They should do it like Israel. Technically block all pornsites on internet provider level.
So when you book you internet tariff you can simply choose if you want to have it unblocked. It also would be smarter as then also the offshore pirate sites are IP blocked.

Putting the responsibility on pornsite owners seems really to bully them, end of the day most small sites will suffer most and be pushed out of the market and the big players will just get even fatter.

It's not overpriced, it's a vertical market. If the yearly price is too high for you, I can provide it at a monthly price instead, and even give you a free trial so you can make sure it works the way you need it to.

No dude, thats a mistake. Like any other industry, there are regulations to follow which are put in place for pretty good reasons. If you don't want to comply then you are taking chances. Why risk losing your business?

No I'm not. You said "shouldn't the cc processors (CCBill, Epoch, merch accounts, etc) be doing the age verification anyway?". My answer was to that.

Correct. You have to declare, via 2257, that the models are 18. And now, you have to be ready to prove, that *member* Dave Smith is over 18, and you now have to prove that *visitor* Joe Blow from Florida, is an adult too.


It must contain no nudity, and no, descriptions are not fine. Kris Kobach, the Republican (of course) Kansas Attorney General, has sued Met Art (SARJ LC)

https://www.wibw.com/2025/01/14/kris...site-operator/

Besides the image content, Paragraph 22 of the lawsuit says : "22. For illustration, on sexart.com’s “About Us” page, it advertises an “unrivalled collection of erotic 4K movies [that] brings together the best naturally sexy models, so whether you prefer voluptuous sirens or perky cheerleader types, you are sure to find your dream girl in action here.” One can “[w]atch genuine lesbians lick each other to intense orgasms, and horny cuties give their male lovers the ride of their lives. There’s plenty of superb group sex too, as [Defendant’s] adventurous beauties live out their wildest fantasies."



That would be awesome but of course that would not work. You would be making them legally responsible for your content. *You* are the one that has to be responsible for your content. The payment processor isn't selling your content, they are acting as the payment processor only.

As someone who knowingly voted for this to pwn da libz, how are you feeling about this lib industry you're in starting to actually be pwnd now like you voted for?

😎🍿

it´s not going to be like Israel, the world agrees with porn. It´s because too many under age are viewing porno, as said...

ban cell phones & internet without safe guard until 18, then would be ok :2 cents:

this, 100% :thumbsup

the internet was never intended to be child friendly. it is not a place for kids to peruse unsupervised, it never has been.

this is the equivalent of dropping your kid off at a bookstore that contains an adult section then bitching when they wander in there while you're not paying attention.

^^^ Yup !!! ^^^


Good question. Robbie?

Robbie? Nothing? Crickets?

Has the Met-Art case been settled or ajudicated? Because if not a suit means nothing until a verdict. Plus, that is Kansas, not every State.

But okay I will play along: no nudity, nice words only. Good to go?

And what about X, Instagram, etc? Places that show nudity or near nudity? If they also have to age verify....it will be interesting to see how they fight it.

But as far as the processors go: using that old argument of 'I'm not selling it I'm just collecting the money for it' wouldn't work in a strip club or whorehouse so why would it work for digital media? Supposedly 2257 had a safe harbor provision that the tubes thought they were following by NOT reviewing every video. What happened to all of that?

The real thing here, I think, is how strcit Visa and MC will be. Enforcement is an issue with millions of websites but if Visa/MC lay down 'the law' then everyone who wants processing will have to follow it.

What a shit show, eh? :)

I'm just wondering what kind of free site is actually gonna pay $0.30 per user or even $1k–$5k a year / domain just for people to jerk off on it?

Is there a McDonald’s near you guys?

It's a shitshow yes, but when you think about it, it's (1) expected, and (2), it's not that bad. Kids can get instant access to porn now and while I wouldn't care if my kids saw boobies, I can completely understand why some parents would trip-out.

In a way, we are all really lucky that the new laws are coming into effect now that the technology exists to do whats required.

Cheers.


Where is the price coming from though? Wobbie complained about a crazy-high price earlier in this thread. Whoever quoted you that is bonkers.

Yes but it should be like in Israel as it's the easiest solution without loop holes. Pushing responsibility on website owners just lowers their margin and many small ones will go out of biz.

Also pirate sites are unaffected and will even profit, like Robbie said it's aimed against the legal porn industry.

Total shitshow by cuckservative who don't understand the www.

TikTok and Insta are pure softporn, especially TikTok is full of 16 year old girls showing off camel toe and twerking in yoga pants.

Insta isn't much better, would bet 90% off their in platform traffic circles around women who wear bikinis and sexy dresses. Because that's the easiest way to get followers and likes these days.

