I have a favorite Utah story that is I think appropriate here. Many years ago as a young and green consultant I was sent to Salt Lake to help with some ASP.NET/C# app with Utah Department of Liquor. I was told to look for the tallest building in SLC and the warehouse did not disappoint, it was huge (well, SLC is really flat and squat too). They showed me the warehouse full of really fancy robotic stuff (all made in Utah, and they were correct to be proud of it). We got to work looking over the code of the app, and along the way they learn that I am originally from USSR/Russia. "Oh" the devs say, "do you want to see our Russia module"? I am of course intrigued, and discover that during the process of organization of 2002 SLC winter Olympics (Mitt Romney's baby/rise to prominence), there was a huge diplomatic incident. The rules of State of UT at the time limit the number of bottles sold to any one in a given transaction, and the Russian delegation was refusing to come to Utah because they would not be allowed to buy as much liquor (likely vodka) as they wanted to. This got escalated to the highest levels of State department, and the intrepid UT legislature found a way! They [very quickly] passed the law that any person with Russian citizenship could buy whatever the heck they want in any amount. Now it was up to the poor saps in the UT Dept. of Liquor to implement it. But you couldn't just rely on people showing passport! No, the software team feverishly coded up the "Russian Module" that implemented passport number validation, making sure that if you did show a red passport with double-headed eagle, its number was valid. There was serious collaboration on the numbering schemes and maybe even some proto API validation to the Russian Federation servers. Yeah, legit module. Used for 2 weeks, and then decommissioned as the law sunset very rapidly.
So, where there is a will, there is a way. And a VPN.
I've been an avid Hacker News reader for over a decade and this is by far the funnest/funniest/most fun anecdote I've read. That includes all of the comments on the HN highlights page [1].
“During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (UDABC) relaxed enforcement of Utah's alcohol laws. This led to the passing of less restrictive laws effected in May 2003. This came after complaints, particularly after an incident in which an International Olympic Committee official complained.”
Many sources put Russia in the top five for incidence of alcoholism, and the life expectancy of Russian men is famously diminished due to their high intake of alcohol. The life expectancy of Russian women is 13 years longer than for men.
"A recent study blamed alcohol for more than half the deaths (52%) among Russians aged 15 to 54 from 1990 to 2001.[14] For the same demographic, this compares to 4% of deaths for the rest of the world."
I guess it doesn't take long to fall back on old habits when you're in the trenches though. A lot of translated intercepted calls posted at https://www.youtube.com/@insightsfromukraineandrussia and reports from the front line talk about drunk Russians like it's an epidemic of alchoholism. They also talk about drunk Ukrainians on another one of the podcasts I follow so it's not only the Russians drinking on the front line.
That being said, I have a few Russian friends that immigrated years ago to Florida and they're not big drinkers. They were all from well off families though. Kinda like here, I suspect alcoholism follows poverty.
There's a great Russian restaurant in NYC known for their infused vodkas, and this part of their website sheds some light on the history of vodka in that region: https://www.russiansamovar.com/vodka/
Not doubting you in the slightest, just adding some flavor.
An article a few years ago in New Scientist said that alcohol consumption was nothing exceptional in Russia but the way it was consumed was contributing to excess deaths. Something to do with fall-on benders called Zapoi
I dunno man. Unless I'm misremembering the show, there's a pretty good video record of Anthony Bourdain constantly being served Vodka like it's water in Russia.
The impression I got was that they just consume a lot of strong booze, which happens to be vodka due to being the cheap default, not that it's their preferred drink. Whiskey and such is aged costly stuff, isn't vodka much cheaper to bring to market?
You watched a show -No single moment of that was 'candid' in the sense of 'the participants did not know they were being filmed' -And it was if not scripted, certainly constructed.
Bourdain could have gone to visit vegan monks who only drank lemonade. It would have been as entertaining and 'candid' and 'real'
No disrespect to the dead, but it's not evidence, its a show
vodkas and rum. in the recentish boon in craft whiskey makers, they seem to all come out with a vodka and/or rum. makes sense though seeing as your first real whiskey product is going to be in a barrel for 8 years. i could see lots of investors wanting some sort of return before then, so faster liquors are made in the mean time.
Maybe a decade ago, but there are now over a dozen buildings over 300 feet in downtown SLC[1].
I was there last week; it's not a "big" city by any means, but it's also certainly not flat by any means. Compare this to Buffalo, which is bigger, older, and still has fewer buildings over 300 feet[2].
Huh? The city itself is really flat - I've been through it, and a quick image search confirms as much. There are mountains nearby, but saying "there is absolutely nothing 'flat'" about it is pretty disingenuous.
I mean, sure, there are flat parts - as with all cities. But if we are ranking cities by flatness, SLC would be somewhere in the bottom 10 percent. "Flat" is just a horrible descriptor for that city.
I lived in SLC city and it is flat in a similar way a bowl is "flat" The middle valley is very flat with a pretty steady elevation around 4500 ft or so IIRC but nestled between 2 very big mountain ranges and the great salt lake up north.
Lots of people on here claiming vague "porn does damage" hysteria. Curiously, not one mention of what the damage actually is though. This leads me to believe it's pure nonsense born out of some religious delusion. Maybe not though so in all seriousness:
* What is the damage? (not yet another "it's harmful" sentance, I'm literally asking for details to learn what you mean, if anything).
* What is "widespread"? Presumably this can be presented in terms of % of population or other actual data shaped way.
* What is the "addiction" boogeyman in this context? What are the dreadful consequences you hint at? (again, please don't just bring the vague bullshit about "its addicting, lots of companies make money from it" - actual data is my request)
* What are the actual studies backing whatever articles you got your information from - do they even exist? Were they put out by some religious think-tank or by people who do science?
I'm going way out on a limb here, trying to assume you all are making good-faith claims rather than faith-based wishes. Currently I really suspect this is more motivated by a cult that has old dudes interrogate children about their genitals grasping at control over those genitalia than any reasonable problem solving.
Men can't win. After centuries of being regarded as sex fiends who can't last nore than 2 minutes in bed, now "difficulty achieving orgasm" and "decreased libido" are considered dysfunctions.
Where to begin. I'll be as straight forward as I can.
Porn use cultivates lust. A false form of love that seeks easy sexual satisfaction instead of a stable long term committed relationship that's best for kids. Porn is a pretty major contributor to divorce and otherwise blowing up relationships. Some women will tolerate it for a time, or try to and even claim to succeed. But it eats at them and contributes greatly to their unhappiness.
It's another form of infidelity, which is quite infamous in human society since forever. Numerous literature pieces.
It's basically a love receptor inhibitor. The deeper you are in it the harder it will be to really love a woman. A real woman requires TLC, a great deal of it, a porn woman does not. How much energy do you thing goes into a relationship if all male sexual satisfaction is tied solely to it's health?
If you've been in it since youth you probably have never experienced the kind of real love I'm talking about. I know because I was there, myself, for years. I walked a life of porn for many years and it's taken many years to overcome that addiction. Night and day.
You can find plenty of pro porn propaganda out there too. They want to fill the channels with, at least, uncertainty.
But use your own brain and human experience. Do many women you know celebrate porn use by their husbands/boyfriends? That it doesn't bother them at all?
I don't need a study to tell me a hot stove burns.
It effects your relationship even if you successfully keep it hidden. You can't hide the effects, particularly how you objectify the women about you. It's so common lots of people think this is normal. It's not normal, it's not good, and it causes unhappiness in a woman that wants to be really loved. Her. Not her body. Not that image you saw or that video you watched in your mind while you are with her so you can sustain an erection. Just, her.
