Let's all pretend that the election system is still functioning and that there is still a Constitution. Let's just move on and forget about it - and look forward to some great new GOP campaigns and candidates !
I am not sure how holding an ISP/website financially liable for user created content helps anyone. What most likely will happen is you will get insanely strict policies,each time you post you'll need to verify WHO you are, phone verify, email, etc. etc. Along with only subscription based services which will make the internet basically Pay-Per-View, Pay Per everything. The trend to hold ISP's, and Websites responsible for user created content is actually insane if you think about it.
The only problem with what Hawley did is that the government is the one who needs to make sure that child porn is not sold and not some big corporation like MasterCard or pornhub.
Corporations also censor conservatives.so I am not really sure it benefits us so much.
I hear what you're saying but do we really have much sympathy or energy to support people who try to sell their body for money? Sure, it sucks for them but I can't say I'd personally fight for justice for them.
Thankfully I'm pretty sure there's much weaker people out there than some slut that tried to make it big in the porn industry and didn't quite succeed.
Agree. What was the name of that big time star who, after she retired, revealed she was brought in as a child (teenager)? Now she’s red pilling about pedophiles like crazy on her Twitter. The world is controlled by pedophiles, just saying.
It's important to keep the situation in context. Many of the women are very young, just turned 18, poor and in college. Worse yet, they've grown up a culture dominated by Harvey Weinstein's Hollywood. The culture they grow up in tells them that it's just a sex, or it's just a job, or it's just sex work and sex is empowering etc.
So while it's an extremely undignified and disgraceful act, they are still young and naive teenagers. It's similar to how tons of 18 year olds are signing on to hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans with no income, no job and no assets. Everyone around them is telling them it's okay. So you have to have at least a little bit of sympathy
Yeah but leftists not only don't believe science (the brain is still maturing up to 25) but take advantage of this hence why they keep pushing to lower the voting age even more as well as lower the age of consent.
Yes, it is. They are adults. We have laws that state that when you turn 18 you are now old enough to be held accountable for your actions. They CHOSE to do those videos. Unless there is proof presented that they were threatened in some way, "but I had no money and they promised me a bunch" doesn't cut it.
Let's put it another way. An 18 year old guy gets a "job" in one of those crappy positions selling vacuum cleaners or whatever door to door. He makes no money and the people he's "working" for keep telling him that even though he's selling the item that he's not selling enough, or just when he's about to make a sale the manager that's with him steps in and steals it so the kid gets no money. Would you still be all up in arms about how that needs to be fixed or would you tell the kid "suck it up and find another job."
Stop being a simp and start realizing that women can make choices the same as men and sometimes they make really bad choices and need to learn from them.
That is my point. I wasn't given a pass because I don't have a vag. I was held accountable for my actions and at 18 if I made a poor decision I was expected to deal with it. I hold women to the exact same standard because they are, after all, equal.
What does this have to do with simping? I applied the same standard to 18 year olds taking out $100,000 in student loans. That has nothing to do with sex
Guess which gender holds the majority of student loan debt and are the ones that aren't paying it back while begging democrats for a bail out? I'll give you a hint, men are paying it back.
Eh I’m pretty sure backroom casting couch is a verified account so that type of shit will stay up, but maybe that is fake and they actually know what they’re there for.
You should read up some of the accounts of people who auditioned for certain websites know for their abuse and brutality. It's fucking disgusting but you can't talk about it because "sex work is positive and empowering." I'm so sick of porn being normalized.
Eugh. I went to pornhub to see if there was any noticeable difference and the first recomended video was ‘highest rated in the US’: “delivery man cums in me while my husband watches”
The child porn on Twitter is much more egregious. I used to follow KarliQ before she got banned and she linked to an account that posted CP. She said to report for banning but didn’t say what the account was so I thought it was some liberal threatening POTUS or something. Went to report and clicked the first video and it was a naked very young child and a naked man. Didn’t watch anything beyond the first second but I had nightmares for weeks about that baby girl. I hope Twitter Burns.
They removed all the amateur porn -- the stuff people actually want to watch -- and are shoving the cuck and IR shit down your throat. This has nothing to do with CP, everything to do with the demoralization agenda. That and they want to force you to upload your driver's license or passport before you upload any content on the internet.
How do you determine that? If its non consensual its rape, and if you're airing rape videos, that'd be illegal, right?
So why do you need to make it double illegal?
Am I missing something?
'Got pornhub to delete childporn'
How do they know its child porn (unless finding the 'actor' and confirming)? I'm 25, used to bang a friend of mine who is 24, but she looks like she's 14
Next all videos will be limited to ten seconds or less after some one-pump chump gets made fun of for getting caught blowing his load in his office after two strokes.
Presumably non-consensual meaning hidden camera videos where one party didn't know about it. Of course we know that a lot of those so-called videos are faked as well, especially if you see the same performers in other videos making it obvious that it wasn't someone just filming their random hookups.
Ahh, yeah but that is already illegal tho isnt it?
