Pornhub is only pulling out to punish the states for trying to stand up to them. In classic American monopoly fashion they go on the attack as soon as any legislation targets them.
Pornhub claims the reason is because they dont to collect government ID but Pornhub collects user data and understands who their customers are. Adding government ID to their data would hardly be anymore of a privacy invasion and it’s not like they are forced to store it.
Imo this law is actually in a way pushing for a porn monopoly, if you by law need to provide an id, are you gonna trust some random site with that info or the big one everyone uses
OP’s claim here is just BS. PornHub is in no way a monopoly or even close. It reads like someone who has literally never searched for porn on the internet. Astroturf.
PornHub is a monopoly. They own xnxx, redtube, xhamster, and several production companies such as brazzers. Their categorization system has also had some ranging impacts on actresses’ ability to get work after they turn 22. I highly recommend listening to The Butterfly Effect by Jon Ronson.
ALSO so we’re clear, I’m not a fan of this legislation because its dumb as fuck and doesn’t help anyone, least of all sex workers. When people lose easy access to porn it usually results in WORSE conditions for sex workers because suddenly there’s more demand in places without safety infrastructure.
Can you define what part of PornHub owning a lot of other porn sites makes them a monopoly? Part of being a monopoly is being anticompetitive. What has PornHub done in terms of lobbying or other anticompetitive practices which makes it more difficult for a new company sharing porn to take hold? Because there is a ton of porn online which is unrelated to PornHub.
I’m all for calling out monopolies, but I legit don’t see one here. I’m open to being wrong.
I don’t believe that the thing about actresses getting work after 22 is reliant on PornHub. Porn has worked that way for 50+ years my dude.
No it’s not. Being hit with antitrust laws requires first being a monopoly, but the monopoly state exists merely by virtue of size within the industry.
Edit: to be clear the only point I am making here is in relation to that definition you provided. Nothing more.
Law maker enacts legislation towards a company. The company is able to comply but instead the company pulls the service or severelyndegrades it. Then when users are pissed off the company will point to the law maker and say “they forced us to do this”. The law maker then suffers the blacklash of companies service withdrawal.
Apple tried this with the EU usb c but eventually backed down. John deer tried this with right to repair. There are many cases where companies use these tactics to try and bully law makers away from regulating them and I think i know it’s legal and their right to do so but I find it gross.
I don’t think the law makers should be solving the “problem” this way but I also don’t think pornhub should deny service from an entire state because they want an an ID check implemented.
Apple tried this with the EU usb c but eventually backed down
Umm, what? Apple was always going to move to USB-C. The EU regulations at most hastened that by a couple of years. Their tablets and even laptop computers were using USB-C before the EU even enacted that legislation. It was only a matter of time.
But back on the subject at hand, this is nothing like that sort of bullying. This is a company being asked to build more infrastructure at their own expense, and then use that infrastructure to place its own users at risk. They’ve made a simple calculation that it’s better for their bottom line and their reputation to choose not to comply, and instead pull out of a few small markets.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Pornhub is only pulling out to punish the states for trying to stand up to them. In classic American monopoly fashion they go on the attack as soon as any legislation targets them.
Pornhub claims the reason is because they dont to collect government ID but Pornhub collects user data and understands who their customers are. Adding government ID to their data would hardly be anymore of a privacy invasion and it’s not like they are forced to store it.
Lol wuht
I’ve never, ever seen anyone lick boots harder than this.
OK
Pornhub as a monopoly??? Wow lmao. Someone never got creative with the search bar and it’s very apparent.
Imo this law is actually in a way pushing for a porn monopoly, if you by law need to provide an id, are you gonna trust some random site with that info or the big one everyone uses
OP’s claim here is just BS. PornHub is in no way a monopoly or even close. It reads like someone who has literally never searched for porn on the internet. Astroturf.
PornHub is a monopoly. They own xnxx, redtube, xhamster, and several production companies such as brazzers. Their categorization system has also had some ranging impacts on actresses’ ability to get work after they turn 22. I highly recommend listening to The Butterfly Effect by Jon Ronson.
ALSO so we’re clear, I’m not a fan of this legislation because its dumb as fuck and doesn’t help anyone, least of all sex workers. When people lose easy access to porn it usually results in WORSE conditions for sex workers because suddenly there’s more demand in places without safety infrastructure.
Owning a dozen or so websites doesn’t make them a monopoly when there are tens of thousands of porn sites available.
There are countless models over the age of 22 making bank in the porn industry. The only difference is that they have talent.
Can you define what part of PornHub owning a lot of other porn sites makes them a monopoly? Part of being a monopoly is being anticompetitive. What has PornHub done in terms of lobbying or other anticompetitive practices which makes it more difficult for a new company sharing porn to take hold? Because there is a ton of porn online which is unrelated to PornHub.
I’m all for calling out monopolies, but I legit don’t see one here. I’m open to being wrong.
I don’t believe that the thing about actresses getting work after 22 is reliant on PornHub. Porn has worked that way for 50+ years my dude.
No it’s not. Being hit with antitrust laws requires first being a monopoly, but the monopoly state exists merely by virtue of size within the industry.
Edit: to be clear the only point I am making here is in relation to that definition you provided. Nothing more.
Yeah I was just in Utah for business and didn’t even realise there was a block. I didn’t go to pornhub but all my regular sites just worked. 🤷♂️🍆
With other industries, owning 5, 10, 15 other sites might be indicative of a monopoly. But there is a metric fuckton of porn online.
Edit: pardon me, a *metric fucktonne
What’s that in imperial shitloads?
I’m sure inflation has affected that too
they don’t own xhamster.
Are you listening to yourself?
Lets put name to the IP address. Yup, that is the same as just the IP address that can be shared by multiple devices.
They just pull out of those states. How is that an attack?
Law maker enacts legislation towards a company. The company is able to comply but instead the company pulls the service or severelyndegrades it. Then when users are pissed off the company will point to the law maker and say “they forced us to do this”. The law maker then suffers the blacklash of companies service withdrawal.
Apple tried this with the EU usb c but eventually backed down. John deer tried this with right to repair. There are many cases where companies use these tactics to try and bully law makers away from regulating them and I think i know it’s legal and their right to do so but I find it gross.
I don’t think the law makers should be solving the “problem” this way but I also don’t think pornhub should deny service from an entire state because they want an an ID check implemented.
Umm, what? Apple was always going to move to USB-C. The EU regulations at most hastened that by a couple of years. Their tablets and even laptop computers were using USB-C before the EU even enacted that legislation. It was only a matter of time.
But back on the subject at hand, this is nothing like that sort of bullying. This is a company being asked to build more infrastructure at their own expense, and then use that infrastructure to place its own users at risk. They’ve made a simple calculation that it’s better for their bottom line and their reputation to choose not to comply, and instead pull out of a few small markets.