|
Post by Vibroluxer on Mar 16, 2024 10:06:33 GMT -5
My unimportant 2 cents is that I don't own the platform so why should I be entitled to free speech on it? Someone took the risk to create an Internet platform, why should others dictate to the entrepreneur what to do with it? But then I think, what if the platform allowed someone to post The Anarchists Cookbook. Then I say a little censorship is a good idea but then where to draw the line. But then who gets the censorship? The creator of the post or the platform? I'm still with no free speech, if you don't like it, make your own. Someone did.
This isn't a new question and the only thing I'm certain of is that, in the end, there are gonna be a lot of unhappy people one way or the other.
PS: I bounced this off of Mr. Fitz and he gave it the ok. I want to know your honest opinions because this place has pretty sharp members. Well, only those that agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by markfromhawaii on Mar 16, 2024 12:27:41 GMT -5
I’m no legal expert but it seems there are a couple standards to test if free speech is constitutionally protected unless posing an “imminent lawless action” and “clear and present danger”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
|
|
Dave
Halfnote
Posts: 56
Formerly Known As: Belgarath
|
Post by Dave on Mar 16, 2024 12:38:01 GMT -5
IMHO, I consider it to be generally a case of "My house, my rules." with websites, but within the letter of the law as to what can be published. That leaves an ocean of black, white, and grey to navigate and for people to pick and choose what they want to participate in.
For the sake of argument, in today's world, if a user publishes a recipe from that cookbook and another user uses that information to injure others in some way, who could be held liable for those injuries, be they physical, financial or otherwise? Obviously, the person who did the injury is responsible, but can the victims or law enforcement not also go after the persons who provided or disseminated the how-to information? I don't want to get political, but there are examples of such litigation and prosecution, not necessarily related to the internet, but precedents exist.
If that's not the sort of thing you are thinking of for the discussion, please ignore!
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Mar 16, 2024 12:45:53 GMT -5
My take is, it is the Government that is not allowed to control free speech.
The old adage, “you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater” is not at all true.
You can yell anything you want.
If your action causes harm you will very likely be held to account for the harm you imposed.
|
|
|
Post by funkykikuchiyo on Mar 16, 2024 12:46:12 GMT -5
This is one of the on-going questions, and comes back to a weird legal distinction: is an internet company a media company, or are they a communications provider? If they're a media company, then they can censor whatever they want. A magazine editor decides what goes to print and what doesn't. No big deal. But, if they're a communications provider, then they're infringing on the free speech of others. Back in the day the phone company couldn't say phone conversations about X or Y weren't allowed and disconnect your phone if you talked about those things. Right now tech companies want the best of both worlds. They want the control of being a media company, but don't want the culpability if something goes wrong. So, YouTube wants to be able to take down videos and channels whenever they want, but if someone uploads something nuts, they want to say "hey, we're just a communications platform" when someone wants to hold them accountable. This is the cat & mouse game underlying a lot of these congressional hearings, and what government is holding over the tech executives heads each time. It is why they are very rarely bold and outspoken in these hearings.
In my mind, the two biggest problems are a bit different. First, internet companies are disproportionately located in certain areas and populated by people with certain beliefs. To say it is monocultural is a HUGE understatement. The ideas of what is acceptable and "safe" have been truly bizarre at times, and really only works when everyone in the room believes the same thing... or at least, enough of a majority to intimidate everyone else. Recently there was a story about how Google's new AI program wouldn't do pictures of white people. You could ask for something like vikings or polka dancers or the signing of the declaration of independence, and it still wouldn't generate white people. One hypothesis I read was that the rooms where this stuff was discussed were SO monocultural that it was an emperor's new clothes situation and no one wanted to be THAT guy to point it out. It is inevitable that speech rules are regulated in a very lopsided way. In the same way, if every radio station was run by some evangelical preacher that called everything other than mashed potatoes satanic, you better believe you wouldn't have heard any rock and roll. Sure, if it is their radio station they can do what they want, but the problem here isn't what they do with their radio station, but an odd scenario where only evangelical preachers own the stations.