But tbh if it gets rid of the fake stuff as well its great. Maybe it will happen with the family porn stuff as well. So tired of seeing 'mom an son' on fuckig every video
more censorship based on entirely unproven and unsupported accusations? No thanks. This guy is swamp, using the same bullshit tactics swamp has been using for decades now.
Only silver lining is that its happening to Pornhub who are pro-BLM. Let them burn, but don't be an idiot and think this guy is anything but another turncoat.
PS. Post MeToo age you are going to tell me that Pornhub hosted non-consensual sex videos and they wouldn't be ALREADY liable under current laws? Any woman who can prove she was actually coerced would be able to sue them already.
I don't think alcohol is good. On the contrary, I think it's one of the most damaging things around for an individual, for a family, and for a society at large. But I don't think it should be prohibited or illegal, and the less the government gets involved the better. And in before "but there's regulations on alcohol, etc." Poor analogy, and the censorship that just happened with the forced removal of all videos on pornhub that are not from verified users is not a good thing. It wasn't a cesspool of childporn in the first place (I'm sure some videos snuck through, but they'd be squashed pretty quickly, because, as the person you're responding to noted, we already have laws against this, and actions could be taken to get videos removed from sites like this already). This action doesn't really benefit much, is another nudge on the slippery slope of regulating content and trampling 1A/free speech online, and a better analogy would be likening it to something like twitter only allowing verified users, whose identities are fully known and disclosed, to post on and use the platform.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. I'm speaking more towards excess, and would hold the same attitude with every substance, right down to opiates/heroin. Don't think the government should be involved, think people should be able to do as they wish as long as it doesn't harm others, etc. I'm drastically oversimplifying (I work in, and research [for work, and graduate degree] addiction and drug policy, so I could go on forever and way too in depth). My above comment was more to make a point, and a very broad statement without nuance, but the general point was that alcohol is terribly destructive and harmful (as far as health, as well as societal, effects) if not used responsibly and in moderation (the flipside of that statement is basically what you said. Alcohol, used responsibly and in moderation, is perfectly fine. And as much as many would disagree with me, I've enough experience, and done enough research, to say that both of those statements are true for basically every substance, to varying degrees). But ultimately, the oversimplified analogy and purpose of the comment was less about alcohol, and more about government and policy, and a defense of small government and limited policy/regulation. If my point were more about alcohol or w/e substances, absence of any commentary on policy and government, it'd be more like everything in moderation/too much of anything is bad
Edit - just to give a very loose example, based on my research, as well as my experience being in recovery for almost a decade (after being addicted to heroin for ~4 years): so, if we look at opiates compared to alcohol. Both used moderately and responsibly don't produce any terrible results. But lets move into the using daily, to the point where one is physically dependent (which doesn't mean "addicted." One can be physically dependent on a substance and addicted to it, or physically dependent on a substance but not addicted. Anywho...), using that scenario for both alcohol, and opiates:
With alcohol, daily and excessive use is absolutely horrible, and wreaks havoc on a person's physical health. It's more long-term, but will eventually catch up to them, and likely kill them, whether it be cirrhosis or w/e else. Whereas, with opiates, the long-term effects (for this example, lets exclude IV users sharing needles, etc. Just general use) aren't nearly as bad. In fact, there really isn't much bad at all, outside of acute toxicity — in other words, outside of OD risks (or spread of disease via sharing needles), one is unlikely to experience any serious harm or effects on physical health from long-term use of opiates. And let me be clear, that alone makes it terrible dangerous... it's far easier to die from one single dose (with opiates) then with alcohol. But that said, most overdoses, based on data and research (and this is the general consensus amongst my colleagues in this community), are more the result of current policy and prohibition. My example is backed by data, but without going too much in depth, the best way to understand this is to look at the opioid epidemic since the early 2000s.
So, OD rates start fairly low, within the same channel that they've historically always been. We start seeing a slight rise as oxycontin becomes popular. Health officials notice an uptick in people illicitly using oxycontin. As a result, there's a crackdown, which lowers availability. Because of this, people that are physically dependent no longer have, or can afford, their substance to support their habit (this is true both for those prescribed the substance, and those obtaining illicitly). Because of this, they turn to alternatives. This leads to the spike in heroin use, and heroin overdose rates. This is because more, because of policy, are being pushed towards the cheaper and more available alternative. In this scenario, because it is so costly, many eventually turn to IVing. This spikes OD rates even more. As a result, govt cracks down even harder. This leads to a massive spike in fentanyl, mostly being cut into heroin, where users now don't know what they're getting, what substance, and the dose/strength of it. This leads to an even larger spike (where we are, now — and still, average yearly deaths associated w/ alcohol, and even tobacco, far surpass any other substance)
In contrast, there are numerous studies that show that OD levels drop significantly, and more people (that are dependent or addicted) seek help when the substance isn't criminalized — this, along with additional research, data, analyses of other countries' policies, etc, demonstrate that this isn't correlated w/ legality, where many falsely assume decriminalization or legalization would lead to a major spike in use — we know that isn't the case, now (nor was it if you look at population's use statistics before, during, and after alcohol prohibition; all having a statistically insignificant effect on supply/demand and use). Further, other studies show that, when the substance is available, and not so costly that it leads to criminal behavior (stealing, prostituting, etc) to afford and feed the habit, that basically ALL bad metrics associated w/ substance use drops significantly. When this study was done, it showed that those who basically had free access, basically start slow, they know what the dose is so they don't OD, and they eventually hit a ceiling. It found that they all increased use until they all reached a certain point, and then just remained at that dose. In this study, nobody OD'd.
