This will also push me (an adult) to other websites. I have no interest in giving any ID to any random website.

There will probably be a secure 3rd party identity provider that all the sites use eventually. The video sites will only receive a binary yes or no indicating if the user is "authorized."

All of this is beyond sanity though. Porn is not evil. My dad grew up with Hustler, I grew up with The Pirate Bay, and my kids are growing up with 4K Pornhub (after they reached age 12 we disabled the content filters on the home DNS server, also using it as an opportunity to teach how DNS and basic networking functions).

Government (and let's be honest, on this topic it's almost entirely one party in particular) needs to mind its own business. Sex, and things related to sex, are a personal matter. Thinking that I have the right to dictate someone else's personal life in this manner is not something that ever cross my mind, much less thinking it consciousable, much less introducing and voting for it to be the law of the land.

What if porn is evil, but you don't see why anymore because it changes you?

Porn doesn't change you, so that concern can be safely discarded.

It's not evil because there's no harm being inflicted. Adults who consent to have sex and doing it on camera are not engaging in evil. A person consenting to watch the video is not engaging in evil. There are tangential harms such as abuse and exploitation of the actors, but that's not inherent to porn (there is ethically produced porn) nor unique to it (actors in Hollywood are also exploited). The answer to those problems are breaking down existing power structures and zealously protecting worker rights, not banning Pornhub and AMC Theaters.

It absolutely does change you. Seeing people degrade themselves for money has a corrosive effect on your soul, and it's worse when you're getting off on it. It is inherently evil. That there is harm being inflicted is obvious to anyone who hasn't been so desensitized to it that it doesn't register anymore. The willingness of an individual to degrade themselves for money has nothing to do with whether they are being degraded.

Many (most?) actors do not find it degrading. I already addressed the ones that do in my tangential harms comment. There's been plenty of easily googled interviews of both active and retired adult actors and for a numerous amount the work is not only not degrading, but the opposite - empowering. This matches the experience of SWs I know IRL.

I would hazard a guess that the average worker in a large number of low-wage blue collar fields feels that their job is more degrading than the average porn SW.

Regardless of line of work the solution is robust worker's rights protections and social safety nets, so that workers can't be exploited or financially pressured into jobs they find degrading, not to forbid the line of work or portray it as taboo.

If you don't know what you have, you won't know what you've lost. That's what's happening with "sex workers". Maybe some know, but it's too late. Others are just oblivious and that's too bad. To describe what these "performers" do on camera for a lewd, leering audience as empowering is absurd on it's face. Maybe they mean that in the sense of having a kind of power over their enslaved audience. The whole thing is evil.

It’ll act as an additional hurdle, which is good. If people want to take their time to use a proxy, then they can still do so. What this prevents is easy access by minors. Right now anyone, regardless of age is a few clicks away from seeing porn on their smartphone.

How exactly will this change the situation of porn being a few clicks away regardless of age? Kid searches for "porn" on Google and clicks through the links until they find a non-compliant website. Pornhub is owned by a Canadian company, btw.

The UK abandoned their effort to do this precisely because of how pointless it is.

>which is good

citation needed? why should a teenager not see pictures of a naked person? keep in mind that teenagers in africa are fighting and dying in wars.

I do not understand the bearing of African turf wars on the topic at hand. This would in effect be a justification to never do anything about anything because there are “worse” problems in the world.

Should we just show hardcore porn everywhere? In schools? On the kiosks at McDonalds?

yes. stupid question deserves stupid answer.

I mean, probably not, but like, the world doesn't care what we think we should show.

Should we dismantle people's bodies and show it to those people's children? Should we show children their own detached arms while trapping them in a burning house with a company of their mom who is missing lower part of a body and crawling around screaming from pain while her intestines are falling out? And a mangled head of their dead cousin who's been decapitated by a sharp sheet of metal launched at him as the GRAD hit the building? Did I mention it's fucking dark and no you can't call 911. That kind of shit is happening right this second I lived in Donetsk until 2004 and the stories that I see from there are fucking brutal. Why don't you go focus on that?

I mean yeah I'm not saying we should show porn to kids. Why are you even thinking about that? What part of not wanting my fetishes end up on easily hackable government databases and known to the world is even remotely correlated to showing hardcore porn everywhere? I'm not an exhibitionist, man. I'm a prude actually. I'm easily embarrassed by my girlfriend bringing up anything about our sexual life in public. When we go to sexshop and she discusses our fetishes with employee I leave the store and puke from stress and anxiety. The thought of the entire world having access to my sexual identity is horrifying. What about people who are LGBT who's family will disown or kill them?

I probably shouldn't have gotten this heated and I honestly don't think you actually mean evil. Just think about broader implications, please.

I'm not for the ID thing, I think it's stupid. But I reject the notion that porn is automatically therefore something good to expose children to.

Yes, I think that might be a good idea.

It would normalize sex and make the idea of being ashamed of how we look naked outdated.

At a minimum this seems like something that would result in some interesting science papers.

Maybe, especially if it helped break the destructive shame-driven attitude the US has towards sexuality.

I think a reasonable moderate start would be removing any restrictions on depictions of mere nudity. My city is already ahead of the game by legalizing public nudity (it is not necessary to wear clothing in public spaces - quite popular for sunbathing at city parks in the summer).

I would argue it's even less clicks to see violent, disturbing content on YouTube, and we don't require ID checking for that.

In the US, at least, parents seem much more upset about a child seeing a bare female presenting breast than someone being stabbed/shot/killed in a movie.

Movies are rated to try to target the appropriate audience. Do you have a study to corroborate your statement or you're just parroting a popular "gotcha"?

You may be overestimating the reach of these small states when it comes to online content. These laws don't make porn any less available, it just changes who gets the traffic. And as others have noted, the operators who come out ahead are inherently the ones least aligned with the culture and values being asserted.

What the laws are really for is making voters in these states feel like their legislators are doing something, because proposing and voting on token nonsense like this is easy and negotiating effective change on meaningful policy is hard.

Striving to protect children isn't nonsense, even if the effort fails to accomplish its intended outcome. We need politicians who are more concerned with the rising generations, not less.

That applies to the voters, not the legislators. The legislators been around the block, they have lawyers, they have mentors, they have consultants, they have lobbyists. With the exception of the few loons who inevitably get voted in here and there, the careerists know exactly how something like this plays out.

Voters are presumably striving to protect children and want their legislators to do something. These legislators are in no position to do anything. But they can play pretend and only make the problem a little worse as they do. In politics, that's a win.

But it's not a "concern for rising generations".

> These legislators are in no position to do anything.

You're going to need to explain this more. All efforts start small. With support they grow and can accomplish things.

> But it's not a "concern for rising generations".

If "it" is referring to porn, then yes it is. Perhaps not in your view, or your social circles.

It's not a genuine attempt at legislation by christo-fascists, it's a way to push the overton window, and is also a failure that they can then bring back to their tribe to shout about how they're fighting the good fight against the heathens - so give them money / vote for them. Sometimes it's used to trade political capital. They submit lots of bills like this, the party leadership keeps refusing to support it, the christo-fascists threaten to take their voters and donations away, party leadership gives them some concession by pushing some other bill to lean further in their direction.

That's actually very plausible. And not limited to the fundies only. It's all fun and games, until such a bill gets passed and all of a sudden the UK leaves the EU (sure, it was a popular vote, but the spirit is the same).

I think you missed the part where this legislation passed in Louisiana