An age verification bill in Kansas that is the most extreme in the country has passed both House and Senate and is on its way to the governor’s desk. The bill will make sites with more than 25 percent adult content liable to heavy fines if they don’t verify that visitors are over the age of 18. It also calls being gay “sexual conduct,” which critics say could set up the state for more censorship of LGBT+ citizens.

  • @rockSlayer
    link
    1412 months ago

    I’m fucking sick of these laws. Since when was the “party of small government” all about creating literal nanny states?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      832 months ago

      It always has been, just like how they claim to be fiscally responsible while bringing back trickle down economics to destroy government funding.

      They have lied constantly for the nearly 3 decades I have been able to vote.

      • FenrirIII
        link
        222 months ago

        They take money away from education and remove laws/rules about lying. We’re at the top of a mountain of shit built by conservatives and we’re going to start sinking.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      302 months ago

      Since forever?.. The party of small government is a slogan… No more true than the wings you get from drinking red bull

    • modifier
      link
      fedilink
      182 months ago

      Because they have never been the party of small government. You don’t need to be the party of small government if you’re the party of credulous rubes.

      • Uranium3006
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        “small government” was an euphemism for “defend rather than desegregate public services”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      72 months ago

      Small enough to fit in your living room, bed room, computer room, doctor’s office, library, kid’s classroom, etc.

  • @ghostrider2112
    link
    1292 months ago

    Laughing as I picture spez and company trying to figure out what percentage of reddit is porn

        • @irreticent
          link
          22 months ago

          That dude definitely is a cum box.

          FTFY

    • @joekar1990
      link
      English
      302 months ago

      I mean Reddit has been trending in the direction to remove NSFW content completely from their site. A couple more laws like this would probably give them the ammo needed to say goodbye.

      • @Zron
        link
        262 months ago

        Tumblr tried to do that.

        Tried

        • @chronicledmonocle
          link
          142 months ago

          And succeeded. Unfortunately, they also succeeded in killing their own platform at the same time.

          • @yuriy
            link
            42 months ago

            Y’know, post porn-ban tumblr has seen a bit of an influx of more “professional” type blogs and I think I’m okay with it. More and more podcasts and youtubers I follow are making and maintaining tumblrs.

            Obviously I would’ve preferred the porn not be banned in the first place, but given the timeline we’re stuck with I don’t hate where it’s going.

      • @VelvetStorm
        link
        52 months ago

        Ya but they also have a very large lgbtq community.

    • Neato
      link
      fedilink
      English
      172 months ago

      He’s gonna have to run a lot more ads to get those numbers down.

  • Uranium3006
    link
    fedilink
    1192 months ago

    The anti gay part is the whole point. They’re not protecting kids, they’re protecting Christian control over kids (pay attention to who’s actually doing all the child sex abuse)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      102 months ago

      This bill is unconstitutional, but we’ll have to wait and see if the insurrection-appointed SCOTUS will do their job or if this is like a gifted RV sort of ruling.

      • @5too
        link
        English
        46
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It also calls being gay “sexual conduct,” which critics say could set up the state for more censorship of LGBT+ citizens.

        As in, they can use anti-porn measures to block information from kids about homosexuality in general.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -34
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’m confused. Wouldn’t heterosexuality be sexual conduct too? And also block information about heterosexuality of the same nature to kids? How is this specially anti gay

          The only way this could be considered anti gay if we’re inferring the people in control choose what to block and are homophobic and biased enough to only block homosexual content. That’ll fucking explode if it happened.

          Also, porn is fucking unstoppable there will be plenty of all kinds of porn for all to see. No worries

          • @MetaCubed
            link
            31
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            TL;DR: IANAL, however, the document this bill references to define what content is harmful to children directly, verbatim defines sexual conduct as including “homosexuality” broadly

            Okay so this bill is SB394 (linked above obviously) and it opens with the following

            Any commercial entity that knowingly shares or distributes material that is harmful to minors on a website and such material appears on 25% or more of the webpages viewed on such website in any calendar month, or that knowingly hosts such website (…)

            It carries on to later define “harmful to minors” in section h-3 as the following:

            (3) “Harmful to minors” means the same as defined in K.S.A. 21-6402, and amendments thereto.

