[ipatec]

is their business showing porn to minors? that's their market?

[dragonwriter]

Mandatory age verification adds barriers to adult users and does not effectively prevent children from access, which is the reason that the Third Circuit, in a decision that the Supreme Court declined to hear a government appeal, struck it down as a First Amendment violation the last time the federal government tried it, after the Supreme Court had done so the prior time, and nothing substantial has changed about those facts, and the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth, so there is no reason for a different result when Texas tries to do it now.

[nickthegreek]

This rule affects 100% of the visitors to the site from that state, not just minors. Many adults will not want to give their ID and personal information to a site that could get hacked and then be blackmailed. If you want an internet where you need to show your ID at every door you enter, then we want drastically different things.

[earthboundkid]

I find it completely implausible that the current court will find this to be an undue burden. Sure, if they banned porn, you could probably cobble together a coalition to save it. But the court that doesn’t care about SESTA/FOSTA will not plausibly care about an ID requirement.

[polski-g]

Is it illegal to show a fake ID to a 3rd party, non-governmental business?

[kredd]

It’s interesting how people grow up and pretend they did not watch some sort of pornography in their teens. Most of people in their current 20s/30s, especially the ones with unrestricted internet access has been through it. There’s probably some sort of addiction problem, but I don’t think this will anyhow fix it.

[dontupvoteme]

It was a lot harder when it was on a scrambled TV signal and you shared a computer with everyone.

[belltaco]

Minors don't have credit cards or money to spend so they're actually loss-making because of high bandwidth costs, not sure how that's a market.