• aceshigh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    best of all, this strategy isn’t going to decrease viewership, probably increase it. it’s also going to increase the usage of vpn’s.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      VPNs will be their next target. This isn’t an accident. They are setting up the framework for China like internet censorship laws, but they are going to take this way fucking farther than China ever has. They are building a system for state laws to establish interstate autocracy on the foundation of abortion and trans panic.

      • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        So it’s bodily autonomy, identity, sexuality, privacy that’s on the chopping block…

        Seems like democracy is going to be pretty hollow without at least a little free expression.

    • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s likely just going to drive it off to the less centralized websites that won’t block anyway because they are just so used to ignoring the requests. The only reason PornHub has to pay heed is because they try to go at it the “legal” route.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pornography access seems very close to people’s heart in here but the claim “it won’t decrease viewership, probably increase it” has zero chance of being true.

      However insignificant it might be, any amount of faff will lower participation and there isn’t a single person in the world thinking “I don’t watch pornography or allow my children to watch pornography but now the gubbermint is involved we’re going to do nothing else but watch smut”.

      There are so many shit takes in this thread that I have to assume they’re from children upset about their pornography being cut off.

      • aceshigh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those who want porn will get it. It’s a need, like alcohol and tobacco. It being illegal will make teens even more interested.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a need, like alcohol and tobacco

          Two things that demonstrably haven’t grown more popular when they’ve been made less accessible, despite those restrictions not having 100% success rate.

          And although I don’t fundamentally object to any of them, calling alcohol, tobacco and pornography a “need” just makes you sound like even more of a child.

      • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe participation would be lowered, just not to the extent “they” hoped for. I have personal experience with this - we had some major social media sites blocked, and for a lot of people that was a final push to learn to avoid censorship, even if not in the best way (by sketchy free VPNs). So if you take away something very important, it might turn a person from someone who didn’t go to blocked sites into someone who isn’t bothered by blocking.

    • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Its not about blocking it, its about making it criminal so they can eventually loop in certain people who partake in it.

      I think one legislator even said so brazenly this is all about limiting access to LGBT people.