But you won't be able to give that to her. We men often natter on about the emotional sensitivities or frailties of women when they complain about things we think we are doing right. But there is something missing and she feels it. This is squelching the voice that is trying to lead you to do better, be better. To be a source of warmth, love and happiness instead of a cold stone that gets off to equally cold sex objects.
> I don't need a study to tell me a hot stove burns. I've experienced the pain myself.
How is this in any way relevant? Touch stove -> get burned is an immediate and consistent causality chain. See porn -> get divorced is not an immediate response in almost all cases, nor is it even consistent.
Frankly the whole causality sounds a lot like people getting married before knowing important things about thier partner. (and yes if you are going to divorce someone over porn watching, it's an important thing to know about them going into the marriage, you should at least ask. On the other side, lying about it and trying to hide it are bad too - maybe honesty is a good idea in marriage situations... who knew?)
> How is this in any way relevant? Touch stove -> get burned is an immediate and consistent causality chain. See porn -> get divorced is not an immediate response in almost all cases, nor is it even consistent.
It's a metaphor. Somethings can be clearly understood, by individual experience, without needing a body of citations. As clearly as a burn.
You misunderstand the nature of the personal and relationship damage if you think that divorce is the principle issue. It is but a symptom of the unhappiness that is rooted in porn use.
> A false form of love that seeks easy sexual satisfaction instead of a stable long term committed relationship that's best for kids.
This assumes that everyone must want kids, and the everyone must act only in support of those who have them.
Also going to need some citations for what a true form of love is - that's something that humans have been arguing about for at least as long a writing has been around.
> Porn is a pretty major contributor to divorce and otherwise blowing up relationships. Some women will tolerate it for a time, or try to and even claim to succeed. But it eats at them and contributes greatly to their unhappiness.
Here's a crazy idea: maybe you should consider women as real people. A group of individuals who have their own sets of preferences and opinions.
Going to need a lot of actual data that all women think exactly this way.
Further, I'm going to need some serious explanation why it makes sense to go into a marriage where either one person doesn't express their true opinions of porn watching or the other lies about it. It seems irresponsible to enter into a life-long contract without understanding the terms.
> It's another form of infidelity, which is quite infamous in human society since forever.
Viewing porn is only infidelity if it's secret and against the partner's wishes. Generally the problem isn't the actual action, it's the deceit and breaking of a promise that's hurtful in those situations.
> Numerous literature pieces.
Which ones? show your work - I'm not big on "just trust me bro" from internet strangers, especially ones with such weak arguments.
> It's basically a love receptor inhibitor. The deeper you are in it the harder it will be to really love a woman. A real woman requires TLC, a great deal of it, a porn woman does not. How much energy do you thing goes into a relationship if all male sexual satisfaction is tied solely to it's health?
Love receptors... gonna need some serious citations for that to be anything other than a pathetic attempt at giving a shit opinion credibility by faking sciencey words.
Se also the whole bit above about how you really should accept that women are actually people.
> f you've been in it since youth you probably have never experienced the kind of real love I'm talking about. I know because I was there, myself, for years. I walked a life of porn for many years and it's taken many years to overcome that addiction. Night and day.
I'm glad you found something that brings you satisfaction.
I don't see how that means your weaknesses are mine. Your story is evidence that one can find happiness despite the world allowing others to seek their own path. Why do you need to force your view on everyone else - the law doesn't force you to watch porn, you have a choice - why do you need to make other's choices for them? I get it - you were weak and made bad (to you) choices - that really suggests you shouldn't be making choices for anyone else, you aren't great at it (the evidence presented suggests you have a 50% success rate at choosing things wisely).
A state government inhibiting that choice for minors, which is a well-established practice for all sorts of things. Alcohol consumption, tobacco, driving a car, voting in elections, gambling, and ability to enter into certain types of contracts, to name a few.
> I'm just so surprised by how bad politics has become in the USA. It's like they want to have charia law... or Christian law as it were.
There are a lot of Americans who think the country's going to shit because of a lack of religion and morals and think they can MAGA by going hard that direction.
A good argument can be made that our lack of a unified morality (or at least more unified than today) led to better individual outcomes.
Sure there are aspects that needed to progress for a better change, no doubt about it.
But without a moral framework, many are either reluctant or ignorant of the extra work involved in making moral choices for oneself, and aiming not to succumb to a fad ideology (this goes for both sides), a false god as it were.
Well, they should probably start by having some morals themselves first. Many of the branches of Christianity are straight up scientology-scams only.. for example, what the hell is that “help setting up how much you can afford to donate regularly to church”?! Bishops and whatnot traveling on private jets!?
The sad thing is that any sane branch of Christianity should absolutely distance themselves from these lunatics, a bad apple.. yet they don’t.
There's loads of laws defining what permissible sexual behaviour is though?
This is only unusual in the sense that generally Western countries are in favour of porn. I think you could make a good argument against the universal availably of porn given its negative effects on the individuals that engage in it and on society as a whole – similar to arguments against drug use or prostitution.
I'm not saying I'm in favour of banning porn or anything, just that where we draw the line on what's permissible behaviour between consenting adults seems largely arbitrary and mostly down to cultural factors rather than a fundamental analysis of harm.
What are these negative effects on individuals? I often wonder if our lower violent crime rates compared to the past largely come from humans staying in and watching porn and playing video games.
There's the landed elite ski crowd in Utah, but I guess they just fly into their timeshare in park city for 5 days a year and don't much care what happens outside that idyllic vacation.
> I'm just so surprised by how bad politics has become in the USA. It's like they want to have charia law... or Christian law as it were.
The USA are diverse and laws greatly vary from state to state. Talking about "US politics" when a single state does something is absurd.
Furthermore, many European countries like France are about do the same thing with online porn, no later than this year, are you also going to accuse France of wanting to have "charia law"? That's preposterous. France couldn't be further from a very religious country.
I'm not saying these kind of laws are efficient at stopping minors from watching online porn, I'm just saying that your characterization of USA as a country is wrong.
I think, as a rule of thumb, it's reasonable to treat sexual laws as a "fingerprint" of a religious society. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. But when my state passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the polling indicated that support for the measure was strongly divided along religious lines.
So it's not so much a division between religion and morality, but just an observed pattern of religions that happens to be applicable here.
Utah blocking porn is completely a religious issue. Just because the line between religious motivation and anything else isn't 100% black and white doesn't change that.
It's not that it's not 100% black and white. The line basically does not exist. What is the line between someone's personal morality influenced by a society that espouses a particular religion as opposed to whatever basic hacker news atheist liberal democrat morality or whatever? One is supposedly better apparently? The Utah law is clearly influenced by their religion but to distinguish that as religiously motivated as opposed to whatever motivation US coastal elite morality barfs out, it's ridiculous.
This law is religiously motivated because Utah politics usually represent the will of the Brighamites, the Mormon adherents to the corporation that owns the entity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Or what has the More Good Foundation and other similar orgs been pushing for for the last 15 years?
> Where's the line between religious motivation and morality?
Religions are subcommunity groups, morality is interally driven.
Spain has a super left wing feminist coalition in power and wants to ban porn, prostitution, surrogacy all in the name of feminism. One of the biggest countries in Europe.
I think looking the world through the American conservative vs liberal goggles is just ignorance.
What is their argument? That porn objectifies women?
It does that to men too, but aside from that the majority of women in porn are there consensually, many make a ton more money than they could elsewhere. That is empowering to women! As long as there's no coercion, the woman wants to do it. What happened to my body my choice?
