[0xcde4c3db]

The commercial incentives around this are also terrible, given that the prevailing assumption is that a private third party will do the attestation as a for-profit service. It's practically guaranteed to add cost and liability for the porn vendor as well as risk of leaks, tracking, and data brokering for the consumer. It may as well have been designed to shut down free porn altogether.

And maybe it was, considering the history of porn regulation in the US. If you look at the requirements and contemporary rhetoric around 18 USC 2257 (yes, the thing that basically all legit porn sites with US operations have a disclaimer for), it was pretty blatantly intended to render the porn industry unable to operate. Porn producers were never actually intended to come into compliance, but rather presumed to be unable to (due to the ridiculous procedures and the supposed omnipresent use of underage, undocumented, and coerced performers).

[Hizonner]

> It may as well have been designed to shut down free porn altogether.

There was and is a fairly coordinated program of shopping this around to various legislative bodies (not only US states). It started maybe two years ago, I think. It didn't just catch on organically.

Some of it seems to be driven/funded by the AV companies, who presumably actually want the verification to happen. But a lot of the legwork and political contacts are provided by organizations that would definitely love to drive every porn site out of business. I doubt they expect to get all of them, or even all the free ones, but, sure, somebody like NCOSE knows that it's a major burden, and absolutely thinks that any damage to adults' access to porn is a positive feature.

It's not obvious that most of the legislators who vote for these things understand the implications at all.

So some of the people you could blame for this legislation definitely have such intentions, but probably not all of them.

> If you look at the requirements and contemporary rhetoric around 18 USC 2257 (yes, the thing that basically all legit porn sites with US operations have a disclaimer for), it was pretty blatantly intended to render the porn industry unable to operate.

Hmm. I'm ready to believe you, but 2257 doesn't seem totally infeasible to comply with in a VHS world. Dangerous to the performers, yes, because it requires tons of people to keep records of who they are and where they live, and those records are pretty much guaranteed to leak and be abused. An expensive nuisance, also yes. A chance to hound anybody who messes up out of business, and threaten them with prison, OK. Obnoxious overreach, sure. But totally impossible to comply with? I'm not sure about that. It actually seems easier than user AV.

The thing that always really got me about 2257 was that the claim was it was supposed to prevent another Traci Lords. They checked Traci Lords' ID. She showed ID. She had a real driver's license (based on a fake birth certificate, but it was the state that was supposed to check that, and anyway it was presumably a good fake). As far as I know, 2257 wouldn't even have slowed Traci Lords down.

[0xcde4c3db]

> Hmm. I'm ready to believe you, but 2257 doesn't seem totally infeasible to comply with in a VHS world.

I'm not saying that it was supposed to be impossible to comply with per se, but rather that it was supposed to be impossible specifically for the porn industry as anti-porn crusaders imagined/alleged it to be at the time. There was a bunch of drug-war-like rhetoric about how porn had become more violent, exploitative, and outright criminal since 1970, when the previous government commission on the subject reported that porn wasn't an important social problem and should not be restricted for adults.