Sorry for such a long edit, and apologies for it not being articulated very well (I'm literally writing this while being in a zoom work meeting lol)
The difference between porn and alcohol is that nearly every 15 year old in this country is addicted to porn due to the ease of viewing via all the electronic devices these days. Barely any 15 year olds are alcoholics
If they can't host viewer uploaded content without properly preventing child pornography, then what choice do they, as a company, have to stop the spread of it? To regulate their own content, and ensure it's legal. That's the choice they have, and their is nothing controversial about it
I agree that porn is an issue, and having very serious effects on our youth and society in general. This isn't so much a defense of porn, as much as it is a condemnation of this policy that was just enacted with pornhub, as it doesn't solve anything, but it is government overstepping and affecting other larger issues (not just porn)
The problem with modern conservatives is that rhey never do anything because "big government". Meanwhile leftists are destroying instutitions full force. The correct answer to the problem is to sue distributors of child pornography and to enact restrictions that prevent minors from viewing pornography. That's not "big government" it's protecting minors from abuse and addiction
Your comment is on point.Modern conservatives sometimes freak me out with not understanding the difference between when freedom is required and when an order or moral law need to be enforced. I think it is because of the influence of libertarians on conservatives.
absolutely, agree 100%. Sad to say, but a lot of this just falls on good parenting. It isn't hard to set things up so that your child can't access porn on their pc/tablet/phones, etc, though I agree there could be external methods that work, as well. As for child porn... the pornhub policy doesn't solve that, and cp is already illegal. If cp gets uploaded on PH or any other site, it's either automatically removed (if it's obvious), or it can be taken down fairly easily if they're made aware of the video in question. The system to prevent it is already in place; the fact that it isn't being executed properly, to me, is an indictment on government, regulations, and solving issues through govt, and if anything, demonstrates why more government isn't the solution.
It is my business if pornographic coporations are marketing to my teenage children with "step" families. There is nothing wrong with properly utilizing the power of government to protect our children. The libertarian anti-government views propagated by neoconservatives are lies spread to us by left-wing cultural marxists as it keeps our party from stopping their long march through our institutions
Just the other day I was arguing with someone on here who thought people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes in schools and grocery stores and shit, because freedom. Now I’m seeing that we should censor porn because it’s bad for people. Strange times.
The problem is that where do we draw the line between freedom and order? I am not saying that Porn should be banned completely but it shouldn't be marketed aggressively to minors.
It is the same thing with the LGBT agenda. they claimed they wanted freedom but they ended up indoctrinating young people in America and kids in high school are now meeting drag queens.
You're on a site with a bunch of really religious folk. (If the "pray for this, that, or the other" didn't give it away.) Porn is one of those things that no matter what, it's "bad" to them.
How does that prevent cp?
A) you can be 17 and make a picture with acc name.
B) you as a main actor can provide your photo, but wjhat about the partners that appear in a video with you.
People started posting whistleblower content on Pornhub (and even soccer games or boxing matches) so the major content distributors issued the "shut it down" order
Edit - I'm joking and I agree with you. Whenever a new star comes out as transgender, or they throw a politician into the spotlight, it's to control their own optical narratives. "Look here, not over there."
Obviously, fighting child porn is an important task - but if GOP are doing this during a national emergency - the theft of the Presidential election and the destruction of the Constitution - my immediate question would be the guy's priorities.
This is playing the violin while the Titanic is sinking.
Hawley has been fighting this with Trump (against election theft) but he is one senator and theres 52 other senators that outrank him. Like Mitch Mcconnell who is a senate majority leader and he should be the one leading the charge. But as you can see he is doing the opposite and so is the Supreme Court..
Bullshit - there are only 100 Senators in a nation of 300 million.
If he cannot find enough useful things to do RIGHT NOW in terms of fighting the BIG STEAL - this can only spell the words "hopelessly fucked" .
"Hey, there is an 18-wheeler doing 90 mph in my lane oncoming. You telling me I can't check my text messages and turn the steering wheel at the same time ?"
I'm not trying to single out any races but certain ethnicities especially when foreign language is being used seem to get past censors. That site became horrifying.
Yeah exactly. It wasn't as bad as x-videos, but it was going to shit with 40 second amateur clips all over the place... And that's actually far from the worst shit on that website.
I watched the Dragon Ball Super movie on PornHub last year, a shame I won’t be able to do that again but a small sacrifice to make to help clamp down on abuse
Trump and Hawley need to take the rest of the populists and non-swamp creatures and form the Freedom Party. The GOPe/uniparty wouldn't know what hit them!
