Hacker News Reader

Comment by fgoesbrrr | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

doesn't seem like an apt comparison because a lot of religious advocacy groups behind those laws are explicitly stating that they see it as a means to criminalize sex work, payment providers refusing to serve sex workers, and so on.

Minors under 13 can't legally sign away personal information without a guardian, they're just violating COPPA which has been in power since before Facebook existed.

Sounds like one excellent solution is mandatory ID check on all sites which handle personal information, right?

If someone was genuine about protecting data that is certainly much more sound both legally and it terms of its effectiveness than what these porn laws are. Just an excuse to hound a particular profession by interest groups.

Case in point, it pretty much has only stopped Pornhub from operating, which ironically had better data security and probably took content moderation more seriously than the thousand malware infested pages a search away. But it makes sense of course if the actual goal was to cause economic damage to the industry.

Like...at bars? All it takes is a fake id and away you go

Actually the op changed my mind on the issue. It's a great comparison. I also have no sympathy for sex work because it's not real work.

Curious, is that the only thing you consider not to be “real work”? And what even is “real work”?

There are probably more things I wouldn't consider real work but I don't have a list off the top of my head.

Work you can be compelled to do, if offered a similar income to a previous employer, under penalty of losing state unemployment benefits should only apply to types of "real work" of which "sex work" is not a member.

Or do you think all women on unemployment should lose their benefits if they turn down sex work? Call me puritanical on this topic, I support sex workers but can't get on board with state-sponsored rape.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com