The book "renegade history of the United States" is a great read I recommend. It really goes into aspects of our history that is never covered in school and avoided in polite company. It is both enlightening and fascinating
Are you implying that this is a hypocritical stance for feminists to have? Why do American feminists speak for all feminists in the world?
Even if these were American feminists, you could make the argument that there is manipulation and coercion happening so the "my choice" part might be less than safe to assume. So a ban may be against human trafficking and coercion first and foremost.
> Are you implying that this is a hypocritical stance for feminists to have? Why do American feminists speak for all feminists in the world?
No, I'm asking a question in an attempt to understand.
> Even if these were American feminists, you could make the argument that there is manipulation and coercion happening so the "my choice" part might be less than safe to assume.
Unless you're arguing that any and all decisions are due to manipulation and coercion, then this doesn't get us anywhere and is a strawman version of the 'pro choice' argument. Of course there is manipulation and/or coercion in some cases (from what I've heard, it's a sickly large number at that). That is (IMHO) terrible and unethical and should not be legal. I doubt that anyone (or to avoid absolutes, very, very few people) arguing "pro choice" would take the position that there's no problem with that.
But what about situations where it's voluntary? Do you argue that there is no such situation? If there is any money involved at all, you could say that is "manipulation," but is it any less manipulation than any other job where the person wouldn't be doing it if there weren't some incentive? and does that make all jobs unethical and should be illegal?
Some certainly do, but I think it's important to separate two "pro" arguments as despite arriving at similar conclusion, they're quite different in reasoning:
1. Prostitution is liberating and empowering
2. Women should be able to choose what they do with their own bodies, even if it means prostituting them
For those truly arguing item 1, I couldn't say. That conclusion is certainly not self-evident to me and the chain of logic seems to include at some point something that is supposed to self-evident.
However some of the feminists that appear to argue item 1 are actually arguing item 2 but they're jumping to the conclusion.
I think that in general, as an citizen here that most people definitely think about laws as generally similar across states with the odd things like liquor laws frequently standing out. The current push towards emphasizing state's rights is a slippery slope the conservatives have been abusing quite handily like they did with the new ban on abortion. The minute they got invalidated Roe v. Wade, suddenly it immediately swung towards a federal ban on abortion. States rights are important but again, as a citizen, you know the couple things your neighbor state does differently but only recently has this felt like it split so far.
Sure, but in the context of society all laws exist to override personal decision making. Anything from speeding fines to marriage laws to corruption regulations. It's all about taking the autonomy away from the individual. RvW isn't unique in that regard.
I can't imagine why, with claims this juicy, you wouldn't share your sources. I'd recommend showing the data, or be prepared to defend these ideas without it.
Access to porn destroyed a lot of my friends lives growing up. 20+ years later they still haven't picked up the pieces. The lack of self-control, addiction, relationships, social life (no I am not saying porn caused it explicitly, but it is hard to deny there is some relationship).
Can I think of any examples of people it helped? Not really.
Does that mean we should block it? Ultimately that's for the courts to decide.
Should we think about the impact to children? Once adults have fully formed brains and self-control mechanisms built up porn is probably not as high of a risk, but for children in middle and high school it doesn't seem like this is the right thing .
Seems personal freedoms are being restricted at an all time high in the country who values freedom the most. I would hope this eventually rallies people from both sides of the political spectrum, civil liberties are the bastion of a free and democratic country.
When it comes to liberties that affect one self, it should be a no brainer, government has no business there. When it comes to liberties that one person doing something can impact negatively others, than courts and legislation can come into play to make sure everyone's liberties are upheld, but honestly I'm seeing much too many things being taken up here, the bar for harm to others should be pretty high, it should follow a similar reasonable doubt process as criminal charges, you should show harm without reasonable doubt.
Given how well the porn industry does regardless of the rest of the economy, it would be interesting to see how they would do if a sizeable portion of "users" actually paid for their services.
Enterprising individuals might consider next how the same industry could counterintuitively profit from such legislation, by starting their own VPN service (which would, for example, not suffer from similar dropouts, connection resets, bandwidth related issues, etc. as competing services). I guess it would finally put to rest the question we've all been asking ourselves all along: are people using VPN services primarily to hide their piracy-related activities, or has it been mostly to hide their sexual fetishes?
Really gives some insight to why VPN companies have been fighting for mindshare the past few years. Just waiting for a case like this to pop up and be the first service people think of.
It worked for https://greenhealthdocs.com/ in Maryland. They advertised heavily before legalization framework was in place.
People didn't know they just needed to fill out a state form that's approved automatically pay $50 to the state, and pay a small fee $75-$80 to a certified doctor, dentist, nurse, or midwife for a cannabis recommendation.
Instead, they greenhealth charges 200 bucks to people.
Can that dedicated server magically be in completely different locations in seconds at the press of a button?
It's not like vpn providers are renting out one shared server. Being able to pick between countries is a key feature. Shared servers might actually be an advantage too. If your vpn is on a unique IP, it's probably easier to deanonymise you from bulk data.
And what is the average user supposed to do with it? I doubt that most people are even aware that you can ssh into a server and configure it for tunnelling your internet traffic, let alone knowing how to do that.
NordVPN actually inspired me to work on my current personal project: a "human" ad blocker for sponsored content on Youtube: https://github.com/paprikka/butter
I'll push a more stable version later this week. Feel free to spam me via the email in my profile desc if you have any feedback or ideas.
I extract text from video captions and use GPT to detect the sponsored time stamp candidates.
The upside is that it can work for any video without the initial user interaction. Manual/user corrections can be applied afterwards ofc.
I’m trying to figure out if it can be good enough to be considered useful at this stage. Sponsorblock looks great. The reputation score/leaderboard is a superior approach imho.
He's Yegor Sak, founder and CEO of Windscribe which is a VPN, however the prices don't even compare to the bigger guys, it's more expensive than even Mullvad.
Utah actually has a rolled out Mobile ID program where you can choose which data to share, including just if you’re over 18 or 21. It can be validated via Utah’s public mID certificate.
Easiest solution would be to implement that on sites requiring a DOB. Maybe then more than a miserable 24K of people would have them.
A few years ago, Walmart stopped stocking (some) beer in Utah because it was too difficult for them to bother getting the 3.2% alcohol by weight beer which had been the limit in Utah at the time[0]. Ultimately Utah's legislature decided to change the 3.2% restriction. I suspect this will go that way; more services will just say that they don't need to serve that population and move on. There will be a lot of people saying they like using their VPN totally because it keeps me private online and VPNs will just be normalized.
It will certainly be interesting to see. Utah is an interesting case because generally speaking high percentages of the population will praise and promote "freedom" and "liberty." Of course with humans often stated/conscious beliefs and actions are often disjointed, but there's still an interesting angle there where the state is a lot more limited on what it can do in the enforcement arena before people start pushing back.
That said though, porn access in Utah would be a hard one for the average person to stand up for because the social pressure there is immense (speaking from experience here). The dominant religion teaches that "free agency" is an important and indeed essential aspect of our lives. We are here on Earth to grow and develop and learn to make good (i.e. obedient to God) choices. They even believe that a War in Heaven happened that split the masses because Satan (aka the Devil) wanted to force people to be righteous, but Jesus' plan was to give them choice. You would think they'd be a bunch of libertarians then, but no they clearly believe that God shouldn't force you to be righteous, but the state should. Furthermore God has told their prophets that things like alcohol, marijuana, porn, are wicked and sinful. Reducing or eliminating your access to them is for your own good (and the good of "society") and is therefore justified. I've tried pointing out that when it comes to enforcing your morals on others it can literally be taken to China-level authoritarianism with the same justication of "good for society," but that never seems to get anywhere.