GOP turns its back on America. America should turn its back on GOP. They can join their uniparty buddies over in commieville and quit pretending to be loyal opposition.
Isn't that right Mitch McConnell? Graham, Romney, McCain...
The remaining American loyalists can start an American First Party. Supporting RINO's as Republicans has been a slow death walk for America breathing life into the Marxist agenda while compromised by Chinese money and other foreign influences.
Was this a significant victory? Was there a lot of child porn and "non-consensual" content on porn hub? I saw they deleted or at least made unavailable about 2/3 of their content but if this was illegal content why is it not being prosecuted?
People don’t realize the point of this case. It has absolutely nothing to do with child porn. This is a roundabout way of getting rid of section 230 while getting dual party support
Mcconnell's phone not taking calls: 202-224-2541 , I wrote him a nice note instead at www.mcconnell.senate.gov Thanked him for making it crystal how the GOP serves us and saving me all future votes for any GOP and any moneys I will not be sending them in the future
What would prevent an account posting “rape” content from becoming verified? I’m not buying this. It’s no different then allowing only verified YouTube accounts.
Welcome to 2020s - there is no legal context anymore. Today's definition of 'coersion' in any kind of interaction between men and women is "woman retroactively decided she didn't want to take the job she willingly accepted in the first place'
When women grow up immersed in a pornographic culture that tells them they will be rewarded for being sex objects, don't get too surprised when they act accordingly.
Because the number of 12 year old girls viewing pornhub is surprisingly high? Boy's sure but lets be real that's literally the last place that's influencing young girls to act like sluts.
If anything it might be a scared straight thing when they see where the slut road leads them while they watch their idols get pissed and get on, literally.
Shut the fuck up lmao, you're a dumb cunt who should spend some more time with his grandma. People had fucking morals back in the day. It started going downhill in the 70's.
That's a champion move by Hawley. He's one of the few who talks about and acts on issues I give a shit about.
He’s on my shortlist for 2024. Hawley, Cruz, Noem, Meadows, Paul.
Flynn.
Ooh, that’s my new #1 choice!
I was thinking Sidney Powell too. She's a champ!!!
I’d rather see her as AG.
I would be good with that!
This is the new Fantasy Football League. Fantasy Government. Pick your team!
DeSantis!
I agree. Im not 100% on Cruz yet. Time will tell. I think Noem could be formidable.
Let's all pretend that the election system is still functioning and that there is still a Constitution. Let's just move on and forget about it - and look forward to some great new GOP campaigns and candidates !
I feel like I am watching FOX.
What? Nobody has given up on 2020. We are looking ahead to Trump’s heirs after his second term ends in 2023”4. Daydreaming. Chill out.
Us Trumpers haven't given up, but literally everyone with the power to do anything about it has.
Desantis, Trump Jr.
I am not sure how holding an ISP/website financially liable for user created content helps anyone. What most likely will happen is you will get insanely strict policies,each time you post you'll need to verify WHO you are, phone verify, email, etc. etc. Along with only subscription based services which will make the internet basically Pay-Per-View, Pay Per everything. The trend to hold ISP's, and Websites responsible for user created content is actually insane if you think about it.
The only problem with what Hawley did is that the government is the one who needs to make sure that child porn is not sold and not some big corporation like MasterCard or pornhub. Corporations also censor conservatives.so I am not really sure it benefits us so much.
Hawley got in there and has been nothing short of a bad ass. I hope he can keep that up and the swamp doesn’t dig their claws into him.
I hear what you're saying but do we really have much sympathy or energy to support people who try to sell their body for money? Sure, it sucks for them but I can't say I'd personally fight for justice for them.
Thankfully I'm pretty sure there's much weaker people out there than some slut that tried to make it big in the porn industry and didn't quite succeed.
Ehh, many women in the industry or in videos are trafficked and or completely shattered mentally. They should be pitied and protected from predators.
Whatever. They actually aren't, they're mostly women who loved the attention.
Agree. What was the name of that big time star who, after she retired, revealed she was brought in as a child (teenager)? Now she’s red pilling about pedophiles like crazy on her Twitter. The world is controlled by pedophiles, just saying.
Also, MK Ultra slaves.
Jenna Jameson
Thank you fren. She’s a pede now, just trying to take care of her family.
Such as the unborn.
There's a difference between protecting someone who was actually helpless vs someone who deliberately made some bad decisions.
It's important to keep the situation in context. Many of the women are very young, just turned 18, poor and in college. Worse yet, they've grown up a culture dominated by Harvey Weinstein's Hollywood. The culture they grow up in tells them that it's just a sex, or it's just a job, or it's just sex work and sex is empowering etc.
So while it's an extremely undignified and disgraceful act, they are still young and naive teenagers. It's similar to how tons of 18 year olds are signing on to hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans with no income, no job and no assets. Everyone around them is telling them it's okay. So you have to have at least a little bit of sympathy
You're taking the fake shit they say too seriously lol. "I just turned 18!!"
"This is her first video!" So first time twenty times looking at this quick search.
They're old enough to vote....