Second, internet and tech are inherently monopolistic. No one wants to use the third best search engine. The big companies either buy or destroy competition very quickly. Their power (under current law) to do this is ridiculously strong. Remember Parlor? There was a moral panic around it, app stores (of which there really are only two, Apple and Google) removed it, and it died in a week. Mods here can decide what can and can't be said, but if we set up an anti-Moe's where we could talk about all of the stuff the mods here don't allow, the mods can't bully the other forum into ceasing to exist.
|
|
|
Post by Vibroluxer on Mar 16, 2024 12:48:40 GMT -5
IMHO, I consider it to be generally a case of "My house, my rules." with websites, but within the letter of the law as to what can be published. That leaves an ocean of black, white, and grey to navigate and for people to pick and choose what they want to participate in. For the sake of argument, in today's world, if a user publishes a recipe from that cookbook and another user uses that information to injure others in some way, who could be held liable for those injuries, be they physical, financial or otherwise? Obviously, the person who did the injury is responsible, but can the victims or law enforcement not also go after the persons who provided or disseminated the how-to information? I don't want to get political, but there are examples of such litigation and prosecution, not necessarily related to the internet, but precedents exist. If that's not the sort of thing you are thinking of for the discussion, please ignore! Perfect!! I really meant it when I look forward to comments from this particular group. Yinz are pretty bright.
|
|
|
Post by Taildragger on Mar 16, 2024 12:52:10 GMT -5
My unimportant 2 cents is that I don't own the platform so why should I be entitled to free speech on it? ^this^ Provided, that is, that said platform isn't the only one available (hypothetically speaking).
If someone doesn't allow cursing in his house, don't curse. If you can't abide by that rule, go to the house of someone else who does allow cursing. Or go to the local dive bar.
I suppose that that metaphor is not the best one possible since, unlike a homeowner, most internet platforms are trying to monetize by attracting sponsors who might not want their brand to be "sullied" by association with cursing.
But that doesn't change my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 16, 2024 14:37:21 GMT -5
The thing is that you're thinking from an impractical perspective.
Sure, I can "start a site."
Minute it gets traffic, the pressure campaigns start. The host gets pressured to remove it. Cloudflare and its ilk cancel my DDOS protections. I'm under attack by a zillion activist hacker-types who will never face ANY retribution for doing same.
I can't take money from Paypal or other payment processors because.. I do wrongthink.
I get doxxed. My staff get doxxed and threatened, their families fired.
Can you see where this is going?
It's asymmetrical warfare and 'free speech" is a lie.
Those you can't criticize tell you who's truly in charge, as always.
For the record, I got canned from Twitter/X AFTER Elon bought it - for 'instigating targeted harassment" - which i honestly never did - why would I outsource my amusement? Wrongthink killed me, no chance of appeal.
I'm a tier one prohibited person (see Intercept's expose on the FB categories and lists) for my religious affiliations alone.
You can mention me, as long as it's two minute hate. You can't question why I'm banned, or mention it - or you get my ban STD too.
For those on the fringes, it's UGLY.
|
|
|
Post by Leftee on Mar 16, 2024 17:08:17 GMT -5
I thought Elon had it all figured out. 😂
|
|
|
Post by Leftee on Mar 16, 2024 19:16:33 GMT -5
In my mind free speech is more a mores/social norm. If someone has to be the authority over it, there isn’t free speech.
If the average person can’t comprehend that someone might hurt their feelings and that that’s ok, then it’s lost.
|
|
|
Post by Taildragger on Mar 16, 2024 19:41:09 GMT -5
If the average person can’t comprehend that someone might hurt their feelings and that that’s ok, then it’s lost. Guess not everybody "puts on their big boy pants"...
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 17, 2024 1:30:24 GMT -5
I thought Elon had it all figured out. 😂 Elon bowed and scraped to the same interests as the rest. He's just a six year old crapposter.
|
|
DrKev
Wholenote
It's just a guitar, it's not rocket science.