For those who are wondering, none of these things are "banned" though.
Drive around Salt Lake County, especially the city itself, and you'll see plenty of bars, signs offering cannabis medical cards, and even a strip club here or there. And some not bad breweries.
The state just seems to take the approach of waiting for sufficient demand for such things, then slowly adjusting to allow more, rather that just "have at it" for anything.
And of course, like everything in America, what the government really follows is the money -- they listen to business community demands, like allowing and increased number of bars where tourism and the local population demands, like at ski resorts, etc. Agreed that porn could be different though, since there's probably not a local business group advocating for preserving porn access
At pycon last week or so in Salt Lake City, I saw the bars are religious about scanning your id before you walk in. Every place that has a bar does it.
There's also restricted drink pours, and you must finish one drink before getting another. So like you can't order a double whiskey, nor can you order a regular martini -- although small ones are okay.
There’s also weird things about liquor licenses for “bars” in Utah. If you ever go back, ask any bar for their food menu and they’ll almost certainly bring one out. I’ve been told by a number of bartenders that only “restaurants” can get a liquor license (I’m sure that’s simplified). Then the culture of many such “restaurants” is indistinguishable from the culture of a bar.
The ID scanning is because of a local law, pretty blatantly intended to target ~bar~ “restaurant” hoppers, which was naturally only controversial with members of drinking culture. Sometimes I go to lunch at a local “bar” which has to scan my ID as soon as I walk in the door regardless of what I plan to order.
Ok, now you have me thinking about local people that would stand to financially benefit from internet porn being banned. Along the lines of does a internet porn ban drive more people to visiting strip clubs, etc.
This comment makes me glad that most of my interactions with Mormons have been from the other side of the fence, so to speak. I grew up in SLC suburbs and currently live in South Salt Lake but I was Methodist growing up, never LDS. So there was never really anybody close to me who was Mormon except until the age by which they'd learned not to try to defend their beliefs to non-Mormons.
To this point: "porn access in Utah would be a hard one for the average person to stand up for". I suspect that the arguments will be for online privacy even if the real intention is for porn access. But it's kinda more like you said: it will certainly be interesting to see.
Is the "TikTok ban" draft (RESTRICT Act) for consumers/regular people or only government personnel?
Aka, are they really going to ban TikTok for regular people or just make it so govenment personnel can't install TikTok on their device? aka, only ban TikTok for government people and not regular people
Hopefully the thing is going to fail and they are not going to do anything. But yes, it provides for banning government-choosen foreign sites entirely, with heavy penalties for assisting in circumventing blocks. (Although I guess VPN services could avoid it by filtering their users traffic themselves)
> it provides for banning government-choosen foreign sites entirely, with heavy penalties for assisting in circumventing blocks
I recently heard the argument that TikTok is a media control issue. Rupert Murdoch famously had to become an American to buy Fox. Applying that precedent seems cleaner than the RESTRICT Act.
It doesn't appear to have much to do with TikTok at all, from what I saw. It looks more like a regular old power grab by the federal government over tech generally, moving us towards censorship and overt surveillance and punishing circumvention.
Banning VPNs would be very difficult for a US state.
In China VPN restrictions are somewhat effective because of compliance from consumer platforms, ISPs and cloud service providers all operating inside a largely isolated pocket of the internet.
If any of those stakeholders refused to play along or could operate outside of enforcement range then the VPN ban would fail.
A ban isn’t truly impossible, especially with support from courts and the federal government, but I think it’s similar to the difficulty level of banning pirated content.
I doubt they try to ban them, but I could absolutely see them push an age verification requirement for "personal" VPNs that allow you to get an out-of-state IP address since it "illegally circumvents state laws". So you can have a VPN, but if you are in Utah the exit node must also be in Utah. Corporate VPNs wouldn't be a problem legally because they already verify your identify for state tax purposes so there's nothing more for corporate to do.
Bonus: while your every access to porn is being logged for the state, they can log your VPN use too just in case there is anything relevant for law enforcement to care about.
> I could absolutely see them push an age verification requirement for "personal" VPNs that allow you to get an out-of-state IP address
The VPN provider knows the user is in Utah and connecting to Pornhub, so there might be an argument for knowingly facilitating circumvention. No clue if that's something that they can prosecute, though. I'd be de-nexussing Utah were I running a VPN company.
I think they think they can just block them on a case-by-case basis, but that is harder than they think it is because IP bans will get most of AWS, and therefore the Internet blocked, and then the only option is an HTTPS MITM proxy, which would then break any site with cert pinning.
Past options that don't work anymore include SNI inspection (replaced with ESNI/ECH, but wasn't hard to circumvent; say you want good.com when you're doing SNI, say you want evil.com when sending a Host: header), and DNS blocks (but now DNS-over-HTTPS is a thing, so as difficult to control at the state level; would require a court to compel in-state DNS-over-HTTPS providers to publish fake facts, which violates federal law; but irrelevant because AWS, Cloudflare, and Google don't have any assets of value in Utah).
I'd say it's basically impossible to ban VPNs. If it happens, you'll see random VPN employees detained/arrested while on vacation or something like that, unless the news cycle blows over. China can do it, because they can just kill tech execs that won't cooperate, but we typically don't do that in the US.
The many (one would hope most?) tech and tech-adjacent businesses, the federal government, etc all require VPNs, so it would be hard to see how "ban VPNs for this already banned thing" would even work.
Probably not, but only because it would be too technologically complex for them to do. VPN companies don't operate in their jurisdiction and don't care about Utah law.
Given that VPN services typically require a credit card, and credit cards are unlikely to be available to most minors -- or at least provide plausible deniability to the providers -- this is probably 100% okay with the porn-banning Utahns.
I was able to get a debit card at 13 or so without my parents knowing; I'm sure enterprising (read: horny) teenagers in Utah are at least as clever as I was, which wasn't particularly clever.
Besides, there are plenty of VPNs that don't require any sort of digital payment. Mullvad somewhat famously accepts cash[1], and they're the whitelabeled service behind a lot of other providers.
Hola VPN, one of the largest free ones, is operated by BrightData. They make money with their residential and mobile proxy service. By using Hola, you act as an edge node in what is essentially a legal botnet, and Bright Data charges like $10/gb to clients who want to use it for scraping,etc.
My son is 14. He got his first VPN for free several years ago to evade bans on various game servers. Had he not wanted to tell me, he could've easily hid it.
> We have been a public company since 2018. In 2021, Kunlun, a Chinese public company and our largest investor, increased its ownership stake in us beyond 50%, and as a result we became a consolidated subsidiary of the Kunlun group. [...] As of the date of this annual report, Kunlun, a Chinese public company traded on the Shenzhen stock exchange, indirectly owns 55.60% of our issued and outstanding ordinary shares. As such, we are a consolidated subsidiary of Kunlun.
> Given that VPN services typically require a credit card, and credit cards are unlikely to be available to most minors
Easy, even minors can acquire cash and send (international) envelopes, so send cash over to Mullvad together with your account number and you anonymously get access to a VPN.
At least in most of the US a minor must have a parent sign for their account and it is a linked account of the parent meaning they can review transactions and set spend limits but there is probably a way around this. Part of this is banking regulation as explained to me by a bank and part of this is that a minor can not legally enter into a binding contract though many companies would have kids think otherwise.