The voting age should be higher
Yeah but leftists not only don't believe science (the brain is still maturing up to 25) but take advantage of this hence why they keep pushing to lower the voting age even more as well as lower the age of consent.
Yes, it is. They are adults. We have laws that state that when you turn 18 you are now old enough to be held accountable for your actions. They CHOSE to do those videos. Unless there is proof presented that they were threatened in some way, "but I had no money and they promised me a bunch" doesn't cut it.
Let's put it another way. An 18 year old guy gets a "job" in one of those crappy positions selling vacuum cleaners or whatever door to door. He makes no money and the people he's "working" for keep telling him that even though he's selling the item that he's not selling enough, or just when he's about to make a sale the manager that's with him steps in and steals it so the kid gets no money. Would you still be all up in arms about how that needs to be fixed or would you tell the kid "suck it up and find another job."
Stop being a simp and start realizing that women can make choices the same as men and sometimes they make really bad choices and need to learn from them.
Left-wing culture dominates our institutions. It's easy to get wrapped up in degeneracy as a young adult
Were you ever 18? 18 year olds are anything but mature and responsible adults
That is my point. I wasn't given a pass because I don't have a vag. I was held accountable for my actions and at 18 if I made a poor decision I was expected to deal with it. I hold women to the exact same standard because they are, after all, equal.
I'll say it again. Stop simping.
What does this have to do with simping? I applied the same standard to 18 year olds taking out $100,000 in student loans. That has nothing to do with sex
Guess which gender holds the majority of student loan debt and are the ones that aren't paying it back while begging democrats for a bail out? I'll give you a hint, men are paying it back.
Eh I’m pretty sure backroom casting couch is a verified account so that type of shit will stay up, but maybe that is fake and they actually know what they’re there for.
Of course it's fake lol
You should read up some of the accounts of people who auditioned for certain websites know for their abuse and brutality. It's fucking disgusting but you can't talk about it because "sex work is positive and empowering." I'm so sick of porn being normalized.
Well if they auditioned for a website known for their brutality... I have no fucking sympathy
career aside, that cant be guaranteed. But what if they were promised something and never got it? would that be rape?
Eugh. I went to pornhub to see if there was any noticeable difference and the first recomended video was ‘highest rated in the US’: “delivery man cums in me while my husband watches”
Cuckoldry is a stain on the fabric of society.
The child porn on Twitter is much more egregious. I used to follow KarliQ before she got banned and she linked to an account that posted CP. She said to report for banning but didn’t say what the account was so I thought it was some liberal threatening POTUS or something. Went to report and clicked the first video and it was a naked very young child and a naked man. Didn’t watch anything beyond the first second but I had nightmares for weeks about that baby girl. I hope Twitter Burns.
Hey, it's not Twitter's fault that someone uploaded... Wait... Oh, they're a publisher. It is their fault.
Post Cheese Pizza and it’s fine,
Support your president?
Automatic ban
They removed all the amateur porn -- the stuff people actually want to watch -- and are shoving the cuck and IR shit down your throat. This has nothing to do with CP, everything to do with the demoralization agenda. That and they want to force you to upload your driver's license or passport before you upload any content on the internet.
'Non-consensual'
How do you determine that? If its non consensual its rape, and if you're airing rape videos, that'd be illegal, right?
So why do you need to make it double illegal?
Am I missing something?
'Got pornhub to delete childporn'
How do they know its child porn (unless finding the 'actor' and confirming)? I'm 25, used to bang a friend of mine who is 24, but she looks like she's 14
We're just asking for common sense video control.
Next all videos will be limited to ten seconds or less after some one-pump chump gets made fun of for getting caught blowing his load in his office after two strokes.
No one NEEDS high capacity video times!
Um sir that would be a two pump chump
First one is free.
First steps towards australia / gb banning of videos with shaved labdybits because they look too young
Wait what?? They have banned shaved vaginas? Jesus fuck they're fucked in the head
Could potentially be referring to voyeur or obviously secret recordings. Perhaps pantsing qualifies.
I just know they're gonna use this to get rid of more animated stuff cause that's much easier than tracking down actual criminals.
On that note, why make pornhub delete stuff? Collect the criminal uploader and make them do it as part of sentence.
Presumably non-consensual meaning hidden camera videos where one party didn't know about it. Of course we know that a lot of those so-called videos are faked as well, especially if you see the same performers in other videos making it obvious that it wasn't someone just filming their random hookups.
Ahh, yeah but that is already illegal tho isnt it?
But tbh if it gets rid of the fake stuff as well its great. Maybe it will happen with the family porn stuff as well. So tired of seeing 'mom an son' on fuckig every video
Does that include Hunter Biden's account?
more censorship based on entirely unproven and unsupported accusations? No thanks. This guy is swamp, using the same bullshit tactics swamp has been using for decades now.
Only silver lining is that its happening to Pornhub who are pro-BLM. Let them burn, but don't be an idiot and think this guy is anything but another turncoat.
PS. Post MeToo age you are going to tell me that Pornhub hosted non-consensual sex videos and they wouldn't be ALREADY liable under current laws? Any woman who can prove she was actually coerced would be able to sue them already.