Posts: 418
|
Post by DrKev on Mar 17, 2024 8:44:23 GMT -5
The old adage, “you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater” is not at all true. Yes, and in fact that very adage was used in court against freedom of speech by the government in Schenk vs US (1919). Schenk printed and distributed flyers urging people to resist the military draft, which the government convicted and jailed him for under the espionage act. SCOTUS unanimously UPHELD the conviction, a result widely regarded today as entirely wrong. As a result there were many other similar convictions under both the espionage and sedition acts. It was not until 1969 (yes, 1969) that Brandenburg vs US overturned Schenk when SCOTUS ruled that the government cannot punish speech it does not like unless such speech was directed to incite, and likely to produce, imminent lawless action. And constitutional experts argue constantly about what that means in practice ever since. But one thing that most people most places will agree on is that only government should be forbidden from limiting speech. Nobody else has to give anyone a platform or venue to say whatever they like. That everyone has the same rights to freedom of speech must includes the right to respond, to fact-check, to criticize, to ridicule and mock, to shame and shun, and also the rights of the owners of a website or venue or dwelling to say "no, you cannot say or discuss certain things here". As a proud US citizen who grew up an equally proud Irishman and European (where in most countries holocaust denial or hate speech can get you jailed or deported) I sit uneasily between the differences between the two cultures, and even a little outside both. I definitely go with the "what's good for the goose..." doctrine - all rights or responsibilities, freedoms and restrictions, that apply to me must also apply equally to everyone else at all times. That means no matter who they are, when or where they come from, what language they speak, color of their skin, rich or poor, male or female or anything else, no matter what god or gods they worship, able or disabled, gay straight or neither or both, rap or rock, country or western, stinky or clean, we all get and insist on exactly same rights and responsibilities always and forever. Nobody is special. I realize that's a slightly outside view for most Europeans and Americans, who generally draw limits at least on the "when" if not the "where they came from". BUT I also don't want antisemites or white supremacists or homophobes walking down my street threatening the freedoms or lives of people I love and value or even people I don't even know. I find it hard really hard to swallow that it is somehow a negative to society to prevent people spreading hatred. The "marketplace of ideas" is steaming pile of nonsense direct from the back end of large male livestock when outright lies and fear require far less energy to spread than they do to counter and debunk. But I'm uneasy because I know that human beings are creative in horrible ways and interested parties will always find energy (and cash) to argue around laws for selfish or nefarious ends.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 17, 2024 8:49:49 GMT -5
As a proud US citizen who grew up an equally proud Irishman and European (where in most countries holocaust denial or hate speech can get you jailed or deported) I sit uneasily between the differences between the two cultures, and even a little outside both. I definitely go with the "what's good for the goose..." doctrine - all rights or responsibilities, freedoms and restrictions, that apply to me must also apply equally to everyone else at all times. That means no matter who they are, when or where they come from, what language they speak, color of their skin, rich or poor, male or female or anything else, no matter what god or gods they worship, able or disabled, gay straight or neither or both, rap or rock, country or western, stinky or clean, we all get and insist on exactly same rights and responsibilities always and forever. Nobody is special. I realize that's a slightly outside view for most Europeans and Americans, who generally draw limits at least on the "when" if not the "where they came from". BUT I also don't want antisemites or white supremacists or homophobes walking down my street threatening the freedoms or lives of people I love and value or even people I don't even know. I find it hard really hard to swallow that it is somehow a negative to society to prevent people spreading hatred. The "marketplace of ideas" is steaming pile of nonsense direct from the back end of large male livestock when outright lies and fear require far less energy to spread than they do to counter and debunk. But I'm uneasy because I know that human beings are creative in horrible ways and interested parties will always find energy (and cash) to argue around laws for selfish or nefarious ends. The former and the latter don't add up. If you have the right to speak, so do the people you hate. Ironically, the folks I know in those groups (and yes, I know them) - don't deny that right to ANYONE either. It's straw man. "Spreading hatred" is relative, ain't i? And the gov't has colluded time and time again (outside the US too!) to stifle free speech - they have a compelling power that we don't have as citizens. I support the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie, and the right of people to ...insult them right back. I do not support the "right" to not be offended, which seems to be the line for "anti-semitism" et al these days.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 17, 2024 11:08:44 GMT -5
I don't agree with any form of censorship.
Once you allow a thing to be banned it opens up the door for other things to be banned. Which then leads to things like getting extra jail time for calling someone a name when you kick the crap out of them.
Someone mentioned the "cool book". That and others like it should not be banned in a free society.
