When I got blocked by big porn sites attempting to obey Arizona law, who demanded a selfie to proceed, I immediately switched to other sites without the restriction. It took about thirty seconds. I don't miss anything about the old sites. The age check approach won't work without an internet sized jurisdiction or a firewall that squeezes the reachable internet to your own jurisdiction.
This outcome was always obvious. The internet is too big. You can degrade the sites that are legitimate enough to follow the law, but that's just a drop in the bucket in the sea of porn.
Good news, the end goal that is being pushed by corporate lobbyists is still in sight.
Give it a few years (months if you're an optimist?) and you will have to use your Google/Apple hardware device to formally tie your real identity with your digital identity for every site that has even the slim possibility of being a small danger to hypothetical children.
I'm sure Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg will gladly join this effort to reduce harm to children as well, I'm sure that's high on their priority list. They may even already have the infrastructure in place to handle that digital ID, what an amazing coincidence.
A strategy old as time. Implement a weak "foot in the door" measure that pushes people towards incompliance, use the incompliance to justify implementing the strong "break the door and your nose along with it" measure.
Companies can benefit from it but this type of control is a "fan favorite" for the state since forever. It just became feasible otherwise they would have done it ages ago.
“Good” actor does not refer to ethical, but to lawful.
> ethical porn
Define “ethical porn”? Problem with ethics is that it varies from person to person; at least lawful has the taste of varying only from country to country.
Had they not passed the "ban porn site" bill then the majority of people would be viewing porn on sites which will enforce (or at least attempt to enforce), and consumption of it would reduce.
Instead UK people consume port from places which is quite happy to have choking, bestiality, and child porn.
When I got blocked by big porn sites attempting to obey Arizona law, who demanded a selfie to proceed, I immediately switched to other sites without the restriction. It took about thirty seconds. I don't miss anything about the old sites. The age check approach won't work without an internet sized jurisdiction or a firewall that squeezes the reachable internet to your own jurisdiction.
This outcome was always obvious. The internet is too big. You can degrade the sites that are legitimate enough to follow the law, but that's just a drop in the bucket in the sea of porn.
Hence why the UK govt wants to ban VPNs and have our own lil internet firewall
https://archive.is/xQiFO
That was 100% obvious that would happen, the law will only be followed by good actors and bad actors now have an additional advantage
Good news, the end goal that is being pushed by corporate lobbyists is still in sight.
Give it a few years (months if you're an optimist?) and you will have to use your Google/Apple hardware device to formally tie your real identity with your digital identity for every site that has even the slim possibility of being a small danger to hypothetical children.
I'm sure Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg will gladly join this effort to reduce harm to children as well, I'm sure that's high on their priority list. They may even already have the infrastructure in place to handle that digital ID, what an amazing coincidence.
Everything will be fine!
Snooper's charter ring a bell? This is the work of the UK govt, not corporate lobbyists.
A strategy old as time. Implement a weak "foot in the door" measure that pushes people towards incompliance, use the incompliance to justify implementing the strong "break the door and your nose along with it" measure.
Companies can benefit from it but this type of control is a "fan favorite" for the state since forever. It just became feasible otherwise they would have done it ages ago.
Which site would you qualify as a "good" actor?
It's an honest question. Is there such a thing as ethical porn or are there only sites that pay taxes and those that don't?
OnlyFan is as ethical as porn can get
“Good” actor does not refer to ethical, but to lawful.
> ethical porn
Define “ethical porn”? Problem with ethics is that it varies from person to person; at least lawful has the taste of varying only from country to country.
I'd call the ones which have a process for verifying actors and following local laws to be good actors
It's not an honest question. A good actor is one that is not trying to show porn to children and follows the law.
That's one (very serious issue) but there are many others.
Pornhub is a company, has an address, pays taxes, and has a history of problems.
There are sites which follow laws and those that don't.
when you make something more difficult to access a black market profiting from easier access will always appear
Another
The UK tried to ban choking porn. Quite reasonable given the realities of monkey-see monkey-do.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/06/chokin...
Trouble is, "nobody in the UK" consumes porn.
Had they not passed the "ban porn site" bill then the majority of people would be viewing porn on sites which will enforce (or at least attempt to enforce), and consumption of it would reduce.
Instead UK people consume port from places which is quite happy to have choking, bestiality, and child porn.
Good job Mary Whitehouse Brigade.
Tax and regulations always punish the good actors
Like the good actors who ship contaminated food?