As a kid bootstrapping online funding, I used prepaid debit cards available from many retailers. AFAIK there still isn't any kind of point-of-sale age check, and while some providers who use CC info for age/location verification can filter prepaid cards, VPN providers don't care.
It makes sense. Prepaid cards are not banks and they take very little risk in letting an unverified person get a card, as the card only has the money the person paid for it. They can not overdraft. Adding to that more and more online companies are rejecting said cards, at least the major online stores anyway.
Not really. There are tons of free VPN apps in the AppStore that anyone can download and use. I have a couple that do the trick and I have never used a credit card to use a vpn.
I’m curious, how would laws like the one Utah passed be enforced if a company doesn’t have a presence in Utah? Do Utah courts rely on the cooperation of courts and banks operating outside Utah to enforce fines and the like?
I suppose if your bank operates in Utah or wants to do business with Utah entities, it could be enforced coercively that way. As laws in different states diverge further and further, it makes me wonder to what extent states stopping cooperation with each other is possible, or if entities will start operating entirely within a particular “safe harbor” state to protect themselves.
This is fantastic news! Thank you government of Utah! Your authoritarian grandstanding isn't likely to do much over the long term, given basic American values like freedom of expression. But in the meantime it will encourage people to get educated on basic ways of evading censorship, while simultaneously discouraging other sites from hassling visitors based on IP address.
This is such an HN comment.
Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters and that is totalitarian because they are controlling every aspect of government centrally with all decisions made my unelected leaders? No, because you disagree with it, that's it.
You know, I dislike both liberalism and conservatism but in the US specifically, I feel like there is a particular misunderstanding with liberally minded people about what the US is supposed to be. If your fundamental human rights or other protected rights are violated I get it, but watching porn is not a right if any kind, states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right. There is already a restriction on adult material that involved minors or unwilling participants, this simply expands it to all people, and there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates porn is harmful to everyone, period! Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life. The whole point of a federal union is you move to other states when you don't like the laws, and everybody gets to exist with the most ideal liberty vs restriction ratio.
For the "land doesn't vote" people who think the electoral college should be abolished? this is exactly why it exists, so crazy states line utah or missisipi don't have to leave the union. I am far from a secessionist but the electoral college was literally a critical component of the contract that states agreed to when joining the union. You need to understand that short of a global nuclear war, there are few things that are worse for humanity as a whole (even more so for americans) than a civil conflict between american states.
The whole point of post here is that so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there and existing (not future) rights of protected individuals are not violated, drop the exaggeration and tolerate them as you vehemently disagree with them.
That's not really true, depending on how you define "porn". There are very strong first amendment rights around producing and consuming all sorts of potentially objectionable content:
Is it a "fundamental human right?" Dunno, I'm not the arbiter of that. But the US supreme court has repeatedly ruled that it is a constitutional right to be able to do so free of government interference. That doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have access to it - it's a free market and others 1st amendment rights allow them to choose what they provide. But the government can't stop you, and that's a right.
If the reason is that it is objectionable you are right but if there is that it is harmful, even to adults, that is debatable and they can settle that in court. Keep in mind there is a big difference between banning porn and banning nudity, the later is a form of expression but the former is nudity used for sexual gratification. If what is restricted is the message or meaning then it is a 1st amendment violation, if the state can prove that its laws only prohibit porn that isn't part of artistic or other speech (e.g.: the sarah palin parody porn not included) I don't see how that is speech. If you follow the reasonable person standard, would a reasonable person find the content to contain any message other than "here is sexual content, enjoy" then I agree that it is speech. I mean, all porn makers probably have to do is display some political message at the begining of the video anyways.
It _has_ been settled in court. Please read the article I linked, or one of dozens of others on the subject. It's been litigated for print, for photos, for magazines, for film.
The distinction that you are looking for is between material that is pornographic, and material that is "obscene". The First amendment does indeed protect the expression "here is sexual content, enjoy!".
"Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
For adults at least, most pornography — material of a sexual nature that arouses many readers and viewers — receives constitutional protection."
Speech does not have to be political to be protected.
There are almost certainly films on pornhub that some communities might find obscene and others that they would not. But your understanding of the test is wrong. There's a lot - a lot - of information about the standards for obscenity out there and what a trash fire it is to try to have a consistent and legible definition. But it's not about whether someone finds it "sexually gratifying", and porn on its own is not unprotected. Only obscenity escapes first amendment protection. (And child porn but presumably that goes without saying and isn't the topic under discussion)
I am aware of oscenity laws and tests but the question is if Utah was outright violating the constitution or not, to the point the person I replied to claimed they were being authoritarian. Now, they can fight with DoJ or ACLU in court and resolve the legality of it, but similar restrictions are not unusual.
> This is such an HN comment. Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters and that is totalitarian because they are controlling every aspect of government centrally with all decisions made my unelected leaders? No, because you disagree with it, that's it.
Three points.
The will of the majority should never limit the desires of the minority as long as it doesn’t impinge on someone else. Would you use the same justification for laws against miscegenation and “sodomy” (ie non heterosexual sex) because that’s what the “conservative lawmakers” wanted”? Why the carve out against “protected individuals”? All of our rights should be protected against religious fundamentalism. Freedom of religion also should be freedom from religion.
We see all across the United States even in conservative states that when abortion rights are put on the ballot they are consistently passing even against the will of the legislation.
I can assure you as a resident of Florida and more specifically Orlando, the number of people who want hundreds of thousands of dollars and energy wasted going after “woke Disney” is small - yet the legislation is passing laws and spending money left and right.
I don't know about the last paragraph but an argument can be made that porn causes social harm, if not behavioral issues in men then birth rates , revenge porn, and other stuff.
Consider this, a guy smokes grass and he likes it, even with no provable medical harm to himself or others, that can be restricted due to social harm (weed), we can disagree with it bit saying it is beyond the right of the people of Utah to implement a restriction is another claim.
Free speech is not absolute speech, it means speech made in good faith and that won't cause harm is permitted.
We have over three decades of evidence of the harm it does when you give the government unnecessary power to regulate what consenting adults do - “The War on Drugs” that was unequally applied, locked up millions of minorities, wasted taxpayers money and decimated communities.
Of course when drug abuse started affecting “rural Americans”, it was no longer a war, it became “a disease” that needed treatment.
And “revenge porn” is a straw man. Once you get in that area, it’s no longer “consenting adults”.
Are we really going to start regulating everything that causes harm to the individual who chooses to do the activity but no one else?
You are talking about what laws should be passed and what is a good idea. I have no disagreement with that and I never supported the war on drugs. But if in the past the government had the right to regulate arbitrary harmful content then what changes in federal laws or constitution that prevents utah from passing similar laws?
I don't have to agree with the policy or law to say the state is within its rights.
While I have little interest in porn, I have a right to publish it under the first amendment and that necessarily includes a right to view it.
states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right
And I can reject those restrictions insofar as my own person is concerned. There's a stronger argument for states mediating conflicts of interests between persons (eg police existing because not everyone is able to provide their own security) but your interpretation is a recipe for overreach.
> Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters and that is totalitarian
I mean yes, democratic authoritarianism is still authoritarianism. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner and whatnot. Our affinity for democracy is not because it's perfect system that we can entrust anything to, but rather because it's the least worst option for deciding some things.
> so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there
You're leaning on both the democratic and representational fallacies. At best you can say this law reflects the implied will of 55% of the state's population (or however much), but it's wrong to imply that the law reflects the deliberate views of everyone who lives there. Which is why we have the basic concept of rights that transcend the whims of representatives elected by a mere plurality.