            If we go look at K.S.A. 21-6402 we can find that it is regarding “Promotion to minors of material harmful to minors” and goes on to declare in section d-2 that “harmful to minors” refers to several things including sexual conduct (I’m omitting this full quote for brevity, you can find it in the linked document).

            Now if we look a little further down, we can see that Kansas currently defines sexual content as defined in section d-8:

            (8) “sexual conduct” means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals or pubic area or buttocks or with a human female’s breast; and (…)

            Considering all this, i think extremely reasonable to believe that this could outlaw LGBTQ+ content from being displayed openly online within Kansas

            Edit: fixed sexual conduct/content mixups

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              6
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I’m going to assume your repeating typos of “content” and “conduct” are accidental and you meant the same word for all times you used one of them…

              Holy shit why the fuck is homosexuality in section d-8. It’s an easy fix to just delete that one word.

              Thanks for sharing and with such detail, honestly you’ve really outlined the issue and helped me see. The sexual conduct definition is horrendous

              • @brlemworld
                link
                72 months ago

                Why would they do that? The whole bill was made specifically to include that word.

              • @MetaCubed
                link
                22 months ago

                Whoops, Yes it was a little past 1am when I wrote that I must’ve gotten them mixed up which switching back and forth between the documents. I’ll double check and correct that in a moment.

                I’m sincerely glad you actually read it all, the world can be a little fucked right now.

          • @chronicledmonocle
            link
            252 months ago

            Yes, but if you only enforce the rules for “dirty homosexuals”, it effectively is an anti-gay bill. Conservatives have proven time and time again that they’re happy to selectively apply the rule of law in any way that suits them.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -22
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Big “if” in my opinion but I’m not a US citizen so I can’t really say I’m sure about that.

              The bill is a load of shit either way, the world is changing, you can’t shield minors from porn.

              • @chronicledmonocle
                link
                222 months ago

                I am a US citizen. I can assure you it’ll be abused because similar bills already have been.

              • @ysjet
                link
                English
                142 months ago

                It’s not an ‘if’, it’s an absolute guarentee. This isn’t a new play, this has been their gameplan every single time they do these sort of things.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  So according to the comments here, the entire American judicial system is homophobic.

                  I’m glad I’m not American, how awful.

  • @flames5123
    link
    642 months ago

    How will verification be done? Are they making the websites foot the bill for verification, which pornhub is super against, or are they going to make a centralized device verification, like how Louisiana did, allowing its residents to access pornhub again?

    How is the 25% decided? Public content or private, like a Dropbox system? 25% by file size, length (how are pictures counted here), or just per item (would a gallery or picture be the item here)?

    These legislatures know NOTHING about technology and how it all works and are just doing this for censorship and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

    • @pete_the_cat
      link
      English
      282 months ago

      “Are you over 18?”

      “Yep!”

      • @bitchkat
        link
        English
        12
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m 124 years old. Assuming the website lets you enter 1900 as the birth year.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        82 months ago

        I wouldn’t be so sure, in some countries they want your drivers license or credit card info lol.

        There are some sites I don’t use anymore because of these changes

  • @ExcursionInversion
    link
    English
    522 months ago

    Going to repost this

    They want to ban it nationwide

    Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered

    -A Promise to America", Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 5, Project 2025

    • FenrirIII
      link
      162 months ago

      So, holding onto all those old Playboy magazines can be considered an investment. My wife can’t argue that!

    • @Mirshe
      link
      12 months ago

      Not just ban it, but completely outlaw it in the old sense of the word. Anyone who they claim “purveys” or “produces” porn could be on The List (you know the one). Of course, these terms will be defined in the broadest terms (one could likely assume they already have all the bills for this written on some legal expert’s hard drive as we speak, just waiting to be delivered to whoever they want to introduce it), and will be applied to pretty much anyone that they wish gone, at any time they wish them to disappear. Did you draw something mildly NSFW in your notebook when you were 12? That’s production. Did you write slashfic back in freshman year? Yup, you go on The List.

      This also conveniently leaves the door open to class sex education material as “pornography”, which several states have already done (these states are generally testbeds for later national propositions).

  • Noble Shift
    link
    352 months ago

    Ah yes, more hard ad reads for Nordvpn incoming …

  • Admiral Patrick
    link
    fedilink
    English
    33
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Seems pretty easy to work around.