You're assuming thay any amount of porn is good.
I don't think alcohol is good. On the contrary, I think it's one of the most damaging things around for an individual, for a family, and for a society at large. But I don't think it should be prohibited or illegal, and the less the government gets involved the better. And in before "but there's regulations on alcohol, etc." Poor analogy, and the censorship that just happened with the forced removal of all videos on pornhub that are not from verified users is not a good thing. It wasn't a cesspool of childporn in the first place (I'm sure some videos snuck through, but they'd be squashed pretty quickly, because, as the person you're responding to noted, we already have laws against this, and actions could be taken to get videos removed from sites like this already). This action doesn't really benefit much, is another nudge on the slippery slope of regulating content and trampling 1A/free speech online, and a better analogy would be likening it to something like twitter only allowing verified users, whose identities are fully known and disclosed, to post on and use the platform.
I happen to think alcohol is good. I have about 6oz of Bourbon on weekends. Never more, never during the week.
Most things are fine in moderation. Some people have more addictive personalities than others.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. I'm speaking more towards excess, and would hold the same attitude with every substance, right down to opiates/heroin. Don't think the government should be involved, think people should be able to do as they wish as long as it doesn't harm others, etc. I'm drastically oversimplifying (I work in, and research [for work, and graduate degree] addiction and drug policy, so I could go on forever and way too in depth). My above comment was more to make a point, and a very broad statement without nuance, but the general point was that alcohol is terribly destructive and harmful (as far as health, as well as societal, effects) if not used responsibly and in moderation (the flipside of that statement is basically what you said. Alcohol, used responsibly and in moderation, is perfectly fine. And as much as many would disagree with me, I've enough experience, and done enough research, to say that both of those statements are true for basically every substance, to varying degrees). But ultimately, the oversimplified analogy and purpose of the comment was less about alcohol, and more about government and policy, and a defense of small government and limited policy/regulation. If my point were more about alcohol or w/e substances, absence of any commentary on policy and government, it'd be more like everything in moderation/too much of anything is bad
Edit - just to give a very loose example, based on my research, as well as my experience being in recovery for almost a decade (after being addicted to heroin for ~4 years): so, if we look at opiates compared to alcohol. Both used moderately and responsibly don't produce any terrible results. But lets move into the using daily, to the point where one is physically dependent (which doesn't mean "addicted." One can be physically dependent on a substance and addicted to it, or physically dependent on a substance but not addicted. Anywho...), using that scenario for both alcohol, and opiates:
With alcohol, daily and excessive use is absolutely horrible, and wreaks havoc on a person's physical health. It's more long-term, but will eventually catch up to them, and likely kill them, whether it be cirrhosis or w/e else. Whereas, with opiates, the long-term effects (for this example, lets exclude IV users sharing needles, etc. Just general use) aren't nearly as bad. In fact, there really isn't much bad at all, outside of acute toxicity — in other words, outside of OD risks (or spread of disease via sharing needles), one is unlikely to experience any serious harm or effects on physical health from long-term use of opiates. And let me be clear, that alone makes it terrible dangerous... it's far easier to die from one single dose (with opiates) then with alcohol. But that said, most overdoses, based on data and research (and this is the general consensus amongst my colleagues in this community), are more the result of current policy and prohibition. My example is backed by data, but without going too much in depth, the best way to understand this is to look at the opioid epidemic since the early 2000s.
So, OD rates start fairly low, within the same channel that they've historically always been. We start seeing a slight rise as oxycontin becomes popular. Health officials notice an uptick in people illicitly using oxycontin. As a result, there's a crackdown, which lowers availability. Because of this, people that are physically dependent no longer have, or can afford, their substance to support their habit (this is true both for those prescribed the substance, and those obtaining illicitly). Because of this, they turn to alternatives. This leads to the spike in heroin use, and heroin overdose rates. This is because more, because of policy, are being pushed towards the cheaper and more available alternative. In this scenario, because it is so costly, many eventually turn to IVing. This spikes OD rates even more. As a result, govt cracks down even harder. This leads to a massive spike in fentanyl, mostly being cut into heroin, where users now don't know what they're getting, what substance, and the dose/strength of it. This leads to an even larger spike (where we are, now — and still, average yearly deaths associated w/ alcohol, and even tobacco, far surpass any other substance)
In contrast, there are numerous studies that show that OD levels drop significantly, and more people (that are dependent or addicted) seek help when the substance isn't criminalized — this, along with additional research, data, analyses of other countries' policies, etc, demonstrate that this isn't correlated w/ legality, where many falsely assume decriminalization or legalization would lead to a major spike in use — we know that isn't the case, now (nor was it if you look at population's use statistics before, during, and after alcohol prohibition; all having a statistically insignificant effect on supply/demand and use). Further, other studies show that, when the substance is available, and not so costly that it leads to criminal behavior (stealing, prostituting, etc) to afford and feed the habit, that basically ALL bad metrics associated w/ substance use drops significantly. When this study was done, it showed that those who basically had free access, basically start slow, they know what the dose is so they don't OD, and they eventually hit a ceiling. It found that they all increased use until they all reached a certain point, and then just remained at that dose. In this study, nobody OD'd.