I do value the idea that states should be free to set their own policies and have some competition between them, but as I've gotten older I've come to respect that a lot of people get stuck in their circumstances for whatever reason and guaranteeing basic rights to them isn't terrible. And communications you make from privacy of your own home most certainly fall in that category.
> If your fundamental human rights or other protected rights are violated I get it, but watching porn is not a right
This statement is the standard refrain of everyone who wants to diminish individual freedoms. "Rights are important, but <specific behavior> isn't a right". Meanwhile pornography has indeed become part of 1A jurisprudence. Legally I know things are a bit up in the air these days with the Supreme Council embracing collectivism to justify prohibiting fundamental medical care, but I personally view digital freedom as flowing from the general right to be left alone coupled with computational complexity (cryptography).
As such, talking in top-down prescriptive terms about what "ought to be" is trumped by what can be accomplished by individuals with computers. Despite the sarcastic moralizing, I really do think the existence of this law is great - people have been giving away too much of their digital autonomy in favor of convenient system-condoned offerings, and this law interrupts that pretty hard.
It’s not favoring a particular religion, and even non religious people (including for ex some radical feminists you may find) can unite against pornography propagation. It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults.
> It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults.
And yet that same society will do nothing to stop the number one cause of death in children: gun violence. One has to ask why?
Judeo-Christian doctrine also has prohibitions against theft and murder. Should we throw those out?
There's an overlap between secular and religious prohibitions, and there's no easy answer as to which rules are "religious" — you're just reflecting what's in your head as "obviously secular" and "obviously religious", and that's not how all other (secular) people view the world.
Revealing someone's secrets, is illegal in religion, yet legal in law.
While secularism have rationalized certain religious rules in their own interests like "your right to throw your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begin", they definitely did not originate with them. And though they have not rationalized everything, individuals sourcing laws from religion does not violate freedom of religion principles.
OK and what about welfare, or medicaid? Clearly a reframed version of tithing for the poor from a lot of religious traditions. Do you think we should drop those because they (a) overlap with religious teachings and (b) aren't libertarian?
Charity and taking care of the poor didn’t start with religion. Archeologists have found evidence that cultures took care of people with broken legs until they heeled thousands of years before modern religions were invented.
> Democratically elected politicians enact laws that reflect the conservative views of their voters
Oppression of the minority.
> but watching porn is not a right [of] any kind
It should be.
> there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates porn is harmful to everyone, period!
"there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates [gay sex] is harmful to everyone, period!"
"there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates [free speech] is harmful to everyone, period!"
"there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates [freedom] is harmful to everyone, period!"
> The whole point of post here is that so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there and existing (not future) rights of protected individuals are not violated, drop the exaggeration and tolerate them as you vehemently disagree with them.
States are test tubes. When the rights in different states are unequal, you set the stage for a Supreme Court case.
Sadly, I'm not sure the Supreme Court would help ensure adults can continue existing in a non-surveillance, non-nanny state.
> Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life.
Absurd and incorrect puritanical view. You're basically stating that you believe having children or getting into hetero-normative relationships is more important than not developing lung cancer.
> states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right
And you’re okay with that?
> Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life
And we don’t outlaw cigarettes. We force manufactures to put clear disclosures on them and let adults make up their mind.
> why it exists, so crazy states line utah or missisipi don't have to leave the union.
Would we really lose much if they did? Both states take more money from the government than they pay in and are two of the main ones who love to cry “socialism”.
> than a civil conflict between american states.
Yes just like that horrible civil war that broke out after Brexit.
Not the question here, if that isn't ok then let's change the constitution, no problem with that!
> And we don’t outlaw cigarettes. We force manufactures to put clear disclosures on them and let adults make up their mind
That's a policy decision, some drugs are illegal some are restricted but the govenmrnment is within its authority to do so. Change the government if you don't like it.
> Would we really lose much if they did? Both states take more money from the government than they pay in and are two of the main ones who love to cry “socialism”.
Yes! America is such an amazing place compared to most of the world. You have this because our neighbors are not out enemies and there is very rarely an actual conflict on US soil. If even one state decides to get a divorcr then you become neighbors with your pissed off ex. By global standards even missisipi is rich and powerful enough to be a PITA! And what about the millions of americans there that don't want to leave whose rights you want to protect? And keep in mind that many americans and the military consider every inch of american soil theirs and won't give it up. It's not a question of econimics but even then the US prospered because of the U part (united) of that acronym. I wish I could respond to other lengthy replies but my whole reason for commenting is that america is a union of states, that is the most crucial aspect of the nation, states and union, that's it.
> Yes just like that horrible civil war that broke out after Brexit.
More like the civil war that broke out in america before. Brexit was an exit from the EU which isn't a country.
Let me put it this way, for whatever reason if even a small island in hawaii secedes I will support a civil war. Blood is the only way to exit this union and you can say goodbye to a stable dollar and american leadership in the global arena after that.
Why people don't understand what a precious and sacred thing union and peace are I'll never understand.
Even if say utah exits the union now you have no place for mormons in america. Then texas will exit and everyone that agrees with texan way if things exits then NE will exit and so on. You just don't get the point of the union. With all the patriotic marketing in america this message has not been delivered well.
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
These are the goals of the US, one of them is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Where liberty in this context means:
> As used in the Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the freedom to act according to one's own will.
Everything else is trying to achieve the above stated goals. The current set of constitutional articles describing how the political processes are setup, the bill of rights, the laws that are put in place, the courts, all that is just the mechanisms that hopefully allows us to deliver the stated goal.
> The Constitution might never have been ratified if the framers hadn't promised to add a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution gave citizens more confidence in the new government and contain many of today's Americans' most valued freedoms.
Furthermore, to really drive the point that the constitution was going to truly and seriously protect people's freedom, and that it wasn't just empty words, the bill of rights was added, but obviously not able to cover all scenarios and liberties ever current or future, but at least a large set of them made explicit.
So no, I'd have to disagree with you, states cannot just restrict any aspects of your life that isn't explicitly listed in the bill of rights, because the constitution itself sets out to say that the government as described in the constitution is meant to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The amendments were added for clarification to specific rights, not as an exhaustive list, they don't set out to say, those are the only freedoms that are guaranteed, they simply explicitly state that those are very clearly guaranteed as described so that it be harder to abuse power and enact laws that go against the constitution's goals.
> Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I will say, one thing I'm a bit confused about, and I think is a debate today, is the tenth amendment:
> Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think this is a hotly debated one. In the case where federal government would want to restrict freedoms, it's pretty clear that it says they cannot act with power that isn't explicitly stated.
But what if a state wants to restrict freedom further?
I know this is a debate in legalizing Marijuana for example. Some people say it's not up to the federal government to make it legal or illegal. Then it would be up to each state. But making it illegal would seem to go against the constitution goals as signed by the states, that they should secure the people's liberties, and amendment IX which says that not enumerating such a right does not deny the people's right to it.
Lot's of Porn sites don't follows Louisiana's/Utah's ID laws etc. Including Reddit for now. I found out that my Google Fi data connects to an out of state tower which lets me bypass the sites which did implement law abiding walls/blocks.
I wonder if more states interact such laws if Usenet/Torrenting will have higher demand as well.
It's a call out in the law that allows access to such material if authenticated with a Mobile driver's license, aka mDL ( https://dld.utah.gov/utahmdl/ ), aka ISO 18013-5.