But yes porn is the main problem for kids. :)

Here we go, a cheap solution so far, 3 ct per check. Self hosted even for free.

https://go.cam/

not sure why it states...

"and free if you host it on your servers"

is this the certifications...

so your same customer could cost you multiple times if not hosted on your own server?


looks a good choice though :thumbsup

Hey how come you never got an answer?

Did anyone talk to a lawyer to confirm what will be actually enough? If the tour has to be completely SFW or if its fine to blurr the images/videos, so nothing explicit can be seen on the free tour?

But either way, if this is implemented on a large scale, the only ones who will profit from this are the websites hosted offshore, who won't give a fuck about it. And regular surfers will move to those websites...because 99% of people simply won't feel comfortable to verify with their ID on a random porn site. They will rather go elsewhere, so it will be a big loss for the legal side of the business, anyway.

No lawyer can answer 'is SFW is enough' as there have been no cases brought forward about it yet so its yet to be determined.
The best people to ask is the regulator (OFCOM)... but they can't answer this question either!

3 fucking pages now. This shit is nuts.

The good old times are coming back then . . .

no more freebies...

pay to see the porn :thumbsup :2 cents:

There will be still plenty of free porn sites around the world...and even more freebies than now. The only ones who will suffer will be the legal businesses, who will have to verify every surfer, because their traffic will drop by 99%.

I reread the entire discussion and it seems I didn't come across a single mention of VPN... How are American and European legislators going to fight that resourceful underage visitor who gets onto the porn site through the IP of that country that doesn't give a shit about all these age restrictions?

I had a meeting with Ofcom - they seem to the the UK law enforcment team regarding AV - and they told me that if I redirect the traffic to a VPN ad it is not OK. I can block the traffic of course, and select from multiple AVS options, but they won't give any other hints.
They highlighted that I must take care of this before 25th July 2025, otherwise they will start sending me penalty-bills, for extreme high amounts..

Scary..

And as a free tube network owner I am pretty confused and scared and have no idea really what to do.

My colleaues came up ith the idea to redirect this kind of trafic to a gambling site that has AVS, with an affiliate tracking link.

Seems first stats are out, over 60% traffic drop for compliant websites, traffic shifting to non-compliant websites

https://x.com/FSCArmy/status/1929524257534378442

looks like tomorrow we get the news. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n/84330035007/

Push everyone to the dark web great plan republicans.

The Age Check Trap That Means Surveillance for Everyone
A new Senate bill designed to strengthen online privacy protections for minors could bring about major changes in how age is verified across the internet, prompting platforms to implement broader surveillance measures in an attempt to comply with ambiguous legal standards.

The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (S.836) (COPPA 2.0), now under review by the Senate Commerce Committee, proposes raising the protected age group from under 13 to under 17. It also introduces a new provision allowing teens aged 13 to 16 to consent to data collection on their own.

The bill has drawn praise from lawmakers across party lines and received backing from several major tech companies.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Supporters frame the bill as a long-overdue update to existing digital privacy laws. But others argue that a subtle change in how platforms are expected to identify underage users may produce outcomes that are more intrusive and far-reaching than anticipated.

Under the current law, platforms must act when they have “actual knowledge” that a user is a child.

The proposed bill replaces that threshold with a broader and less defined expectation: “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.” This language introduces uncertainty about what constitutes sufficient awareness, making companies more vulnerable to legal challenges if they fail to identify underage users.

Instead of having to respond only when given explicit information about a user’s age, platforms would be required to interpret behavioral cues, usage patterns, or contextual data. This effectively introduces a negligence standard, compelling platforms to act preemptively to avoid accusations of noncompliance.

As a result, many websites may respond by implementing age verification systems for all users, regardless of whether they cater to minors. These systems would likely require more detailed personal information, including government-issued identification or biometric scans, to confirm users’ ages.

More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda

Mandatory age verification carries significant risks. Systems that request sensitive documentation create new pools of personal data that can be targeted by attackers, misused internally, or sold for commercial gain. Once uploaded, personal information becomes subject to opaque storage and retention practices, often beyond the user’s control or awareness.

No method currently in use for verifying age balances reliability with privacy protection. Facial analysis tools and ID upload mechanisms are prone to errors and require the collection of intrusive data. Systems that offer users different verification options do not eliminate the underlying vulnerabilities; they shift where and how those vulnerabilities appear.

Without a comprehensive national data privacy framework, users remain exposed. There are no federal requirements mandating clear limits on data retention, transparency around third-party access, or redress mechanisms for misuse. This absence of structural privacy safeguards undermines the very protections that the bill aims to strengthen.