Sorry for such a long edit, and apologies for it not being articulated very well (I'm literally writing this while being in a zoom work meeting lol)
Lol
The difference between porn and alcohol is that nearly every 15 year old in this country is addicted to porn due to the ease of viewing via all the electronic devices these days. Barely any 15 year olds are alcoholics
But muh freedom
If they can't host viewer uploaded content without properly preventing child pornography, then what choice do they, as a company, have to stop the spread of it? To regulate their own content, and ensure it's legal. That's the choice they have, and their is nothing controversial about it
I agree that porn is an issue, and having very serious effects on our youth and society in general. This isn't so much a defense of porn, as much as it is a condemnation of this policy that was just enacted with pornhub, as it doesn't solve anything, but it is government overstepping and affecting other larger issues (not just porn)
The problem with modern conservatives is that rhey never do anything because "big government". Meanwhile leftists are destroying instutitions full force. The correct answer to the problem is to sue distributors of child pornography and to enact restrictions that prevent minors from viewing pornography. That's not "big government" it's protecting minors from abuse and addiction
Your comment is on point.Modern conservatives sometimes freak me out with not understanding the difference between when freedom is required and when an order or moral law need to be enforced. I think it is because of the influence of libertarians on conservatives.
absolutely, agree 100%. Sad to say, but a lot of this just falls on good parenting. It isn't hard to set things up so that your child can't access porn on their pc/tablet/phones, etc, though I agree there could be external methods that work, as well. As for child porn... the pornhub policy doesn't solve that, and cp is already illegal. If cp gets uploaded on PH or any other site, it's either automatically removed (if it's obvious), or it can be taken down fairly easily if they're made aware of the video in question. The system to prevent it is already in place; the fact that it isn't being executed properly, to me, is an indictment on government, regulations, and solving issues through govt, and if anything, demonstrates why more government isn't the solution.
First of all: prove it.
Second of all: none of your fucking business. The parents are in charge, not government.
It is my business if pornographic coporations are marketing to my teenage children with "step" families. There is nothing wrong with properly utilizing the power of government to protect our children. The libertarian anti-government views propagated by neoconservatives are lies spread to us by left-wing cultural marxists as it keeps our party from stopping their long march through our institutions
Neoconservatives are Trotskyites. They are communism lite individuals; they just prefer not being seen as crazy liberals or leftist by us.
you are assuming that any amount of censorship over speech is good.
You're assuming the government legislating morality is good.
People in government are the last one who should be telling others what is right or wrpng, for MULTIPLE reasons.
Just the other day I was arguing with someone on here who thought people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes in schools and grocery stores and shit, because freedom. Now I’m seeing that we should censor porn because it’s bad for people. Strange times.
The problem is that where do we draw the line between freedom and order? I am not saying that Porn should be banned completely but it shouldn't be marketed aggressively to minors. It is the same thing with the LGBT agenda. they claimed they wanted freedom but they ended up indoctrinating young people in America and kids in high school are now meeting drag queens.
Here is the line: I draw my own fucking line
You're on a site with a bunch of really religious folk. (If the "pray for this, that, or the other" didn't give it away.) Porn is one of those things that no matter what, it's "bad" to them.
The new age sperm savers are hilarious. Not jerking doesn't give you special powers, guys.
What is unverified? Non 2257? As in all/most homemade clips etc? Or what is the definition of unverified?
How does that prevent cp? A) you can be 17 and make a picture with acc name. B) you as a main actor can provide your photo, but wjhat about the partners that appear in a video with you.
There goes my dreams of starting a shitpost channel on PornHub where I post Dragonball fights with porn titles…
People started posting whistleblower content on Pornhub (and even soccer games or boxing matches) so the major content distributors issued the "shut it down" order
Wait, it was Pornhub?!
Edit - I'm joking and I agree with you. Whenever a new star comes out as transgender, or they throw a politician into the spotlight, it's to control their own optical narratives. "Look here, not over there."
Step mom*. You sick bastard 😜
WTF? The homemade amateur stuff is the best. Not that corporate fake shit
One order of BBC cuckolding videos coming right up
Obviously, fighting child porn is an important task - but if GOP are doing this during a national emergency - the theft of the Presidential election and the destruction of the Constitution - my immediate question would be the guy's priorities.
This is playing the violin while the Titanic is sinking.
Hawley has been fighting this with Trump (against election theft) but he is one senator and theres 52 other senators that outrank him. Like Mitch Mcconnell who is a senate majority leader and he should be the one leading the charge. But as you can see he is doing the opposite and so is the Supreme Court..
If you are on the Titanic and it is sinking - this is the time to look for lifeboats, help women and children put on life jackets, etc.
This is not the time to fight kiddie porn. That can wait a few weeks.
i don't know how many times need to be told "a person can multitask"
do you think that none of the people fighting against the steal have other responsibilities?
Bullshit - there are only 100 Senators in a nation of 300 million.