There's a site that caters exactly to Mormon-themed porn, and having been a "Mormon," or a "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" for a couple decades, I can vouch that it is truly hilarious. Here's some stats per state, in case you were wondering about any others:
It is unbelievable the amount of targeted advertising they do to religious groups to somehow dislodge them from their previous strictness. Mormons are not alone.
I used to use VPNs. What a waste of money. Nothing but captchas, broken functionality, slowness, etc. It's obvious that at least some VPNs use low trust IPs and are blocked and filtered. You are better off just getting an E2 instance
You need to find a better provider. I have regularly used Private Internet Access, PureVPN and Torguard and have never had this experience with any of them.
Blocking porn in this way doesn't meaningfully improve the protection of children. This kind of law often also negatively impacts access to sexual education.
These stories about Utah and the comments people make here on HN disappoint me. So many of them are based on prejudices and biases.
I've lived in many places in the USA, from SF to Chicago to NYC to Utah. And honestly, they're just not all that different.
People's sterotypes of the predominant LDS (Mormon) religion make them believe that Utah is unique and a theocracy.
In reality much of American law is based on very similar Christian moral standards. Most states are majority Christian, the laws reflect that. The difference in Utah is that it's mostly _one_ religion, rather than say a mix of various protestant and Catholic faiths.
Try walking around fully naked in any of the places I mentioned above, like into an office building or a university or other establishment, and I guarantee you that those more liberal places will also not tolerate that behavior. Not due to any direct harm you'd be causing, but due to moral standards encoded into culture and law.
Same with alcohol, tobacco, and all the other "vices" people believe are banned in Utah (they're not). If you drive around downtown Salt Lake City, you'll see bars, signs for cannabis cards, smoke shops, and even a some decent breweries. It feels a lot like most American cities. (Granted that elsewhere in Utah like in Provo, you see many fewer of these). Nearly every state allows, but restricts and limits all of these substances and activities in various ways, from licensing to age limits, and Utah is not really very different.
For porn specifically, there have been laws on the books in many states to restrict access to minors for a long time. In the age of magazines, do you think it was legal for a business in California to sell such materials to a minor? If not, why not? Because it was either deemed harmful or immoral, beliefs eventually rooted in religion.
Now, this specific law is impractical, Utah simply does not have the market power to induce a player like Apple or Google to make device-level age verification the way that Pornhub is suggesting. So the state of Utah has put into effect a law that will result in reduced access to porn (followed by subversion through VPNs) rather than actually age verification. And in the process the state is hurting its reputation.
But the generalizations here about the state due to religious and political biases are just not helpful.
American puritanism is cultural and not just a result of christianity. Many pious christian countries have always had legal prostitution and more lax attitudes to nudity/porn
The UK and the US are countries with visible anti-porn movements, and prostitution is illegal in US.
On the contrary prostitution is legal and acceptable in (more religious) italy, spain, portugal, france and there is no strong opposition to pornography
I mostly agree with your comment (I grew up partially in Utah, and moved there as an adult for many years), but I think you're being a little too black or white.
> Same with alcohol, tobacco, and all the other "vices" people believe are banned in Utah (they're not).
Yes they are "legal" now (well, cannabis legality is pretty debatable), but there are some significant restrictions on their use that are absolutely not all that typical. Like, in Utah there is a state-enforced monopoly on liquor stores (from a state that in most cases would decry such anti-free-market practices). There are also draconian bar regulations. They have loosened up some of those things a bit (especially after the 2002 olympics), but there are still significant impediments, particularly if you're outside of SLC. In SLC there are enough non-Mormons that you can find plenty of bars and stuff. I remember not too long ago when "bars" were banned in Utah. You had to be a "private club" so the "bars" would charge a cover, call it a "membership fee" and when you went in you were joining the private club for one day. The radio ads that played always ended with a fast talking "xyz is a private club for members only" lol.
In these places, you can go to jail for posting a slur on Twitter or doing a Nazi salute.
In America, that is (or should be) considered insane dystopian bullshit, not "level-headed" policy.
Also, both those places have a comically naive and hamfisted understanding of the Internet, and America is usually above that (as every modern country should be). Didn't England try to ban encryption, and didn't Germany censor all of YouTube with GEMA via a super-literal interpretation of copyright violation? Are these places that sound appealing to live in as a technophile? "Das Internet ist Neuland." *puts on 3D glasses*
> It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
> ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
> But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. ... All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
Decry the use of an accurate term, but recognize that the use of the state to control society is what folks are describing as fascism. I'd argue in Utah it's just plain Ole theocracy.
> the use of the state to control society is what folks are describing as fascism
The vast majority of people who casually throw around the word "fascist" are very happy to have a large, interventionist state that controls society. All "fascist" seems to mean here is that the interventions chosen don't align with the speaker's values.
> I'd argue in Utah it's just plain Ole theocracy.
I can definitely go for theocracy as an accurate description.
> The vast majority of people who casually throw around the word "fascist" are very happy to have a large, interventionist state that controls society. All "fascist" seems to mean here is that the interventions chosen don't align with the speaker's values.
Respectfully, I think this is overly reductionist. Words have meanings, and in many cases I believe "fascism" to be the appropriate classification for a number of hard-right moves in recent years, such as womens health rights and restrictions among other political bombs.
In March, why was Virginia the highest state in the U.S. for searches for VPN, with a score higher than Washington, California and New York, per the article?
I appear not to have made my sarcasm obvious enough. :P I was amused by the thought of CIA agents being told that they need a VPN installed and so downloading the first result on Google.
My hypothesis: people who are already using VPN egress traffic in IAD (which has the largest AWS region), thus the results based on IP address is skewed by people who actually live in other countries or maybe even continents.
Wouldn't int'l users choose the location closest to them? If you're in China for instance you're probably going to be using SIN or TPE. Besides, most VPN providers avoid Amazon and use colo providers that give much better deals on bandwidth.
Sad that porn use has become so widespread. People don't like to think about it, but I think the mass exposure to porn of the high speed internet generation will have serious negative effects.
> have browsed magazines or watched VHS/betamax with the same content.
Who was this guy with stacks of new magazines on demand to say nothing of thousands of VHS/betamax to go through. /g
HN needs to discuss these matters with a bit more honesty:
Porn consumption is driven by the dopamine reward system. Porn is not music. You can listen to a song a zillion times (if you like it) but a specific item of pronography will very rapidly fail to arouse in repeated viewing. New material is required.
Another aspect of porn consumption is that this 'need for variety' also creates plateaus at the content genre. Stronger material is required, progressively.
And strength in porn is not a mere matter of explicitness (which also plateaus in a given genre). Taboos and norms operate at this level, when the genre gets stronger, which by the perverse inherent mechanics of how porn and male brains interact, it must get more subversive.
So, yeah, back in the day you could get your Playboy at the 7 eleven but other materials required a visit to dodgey quarters. You also paid substantially for the privilege. And kids most certainly did not have access to hard porn. So at say 20 bucks a pop for DVD (2 hours of happy time max?) or close to 10 for a magazine (these are 20th century dollars btw) not that many people were even practically capable of getting hooked on porn. It could not even happen.
Today you have free porn on tap, and algorithms (based on well understood mechanics of porn by its peddlers) that continually goade you into 'stronger' content.
> And kids most certainly did not have access to hard porn
Not sure where you grew up, but growing up in Europe, porn was widespread even if it was only available via paid magazines (before video). And kids used what kids had at hand, even if it was just one magazine. Someone knew someone's uncle who was a habitual magazine buyer and sometimes let go of old magazines, or somehow randomly found magazines at some location, like in the woods.
