Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

> These people will never actually ban pornography

Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay.

> If this was actually about porn on the internet, they'd be demanding Playboy get shut down, or PornHub. They're not

...

You have it backwards, Pornhub preemptively blocked access based on geolocation before the bills even passed.

Note that pornography is not banned here in Texas at least. You just have to provide age verification, and PH elected not to participate in that process. It doesn’t seem like that wild a thing at face value.

So Pornhub hates money and traffic?

Of course not. Pornhub blocked these IP because they knew it was going to be (and is now) illegal in those states, at least at its current form. I see it no different from said states banning Pornhub.

Pornhub did it in protest[1], hope this helps.

[1] https://www.abc4.com/news/tech-social-media/pornhub-blocks-a...

Breaking news: VPN stocks skyrocket.

The bills still passed so what's your point? The protest failed.

That you have it backwards, because you do. Pornhub preemptively blocked states that were considering implementing ID rules, and states are not actively blocking Pornhub.

You don't seem to grasp the argument.

From above:

> These people will never actually ban pornography

> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay

You then say, well actually they weren't blocked by the states, they were blocked by the sites themselves to protest a bill that passed.

The issue is this clarification is totally irrelevant given the context of the above comment.

The root comment claims in this domain, the right wing is targeting "anything other than heterosexuality". Not sure what their evidence of that claim is. I would think anyone with even a basic familiarity re the right-wing American culture warrior would know this isn't the case. They are simply following the standard far right modus operandi, which is to start their cultural attack on the most vulnerable at the margins where it is easiest.

Similarly, passing age verification is essentially a strategy to enact an effective ban, because it is a demand that cannot be met and is easier to pass than an outright ban. So the comment suggesting it's not serious to suggest this is simply or _only_ about "anything other than heterosexuality" is correct, or at least, not impeached by your conclusion they have it backwards by essentially hyperfocusing on some rather irrelevant pornsite protest tactic which entirely misses the point. If anything, the fact they passed the bills after the self initiated “bans” simply bolsters the rejoinder to the root comment.

Here's the OP I'm responding to:

> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay.

Note the word "literally" in the statement that US state are literally blocking Pornhub.

That is not the case. Pornhub blocked the states preemptively, not the other way around.

Hope this helps.

Thanks. Can't put it as eloquently myself.

I get it and yes, you are technically correct that they are not "literally blocking" it. I just hope you can also see where I'm coming from. In context of the larger comment thread your reply felt like a nitpick that missed the point, and focused on that nitpick to the detriment of the larger point of that OP, which imo has some merit. Or at least some merit you didn't address. But I understand you are correct on this particular point. As a suggestion, maybe next time you could reply more as providing context rather than seeming to suggest their entire take was "backwards". Thanks for replying.