If he cannot find enough useful things to do RIGHT NOW in terms of fighting the BIG STEAL - this can only spell the words "hopelessly fucked" .
"Hey, there is an 18-wheeler doing 90 mph in my lane oncoming. You telling me I can't check my text messages and turn the steering wheel at the same time ?"
There is non consensual pron on pronhub? I THOUGHT THE RULE WAS YOU HAVE TO SEE THEM CUDDLING BEFOREHAND
I'm not trying to single out any races but certain ethnicities especially when foreign language is being used seem to get past censors. That site became horrifying.
Yeah exactly. It wasn't as bad as x-videos, but it was going to shit with 40 second amateur clips all over the place... And that's actually far from the worst shit on that website.
It's all incest and cuckold shit anyway! Leave it behind!
imagine thinking it's real like this guy
Not real incest ofc, but still gross. Why is there such a market for step siblings fucking?
I watched the Dragon Ball Super movie on PornHub last year, a shame I won’t be able to do that again but a small sacrifice to make to help clamp down on abuse
Trump and Hawley need to take the rest of the populists and non-swamp creatures and form the Freedom Party. The GOPe/uniparty wouldn't know what hit them!
Do it, Mr. President! We Texans are with you!
Going to contact Hawley today and request that he object to the results. I suspect he will, anyway.
"Produced through fraud or coercion"
...So all of it?
Hey wait a minute…
THAT’S NOT A REAL PLUMBER!
populist or perish! I like it
GOP turns its back on America. America should turn its back on GOP. They can join their uniparty buddies over in commieville and quit pretending to be loyal opposition.
Isn't that right Mitch McConnell? Graham, Romney, McCain...
The remaining American loyalists can start an American First Party. Supporting RINO's as Republicans has been a slow death walk for America breathing life into the Marxist agenda while compromised by Chinese money and other foreign influences.
Its just political optics.
Was this a significant victory? Was there a lot of child porn and "non-consensual" content on porn hub? I saw they deleted or at least made unavailable about 2/3 of their content but if this was illegal content why is it not being prosecuted?
Pornhub had child porn? What the fuck
Getting real sick of "Biden's friend" McConnell.
Wouldn't that kind of liability breach 230 protections?
Cool. Now it'll all be some IR cuckold step-relative degeneracy. Not just the front page.
apparently "think of the children" or "but muh mymin" is still an effective argument for a portion of low iq stooges out there
People don’t realize the point of this case. It has absolutely nothing to do with child porn. This is a roundabout way of getting rid of section 230 while getting dual party support
SMUTT HAWLEY
Wow great move by Hawley
Mcconnell's phone not taking calls: 202-224-2541 , I wrote him a nice note instead at www.mcconnell.senate.gov Thanked him for making it crystal how the GOP serves us and saving me all future votes for any GOP and any moneys I will not be sending them in the future
Hawley has been positioning like this for a while. Hope he doesn't fuck out.
I’m sure there’s a lot of people here who want to push morality and that’s totally fine.
But if you simply look at what they actually banned it doesn’t seem like it would make much difference to me.
Blocking unverified uploads which are 99% consenting adults doesn’t seem to matter.
On the flip side leaving the industry garbage up on there supports all of the trafficking, drugs, and all the other industry bullshit prevalent there.
Sounds more to me like this was a power move by people in the industry who felt threatened.
Would u rather that money to go to universities, and liberal states?
its mostly them being forced to do so which is in the bill
What would prevent an account posting “rape” content from becoming verified? I’m not buying this. It’s no different then allowing only verified YouTube accounts.
So, rape videos? Videos of rape. Rape, which is a crime. A crime, which means it's an illegal act.
It's a law that makes it illegal to post a video someome made of them doing an illegal act, which was already illegal.
That's the 1A version of "We need to ban miuder using guns". Was murder already not illegal?
"legal context" are you from the 80s?
Welcome to 2020s - there is no legal context anymore. Today's definition of 'coersion' in any kind of interaction between men and women is "woman retroactively decided she didn't want to take the job she willingly accepted in the first place'
When women grow up immersed in a pornographic culture that tells them they will be rewarded for being sex objects, don't get too surprised when they act accordingly.
I believe that's his point though, address the cultural issues that lead to girls being sluts.
Yeah totally agree, but that starts with holding the likes of Pornhub accountable IMHO
It starts with stripping the left of their massive cultural gains.
sure thats right, but Pornhub blasting out all manner of depravity to anyone who can do a google search is a massive leftist cultural gain no?
Because the number of 12 year old girls viewing pornhub is surprisingly high? Boy's sure but lets be real that's literally the last place that's influencing young girls to act like sluts.
If anything it might be a scared straight thing when they see where the slut road leads them while they watch their idols get pissed and get on, literally.
That's what the hub is
You're naive if you think the culture had to teach them that. That's the reality of women since the dawn of time. Pussy power.
Your great grandma would have an onlyFans if she were born today.
Shut the fuck up lmao, you're a dumb cunt who should spend some more time with his grandma. People had fucking morals back in the day. It started going downhill in the 70's.