Taking what you say as fact, wouldn't that mean that people consume more porn now than back in 2013? How does it reconcile with the fact that "porn" as a search term is declining, since then?
US. Look even if you managed to get your hands on a European product (wherever) we're talking a handful (npi) of mags. Are you seriously arguing that there isn't a fundamental change in production/distribution/consumption patterns?
You're only stating a fact regarding the use of search engines and the word porn and then jumping to a conclusion. As if "PornHub" a secret that kids need to google for. You go to one, and every content has layers of URLs corresponding to how many times it has been appropriated from original producers so who needs a search engine.
I'm saying that we don't know if the whole "people have to consume more extreme porn to get their "fix"" is true or not, nor if typical hardcore porn consumption is more widespread today than before.
And at least I'm trying to provide some data points in order to ground this debate to facts, which it doesn't seem like you're interested in as you have provided zero.
Sure, here you go: gather the names of all porn providers, publications, studios, actresses, actors, positions, fetishes, etc. Now analyze search trends. My guess is that if kids want to search for porn, they will do focused search and not type "porn" in google (which sounds ridiculous). My guess is that the sum of searches for that set of queries is the far more representative metric than mere 'porn'.
Actually I think this is really good that we see more regulation around access to pornography, because many damaging aspects of it have been raised more in public awareness and these companies have made a lot of money off of addicting populations from a young age with harmful content without paying for the consequences. Social media companies should be included also, considering how many children and teens are on social media platforms looking for sexual activity with adults.
Citation needed for literally everything you said.
What constitutes "damage"? What if we pretend that the sky-wizard delusion didn't care that children were aware of nipples - would it still count as damage? What populations are 'addicted'? What constitutes 'addicted' (and harmful content? and consequences?)
This whole thing reads like something gpt would spit out at the prompt: Write an extremely vague and histrionic blurb about {INDUSTRY} that can be used to trigger moral panic. Oh and throw in a bit about social media too.
Maybe you don’t know but many children, teens and adults are meeting up physically and having virtual sexual interactions and also pornography is a major way these start, not to mention the amount of teen and child pornography online that is proclaimed “over 18” because the uploader lied about their age. I already wrote in another comment about my own experience as a survivor of online sexual abuse from adults and porn addiction as a minor. Data on finding out how many
It is a real problem, and we are being harmed. Obviously in many places sending explicit pictures as a minor is a crime, and finding adult study participants willing to talk about their sexual interactions with children is tricky, but you can find a lot online about negative consequences of general sexting among minors.
By the way, you can word your comments in a far less offensive and respectful manner. You should engage with the content instead of make mockery of users, per the guidelines of this site.
> Social media companies should be included also, considering how many children and teens are on social media platforms looking for sexual activity with adults.
No considering.
"Social media companies should be included also."
Period. Because in their current form and business model they're harmful to pre-adults.
On the latest Jonathan Haidt discussion here a parent posted a lengthy rebuttal about someone pointing out the various resources found on YT. Their a-yo and b-yo sons only watch utter trash, Mr. Beast, videogames, 10 minute ads, all that stuff, and they watch it for hours on end. What a terrible platform. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I only do wonder who has custody of their kids, who handed them the iPads, who gives them internet access, and who watches them watch trash all day, day in and day out?
people will still be making porn for free if commercial activity is banned. always have been. It's likely that people watch more porn-hours on twitter than on PH. Social media competition treadmill otoh is unhealthy AF
I can anecdotally tell you growing up as a child and then teen with internet access with little regulation led me (was a minor back then) to having virtual sexual interactions with adults and other minors. I’m sure pictures are stored in a server somewhere still. Lots of emotional damage and shame and regret from those interactions and how much time I wasted and feeling used by adults. And there were a lot of minors my age addicted and having sexual interactions with adults online, and even more nowadays. It took a long time for me to find support and slowly leave my addictions and obsessions, felt imprisoned by my own desires. Luckily, having good friends and company around me and telling some close friends about my struggles and finding support groups online helped me get better. Also found much comfort in religion and spiritual guidance.
Listen, I know my original comment was short, just basically yelling "prove it". The reason is that while I don't doubt your anecdote is true that's not sufficient when making laws that restrict freedoms. You should also know this, thinking that something should be regulated for everyone because of your own personal experience is wrong and scares me that you do that.
The thing is, there are many other children and teens who went through similar experiences like me. And I don’t think any child or teen should be subjected to that level of internet wilderness, not at least until they’ve gotten more sense in their head. Are you willing to support a status quo where some children and teens continue to face these issues?
I don’t see it as a freedom issue, I felt less free being manipulated by adults. I feel more free having more control over what I choose to do with my time instead of coercion via hormones.
Anyways the question is, do we really want to hurt children and teens for the sake of some adults not having to upload their IDs? I understand there are many privacy issues with this, but I’m not sure you’d understand my viewpoint unless you realize the scale of minor sexual activity with adults occurring online.
Absolutely agree about this. the ways in which this industry tries to catch your eyes and tries to grab your attention is both outrageous and evil. yes, every advertising network tries to do that, but there is no advertisement that leads to more harm than this one, and the more frequently they can be stopped, The healthier society will be.
The issue is porn is a natural addiction. Young people, especially young men will always be horny and seek out porn. The only deterrents to it are religious and cultural shaming. Is the solution to regulate porn with "education" so people know what healthy use is or not? Because while it seems reasonable to provide guidelines, 99% of people will ignore them.
Sometimes what seems natural is because the water was poisoned for so long. Yes, it is natural to have sexual desire, but is unfettered spread of porn with a few taps easily accessible at any age really something we should accept? And young men need a lot of support, in my anecdotal experience it is too easy for so many to fall down negative paths with little support network to prevent it.
Now with AI it is even more dangerous, we have deepfakes (see recent Canada news on deepfakes of children), and the spread of more isolation and addiction with the internet “drugs” compared to genuine in person interactions with friends and family.
Technology like smartphones helped us in many ways but also they became a new way to suffer and amplified some existing problems. Shouldn’t we regulate the worst of it?
I found more dangerous than porn is the ability to communicate with random adults online as a child, with often sexual endings. I remember growing up as a teen, there were sites like Omegle and then chat apps like kik and Snapchat and then Reddit, all these places had avenues for teens and children to communicate and swap pictures with adults, etc. with little to no regulation or consequences for these companies.
I feel like use of porn is a symptom of isolation and lack of education/support structures. Fix those and people will be less vulnerable and addicted.
The problem is loneliness is stigmatized and porn creates a "safe haven" where people don't have to confront the challenging dullness and angst of their life. Kurt Vonnegut once said: "What do my science fiction stories have in common with pornography? Fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world, I’m told."
What is the solution, to just do what Utah and sexually repressed countries do, "Sorry no porn for you, it's in your best interest, I'm sure you will stop wanting it if we arbitrarily restrict it". It's not a solution and makes people go further "down the rabbit hole" to scratch that itch.
Regulations should be reserved for the worst problems. Porn consumption should be looked at, but not sure why we can not just empower parents to do their jobs, just like we empower them to control what movies they let their children watch on TV?
You see with drug abuse that regulations do little to solve the actual problems.
Juul was pretty swiftly dealt with once their effects on children was noticed. Also, for parents the modern world is very difficult, there are so many influences and pressure on your children and they occupy an increasingly smaller role in influencing children these days. There needs to be society and government policy level regulations to help, individual parents enacting harsh rules will not end well in a society where advertisers are very advanced.
So, where there is a will, there is a way. And a VPN.