems like everyone has overwhelmingly sided against free speech advocates (ACLU) and porn sites, there are some interesting points about access/addiction. I'm less impressed if it's purely evangelical driven (at least now), but I'm sympathetic to arguments about access for minors (or their ability to post under-age content). I don't have the answer.

[0] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/08/age-law-on...

[chimeracoder]

> I was curious about the origin. It may not be what you expect.

As someone who's been following this for over a decade, I can assure you it is, in fact, what I expect.

That article is absolute nonsense, which you can tell by the fact that it claims the clock starts in 2021, when these bills have actually been introduced multiple times before then.

Furthermore, the article contradicts its own narrative, first claiming that a Howard Stern spot "started" it, then admitting two paragraphs later that the legislator was inspired by that radio show to contact... an anti-porn lobbyist that she had already known about for years. That's a really... interesting definition of "origin" that they're using.

[caminante]

Sure, but LA was the first to pass age verification for adult sites (and it wasn't until 2022-23). I don't know what the line is between that and other age verification (13+) or blanket anti-porn bills you're referring to. [0]

I don't follow your point about contradiction.

How is contacting a single-issue ally (who's on the opposite end of the political spectrum at that -- and not a "GOP Think Tank" or "evangelical") changing the origin? The person she reached out to is a pro-abortion, radical feminist. That is strengthening the article's key conclusion by a lot. It's a surprising turn for an origin story.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_verification_system#United...

[Aromasin]

This seems a little baffling to me because these evangelical groups are uniquely American. There would still exist a huge pornography industry globally, particularly within the EU, that would serve the US even if these groups achieved every goal. It's deluded to think it could be stopped.

[brimwats]

No they're not; their roots are in the YMCA and the British society for the suppression of vice and earlier societies dating back to the 1700s. They originated when the church courts were shut down and are a feature of British evangelicalism that Americans turbocharged.

[chimeracoder]

> This seems a little baffling to me because these evangelical groups are uniquely American.

I'm referring to one of several groups that is behind a specific campaign in the US. That doesn't mean that there aren't other efforts to curtail this in other countries or globally.

As mentioned elsewhere, there's a law that's about to go into effect in the UK which is actually way broader and draconian than any that has been passed anywhere in the US. There are more in other countries too.

> There would still exist a huge pornography industry globally, particularly within the EU, that would serve the US even if these groups achieved every goal.

And yet, when Tumblr and Imgur and Reddit[0] banned pornography, no EU-based competitor emerged to take their place.

[0] Reddit's ban wasn't a total ban, but it was enough to effectively shut down many groups (which was the goal).

[numpad0]

EU guys are the same. Organizations like German state police are doing "crackdowns" of Internet contents in total disregard of jurisdiction. Targeting criteria is neither consumers nor producers but specific subjective quality of content itself: they never care who makes it or at what cost, but that it exists.

[influx]

Does the EU allow sales of pornography to minors?

[azeirah]

VPNs? Or children?

[southernplaces7]

>Yes, and that is exactly why Morality in Media (the right-wing, evangelical group behind these laws)

Sure, they're major culprits but let's not let the left get off the hook entirely on promoting moralizing censorship of porn too. There are segments of it, especially those in certain feminist camps that hate pornography with a victorian near-evangelical level of scorn and they have a loud voice of their own under different flags and reasoning.

[mmooss]

Are there many and do they have any influence? I haven't heard anything from such groups. Have they gotten any laws passed, like the age verification laws the other groups have succeeded in passing in several states?

[Digory]

“ We believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone," Steve Jobs declared in an email to a customer. "Folks who want porn can buy an Android."

[TheOtherHobbes]

There are, but they're disorganised and poorly funded, and opposed by other feminists. (It's practically a law - for almost every feminist moral POV there is an equal and opposite feminist moral POV.)

Meanwhile the organised and well-funded evangelicals and right-wingers ignore the constant stream of SA and CP convictions among youth pastors and other supposed moral authorities.

The stats don't necessarily prove that religious states consume more porn, but porn is an existential problem for evangelicals in a way that it isn't for most progressives.