The internet should be free and open. I have mixed thought about site owners censoring topics. On one hand it is necessary to keep order or being family friendly. However banning current topics or events like we had to a few years ago is over the top.
The internet is like the town crier, he should be able to shout out any crazy crap he wants. We don't have to listen nor do we have to agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 17, 2024 11:15:52 GMT -5
I don't agree with any form of censorship. Once you allow a thing to be banned it opens up the door for other things to be banned. Which then leads to things like getting extra jail time for calling someone a name when you kick the crap out of them. Someone mentioned the "cool book". That and others like it should not be banned in a free society. The internet should be free and open. I have mixed thought about site owners censoring topics. On one hand it is necessary to keep order or being family friendly. However banning current topics or events like we had to a few years ago is over the top. The internet is like the town crier, he should be able to shout out any crazy crap he wants. We don't have to listen nor do we have to agree with it. Yeah the "sentence enhancement" - the range in an existing criminal penalty range INCLUDES motive, it doesn't need an add-on "dislike crime." And as far as site owners, it depends on scale. If they've approached common carrier realm (or are using the immunity clause meant for internet providers, they shouldn't be allowed to censor by viewpoint etc). In this day age of 'personalized everything", just require "sensitive topic" or whatever tag - and let the people who are easily offended click the "don't show me X" button. That level of stuff I'm relatively ok with but that's where it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Taildragger on Mar 17, 2024 12:01:17 GMT -5
*Taildragger scurries around desperately searching for his "safe space"*
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 17, 2024 12:14:55 GMT -5
*Taildragger scurries around desperately searching for his "safe space"* DUCK AND COVER, BOY. DUCK AND MOTHERLOVING COVER!
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 17, 2024 12:17:43 GMT -5
You are entitled to free speech in that the government cannot take action against you for what you say, except in limited circumstances.
You have no such right vis a vis private citizens. The owner of an internet site (or the admin of your favorite guitar message board) is 100% within their rights to limit what kind of “speech” is allowed, and you as the end user have the right to either follow those rules, or not participate.
The concept that “I can say whatever I want on social media because I have freedom of speech” is a fallacy.
I will point out, in defense of myself and this forum, that we discussed the rules regarding what is or is not allowed at the very beginning, and the people wanted the same rules as the FDP had. So that is what we have. If at any point anyone wants to discuss changing that, there is a section of the board for such suggestions. I’m not saying that was suggested, just pointing out that the option has been there.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 17, 2024 12:30:34 GMT -5
You are entitled to free speech in that the government cannot take action against you for what you say, except in limited circumstances. You have no such right vis a vis private citizens. The owner of an internet site (or the admin of your favorite guitar message board) is 100% within their rights to limit what kind of “speech” is allowed, and you as the end user have the right to either follow those rules, or not participate. The concept that “I can say whatever I want on social media because I have freedom of speech” is a fallacy. I will point out, in defense of myself and this forum, that we discussed the rules regarding what is or is not allowed at the very beginning, and the people wanted the same rules as the FDP had. So that is what we have. If at any point anyone wants to discuss changing that, there is a section of the board for such suggestions. I’m not saying that was suggested, just pointing out that the option has been there. That's why I note the difference on "common carrier" - like YOU can do it, but I'd have an issue if Proboards did or Facebook did. They're the 'common carrier."
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 17, 2024 12:49:26 GMT -5
You are entitled to free speech in that the government cannot take action against you for what you say, except in limited circumstances. You have no such right vis a vis private citizens. The owner of an internet site (or the admin of your favorite guitar message board) is 100% within their rights to limit what kind of “speech” is allowed, and you as the end user have the right to either follow those rules, or not participate. The concept that “I can say whatever I want on social media because I have freedom of speech” is a fallacy. I will point out, in defense of myself and this forum, that we discussed the rules regarding what is or is not allowed at the very beginning, and the people wanted the same rules as the FDP had. So that is what we have. If at any point anyone wants to discuss changing that, there is a section of the board for such suggestions. I’m not saying that was suggested, just pointing out that the option has been there. That's why I note the difference on "common carrier" - like YOU can do it, but I'd have an issue if Proboards did or Facebook did. They're the 'common carrier." Honestly, it’s the same thing. You sign up, and you agree to their terms. If you don’t like their terms, you don’t have to participate. Both Facebook and ProBoards have the right to govern what is or is not acceptable on their platforms. The contact that they are big corporate entities as opposed to just a dude like me doesn’t change that.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 17, 2024 12:57:30 GMT -5
That's why I note the difference on "common carrier" - like YOU can do it, but I'd have an issue if Proboards did or Facebook did. They're the 'common carrier." Honestly, it’s the same thing. You sign up, and you agree to their terms. If you don’t like their terms, you don’t have to participate. Both Facebook and ProBoards have the right to govern what is or is not acceptable on their platforms. The contact that they are big corporate entities as opposed to just a dude like me doesn’t change that. You're mistaking my point. I'm not going for the 'free speech' angle there - but that the 'common carrier" standard should apply to the big players - content neutral, since they have immunity themselves for hosting X, Y, and Z.