    If a porn site has 10,000 videos, just add 2,501 non porn videos (just use public domain stuff) and make a button to hide those. Scale those numbers up/down as needed.

    Just add a bunch of junk LLM-generated videos to pad out the content so that the number of actual porn videos remains 25% of the total. Then just provide a button to hide those AI-generated junk videos.

    • @SpaceNoodle
      link
      222 months ago

      No, they’d need 30,001 non-porn videos.

      • @EdibleFriend
        link
        30
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Are there even that many NON-porn videos on the internet?

          • Pennomi
            link
            English
            42 months ago

            Hell, keep the cat videos and remove the porn. Everybody loves cats.

            • Admiral Patrick
              link
              fedilink
              English
              13
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Paraphrased from a wise man on an old TV show (Scrubs):

              Dr Cox: If they removed porn from the internet, there would only be one website left: www dot BringBackThePorn dot com

              • @EdibleFriend
                link
                52 months ago

                Everybody but Tim loves cats. And the internet hates Tim.

                • tim-clark
                  link
                  fedilink
                  22 months ago

                  The internet is full of blanket statements, not everyone loves cats. Tim has a love/hate relationship with cats, just like people some are sweet but they are all assholes.

          • BirdEnjoyer
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            What do you mean “But”? Its definitely an “And” scenario. Cat videos are a boon to all involved, right?

            Or am I too ace to understand the syntax

        • Kbin_space_program
          link
          fedilink
          32 months ago

          Time to make and market a package of 30,000 10 frame long 100 pixel x 100 pixel random videos.

      • Admiral Patrick
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 months ago

        Edibles and math don’t mix for me, lol

        Still, just host 30,001 public domain videos or let some LLM generate videos automatically to keep the ratio in check.

        I’m all about malicious compliance for stupid laws like this.

      • @5too
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        And this is why we need AI-generated content! Gotta pad those numbers!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Any commercial entity that knowingly shares or distributes material that is harmful to minors on a website and such material appears on 25% or more of the webpages viewed on such website in any calendar month

      (emphasis mine)

      They can host as many non-porn videos as they want but it doesn’t matter if people aren’t watching those videos. For every webpage with porn, they’d have to force the user to visit three webpages without porn first.

      • Admiral Patrick
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 months ago

        Doesn’t say “viewed by humans in any calendar month”, so there’s still a loophole.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        32 months ago

        In other words, you’ll be forced to watch three videos that you don’t want to see, in order to see one that you do.

        Sounds so familiar…

      • @thesporkeffect
        link
        12 months ago

        Doesn’t say how long the view time was. Just set 3 quick page redirects before rendering adult content

    • @ChocoboRocket
      link
      5
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Might want to check your math, 25% is the maximum ‘adult content’ allowed.

      To use your numbers, a business with 10,000 videos would need +7,500 of them being non-porn to be under 25% and not be fined.

  • @samus12345
    link
    English
    212 months ago

    It also calls being gay “sexual conduct”

    Okay, as long as it’s illegal for everyone else other than asexual people to exist as well.

  • @werefreeatlast
    link
    192 months ago

    Get ready for the real life lesson 😉. Mamma and Daddy are going to have to explain all sorts of stuff about birds and bees.

    Daddy, what is a DP gangbang? Mom, my BF wants a threesome, is that a soda? No, we don’t have sex, we only lick.

    It’s going to be perfect! And then those sexual retards are going to migrate to LA one day. Or maybe they go to Vegas for their wedding.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    72 months ago

    Article is pay-walled. Does it say how many legislators voted for it?

    I highly doubt the democratic governor would sign this bill. Does it have enough to override a veto?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      162 months ago

      While the Kansas state legislature is almost entirely Republican, they don’t tend to override the governor’s veto too frequently as they are not as lock step due to having all the power.

      Without checking the numbers, this seem like the kind of thing they would let the governor’s veto atand so they can use it against her in the next election.

    • @Tinks
      link
      32 months ago

      There is a veto-proof majority. Governor hasn’t announced what she plans to do yet

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    32 months ago

    IDGAF about visitors I just want the people in the porno to be of age and I don’t feel like it’s being adequately enforced.