When access to online services depends on passing an age check, some users will choose not to engage at all. Public forums, creative platforms, and educational resources may become inaccessible unless users agree to verification procedures. This introduces a barrier to speech and participation that affects more than just teenagers.

Age-gating policies can create a chilling effect, especially in communities where anonymity plays a role in safety or free expression. The more sensitive the verification process, the more likely it is to dissuade users from contributing content or seeking out information.

This reconfiguration of access doesn’t appear in the text of the bill, but it is the logical result of shifting legal obligations onto platforms without providing clear enforcement boundaries or privacy protections for the resulting data flows.

Though the bill’s authors intend to update a law passed more than two decades ago, the proposed mechanism places the burden on platforms to make risk-averse decisions without clear guidance. The cost of avoiding liability could lead to invasive systems that erode online privacy for all users.

Efforts to protect minors online deserve serious legislative attention, but those efforts require precise definitions and strong, enforceable rights over personal data. Expanding the scope of regulated users while weakening the clarity of legal standards invites overreach and exposes everyone to new forms of digital scrutiny.

The direction of this bill signals an approach that outsources responsibility to platforms while leaving users with fewer protections and more demands. Until federal privacy legislation is passed that addresses the broader environment of data collection and surveillance, piecemeal reforms like S.836 will continue to produce complex and far-reaching consequences.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...f0d888259543cf

RIP

You can detect VPN's.

What happens if a webmaster does nothing?
In the US:
Server in the US (While it is still at the state level, does the state location of the server matter) if it becomes federal law?

In the UK:
When it goes in effect in the UK - what happens if I do nothing? I have a smallish site, free, but I just started accepting premium memberships - largely via crypto

Seems the big players (tubes) simply block all relevant regional IPs. As with age verifications you lose over 60% of your traffic you can as well simply ban the IPs, maybe consumers are so annoyed that the put pressure on the political authorities.

If child protection would be the real reason they could simply block all adult sites from internet provider side.

But seems they only want to harm the legit porn creators.

Good analysis

https://pornbiz.com/post/17/the_scam...verification#8

I tried to warn y'all, but every time I bump the threads of my warnings, I get banned.

Wonder why? 🤔

Libz pwnd ✅

Have fun 🍿😎🍿

Read that yesterday, and I can say it's spot on about many things. These lawmakers (politicians/attorneys/judges/etc) have lost their minds, and not just in the adult industry. Obviously, the focus here is on the adult industry, but their control-obsessed ideologues run rampant throughout many sectors, and our civil rights continue to be diminished.

100% Truth right here ...

A few more important take aways from that article ....


There was more, but just wanted to highlight a few from that article.


If and/or when sales begin to plummet, more will probably be concerned. Apparently, the ACLU and Free Speech Coalition brought repeated cases to the courts and even took it all the way to the Supreme Court. They consistently held that requiring users to verify their age to access protected content is unconstitutional when less restrictive alternatives, like filtering software, are available. Still, the laws were passed.

I believe like everything else, a big part of this is about money. Simply another way for the government to line their pockets and maybe even try to get their hands on this data at some point. I can see the headlines: "YOTI Hacked! Leaked Data Exposes Millions of Porn Consumers-- And You Won't Believe Who Is On This Naughty List!!"

Will they actively start enforcing these laws? I think yes, based on the following:

"Based on Texas’s insane $10,000-per-day penalty, and assuming one million adult sites currently lack AV, the State of Texas stands to gain ~$6,000,000,000,000 — that’s 6 trillion dollars — more than what the entire industry has ever made, worldwide, and counting. As we said before: all reason is long gone"

Wow, no incentive there!

This will happen as it will very profitable, because the hackers can then blackmail the users, like "hey CEO bro with a subscription to Premiumbukkake, you better give me 0.1 BTC or you family and company will know."

:1orglaugh

Then yoti (or whatever US company) magically gets billions of dollars from the government to help further "secure" this data. I can see some shit like that happening. There are many companies getting paid huge $$ by the gov., all tax payer dollars for useless programs. Bunch of corrupt mofos. Sadly, probably not much that can be done, other than succumb to the continued abuse of power. Obviously, this scenario is a bit of a reach and pure speculation, but stuff like this happens all the time.

So you fuckers and fapers, is this children friendly enough?


https://s1.directupload.eu/images/250731/4f3mjuco.jpg

ahhh haha, like the old images we used to upload to the 2hot4fb website :

https://www.nataliekash.com/wp-conte...82-600x417.jpg

https://nataliekash.com/wp-content/u...113518-477.jpg

https://www.nataliekash.com/wp-conte...114147-192.jpg

:thumbsup