|
|
|
Post by funkykikuchiyo on Mar 17, 2024 14:16:21 GMT -5
There's also the bit about the Twitter files, where we found out that three letter agencies and administration officials were in communication with social media companies advising them what to take down. It was under the guise of them offering intelligence/security advice, but also had clear political interests/consequences. It was certainly against the spirit of the law, even if they found some loophole. There was a congressional hearing, but since most people at the hearing held the journalists in contempt, it really didn't go anywhere. Don't expect investigations any time soon. I don't think we'll really know where government ends and tech begins with these decisions. Go see the "conspiracy theory" thread for more information.
There is no right not to be offended, which is why we get safetyism. You can't say "I disagree with that, haul them away", but you can pretend it makes you "feel unsafe". Yeah, Elon is overrated as a 21st century intellectual, but the before and after of his purchase needs to be recognized. Before he took over, people could (and often were) kicked off for "misgendering" and "dead naming". Did you see the pronouns in my bio and use them correctly? Did you keep track that I changed my name last week and wish to be called by the new name? Oh, you used something else? Well, I felt unsafe and that is violence and hate speech, which is a violation of terms of service... and we don't want violence, right? If you keep using my wrong name my buddies will come over and smash your head in and I can announce that online because we're victims of a genocide, but you're going to get removed for violence. Elon's policy moved to a more sane approach of ACTUAL threats of safety, and the world has changed as a result. I remember people exuberantly being able to speak in plain language (not hate speech, just not covered in euphemisms) and people who had 4-5 burner accounts (often journalists) who wanted to report on these things could finally just go back to their original account. In intellectual/political circles, people have to defend their positions now, not just declare the opposite side is violence. This has had downstream effects of real cultural change.
I agree with Rob that the losing side of that has been far, far more resilient, and also would agree that those who were crying "snowflake" for years are now, in fact, behaving like "snowflakes". But, those losing side people are ALSO losing now, because their popularity to begin with was only that they were the only ones big enough to risk themselves saying things. Now that you can say these things in broad daylight, their heroic shine has worn off. All the more reason to support their speech!
|
|
kfay
Halfnote
Posts: 89
|
Post by kfay on Mar 17, 2024 14:24:51 GMT -5
I remember the Usenet days when the internet was truly wild, free and uncensored.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 17, 2024 14:40:12 GMT -5
I remember the Usenet days when the internet was truly wild, free and uncensored. Alt.groups.whose.name.I.cant.even.mention
|
|
|
Post by funkykikuchiyo on Mar 17, 2024 14:43:27 GMT -5
I remember the Usenet days when the internet was truly wild, free and uncensored. Yeah, and that will never return. I think the Community Notes on Twitter are kinda amazing and work WAY better than they should. I also think it is up to journalists to regain trust - people go online when journalists seem full of poop emojis, but most would prefer to go to a regular news source. There also isn't much distinction between censorship and just making things okay for kids. Right now PornHub is being pushed to make sure they do age verification, and they're crying about how it is puritanical censorship and will hurt their business. They rage quit and removed their site from a few different states, probably hoping their user base would make a stir. It is kinda crazy for them to say out loud that keeping KIDS off of PornHub will hurt business. But, if you want to keep kids off of those sites or even to stay off of them yourselves you have to fight to be able to do it, by getting the filters and so on. I always think of the video stores when I was a kid. The dirty movies were right there, any adult could go and get what they wanted. There was a curtain so grandma didn't have to walk about "Hot Wet Sluts 17" on her way to find Anne of Green Gables, they weren't mixed in with Disney, and the odds of a kid wandering in there were pretty low. Why not just a "video store curtain" for the internet? Whether that counts as "censorship" or not, I'm not sure. I don't think so. Frank Zappa conceded that parenting was a good reason to be able to separate out certain things, but also felt that "but think of the children" was too much of an excuse for adults to censor things they just didn't like for children OR adults.
