What’s weird is, from my reading of the law in question, a minor using either a VPN or a stolen ID card to access PornHub is a violation. . . for PornHub.
That seems a little wonky to me.
Similar to FOSTA-SESTA, I'd guess that de facto recriminalizing sex work is largely seen as, at an absolute minimum, a happy side effect by the bill's authors.
Spot on comparison!
From my reading, this is just another attempt to bypass 1st Amendment by allowing a civil suit against a porn-merchant by members of the public: if the entity imposing censorship isn't the government, then it doesn't fall foul of the 1st.
you can just enable the camera and show your ID and someone on the other side will check if that's you /s
My guess would be: more visitors to <insert any other easily accessible porn site or download client here> from Utah?
You would be surprised how many are owned by the same parent company as Pornhub. Mindgeek own a massive amount of the internet's porn.
Is the (self-imposed) block Mindgeek-wide or just PornHub? Judging by the articles about it, it seems to just be PornHub (for now).
Yes. Though I suspect a lot of users know the site by reputation and may not specifically know others other than indirectly when they search (google/bing) or are linked to them from elsewhere (reddit, etc.). For those people the constant VPN advertising via sponsorship of podcasts and youtube channels will attract a number of users. The other porn sites can't advertise in those mediums.
I was thinking about this. Do sites like Pornhub use DRM in their players? Asking because AFAIK browsers will pass a network ID that does not change when DRM is used. In Firefox it is in "about:networking#networkid" and they don't make it easy to change that. I believe Chrome has something similar. I think it also uses serial numbers? Could be I am mixing up identifiers used in DRM vs. browser specific integrations.
This is part of Pornhub's counterproposal: Verify user ID on client side, pair with deice, and approve device ID for adult services.
I'm not sure that's relevant. I assume you're suggesting that a user who had accessed the site from Utah could be perpetually flagged as someone who should be blocked. However, that would mean visitors to Utah or anyone no longer residing there could be permanently blacklisted unnecessarily.
I'm not actually sure what I am suggesting to be honest. I just had these little voices in the back of my head saying to finish researching the various identifiers used by DRM. And I think you are right, if such things were used then people might have to prove they moved and it would be a PITA for everyone involved.
I don't believe they use DRM.
My EARN IT Not a VPN traffic mover is in stealth mode