|
|
|
Post by Vibroluxer on Mar 17, 2024 15:03:34 GMT -5
There's also the bit about the Twitter files, where we found out that three letter agencies and administration officials were in communication with social media companies advising them what to take down. It was under the guise of them offering intelligence/security advice, but also had clear political interests/consequences. It was certainly against the spirit of the law, even if they found some loophole. There was a congressional hearing, but since most people at the hearing held the journalists in contempt, it really didn't go anywhere. Don't expect investigations any time soon. I don't think we'll really know where government ends and tech begins with these decisions. Go see the "conspiracy theory" thread for more information. There is no right not to be offended, which is why we get safetyism. You can't say "I disagree with that, haul them away", but you can pretend it makes you "feel unsafe". Yeah, Elon is overrated as a 21st century intellectual, but the before and after of his purchase needs to be recognized. Before he took over, people could (and often were) kicked off for "misgendering" and "dead naming". Did you see the pronouns in my bio and use them correctly? Did you keep track that I changed my name last week and wish to be called by the new name? Oh, you used something else? Well, I felt unsafe and that is violence and hate speech, which is a violation of terms of service... and we don't want violence, right? If you keep using my wrong name my buddies will come over and smash your head in and I can announce that online because we're victims of a genocide, but you're going to get removed for violence. Elon's policy moved to a more sane approach of ACTUAL threats of safety, and the world has changed as a result. I remember people exuberantly being able to speak in plain language (not hate speech, just not covered in euphemisms) and people who had 4-5 burner accounts (often journalists) who wanted to report on these things could finally just go back to their original account. In intellectual/political circles, people have to defend their positions now, not just declare the opposite side is violence. This has had downstream effects of real cultural change. I agree with Rob that the losing side of that has been far, far more resilient, and also would agree that those who were crying "snowflake" for years are now, in fact, behaving like "snowflakes". But, those losing side people are ALSO losing now, because their popularity to begin with was only that they were the only ones big enough to risk themselves saying things. Now that you can say these things in broad daylight, their heroic shine has worn off. All the more reason to support their speech! Wow!! I didnt know that about Twitter. Man, I like this place so much more than the FDP.
|
|
|
Post by Vibroluxer on Mar 17, 2024 15:10:27 GMT -5
Frank Zappa conceded that parenting was a good reason to be able to separate out certain things, but also felt that "but think of the children" was too much of an excuse for adults to censor things they just didn't like for children OR adults.[/quote]
Ah the days of newsgroups. Quite the education I got from those.
Regarding Pornhub and the like, yes it's nice if age verification was present but that's easily fooled and, more importantly, keeping my kids off is Pornhub is my job. You can't complain about others not doing there job if I'm not doing the most important job there is.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 17, 2024 15:17:49 GMT -5
Frank Zappa conceded that parenting was a good reason to be able to separate out certain things, but also felt that "but think of the children" was too much of an excuse for adults to censor things they just didn't like for children OR adults. Ah the days of newsgroups. Quite the education I got from those. Regarding Pornhub and the like, yes it's nice if age verification was present but that's easily fooled and, more importantly, keeping my kids off is Pornhub is my job. You can't complain about others not doing there job if I'm not doing the most important job there is.[/quote] Pretty much. Can just put a line in your local hosts file or in the router config - Pornhub dot com et al go to 127.0.0.1 - it won't serve it.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 17, 2024 17:13:00 GMT -5
It is kinda crazy for them to say out loud that keeping KIDS off of PornHub will hurt business. Lots of adults look at these sites but would never do it if they had to put a CC number to verify age. I seriously doubt the people who run porn sites want kids looking at the content.
|
|