> They're orthogonal issues because you can address one [...] independently. We can have very strict data protection laws and also have strict id checking for regulated industries.

We can not have secure ID checking without data protection laws. They're not orthogonal. This is the same conversation that comes up every time the government tries to mandate secure backdoors into encryption. You can't massively expand usage of an insecure technology and when it's pointed out that the current technology is insecure say, "well that's a separate issue, we don't have to worry about that right now." It's not a separate issue, you're massively expanding a technology that is currently insecure, just own it.

> I'm well aware of RTA labels.

Then why did you claim that porn industries weren't doing anything? I mean, I'm trying to be charitable here, it would be very reasonable for you not to be aware of those efforts, most people aren't aware of them. But you're saying you were?

You're telling me that when you said:

> They should be proposing systems that they believe are reasonable to meet their obligation, but they are not. Instead, they've gone from at least requiring credit cards to... absolutely nothing.

You knew that this was false -- like literally just straight-up wrong? When you commented that porn industries had 30 years to propose government ID systems to avoid handling this data themselves and hadn't... you knew that porn industries had actually proposed and lobbied for government ID systems?

So why did you say otherwise?

> They're also not ideal (given that they're basically "yes/no"

Come on, this is obviously not an issue for you because if it was, you wouldn't be supporting the current bills, which all implement binary "yes/no" classifications. We could debate whether or not broad classifications that refuse to distinguish between types of porn are good or bad, but you are currently arguing in favor of a binary classification for the purposes of liability, so I don't think that discussion would be a good use of time. Obviously you're OK with binary classification for age-verification, so this is not a real objection.

> reddit and redgifs do not

It's not clear that Reddit is liable under all of the laws proposed. Reddit hasn't pulled out of any of these states or added ID checks. Your argument against the proposal of labeling is a site who's content isn't addressed under the proposed laws.

Also, if you don't like that Reddit doesn't currently use the unlegislated standard... legislate it. Pornhub isn't lobbying to block labeling laws. You can require Reddit to use a labeling standard.

> Also content can't be blocked at the router level if it's using TLS

My sibling in Christ, you proposed blocking sites and VPNs at the router level. This was your solution to foreign porn sites that aren't covered by these laws. Now suddenly that's not sufficient?

Regardless, we use per-page metadata all over the place on platforms like iOS and Android to enable functionality based on page contents -- from device support to PWA indicators. There is no reason why these platforms can't work those same indicators into content blocking tools. And the presence of headers on landing pages for sites like Pornhub can be used at the network level to block these sites entirely, which again... you proposed doing!

Blocking per-page content is just a bonus, the current bills don't address that concern. It's a mark of the superiority of labeling that it allows a level of granularity that current bills don't.

> Alcohol distributors don't seem to have a problem doing this.

I'll repeat, porn isn't always transactional and porn is rolled into normal political and social speech in a way that prevents making it purely transactional without limiting large categories of speech. It's not the same as alcohol.

Alcohol also isn't speech. Porn is.

> Generally the more I think about it, it does seem "reasonable" to just say businesses dealing in adult restricted materials are liable...

You're allowed to think it's reasonable. The problem is if you spread misinformation while defending that position. To summarize where this thread has gone, you've suggested:

- People shouldn't worry about data collection because the laws prevent it. This is false, many of the laws have limited liability and recourse for data collection, and most only target retention of ID information, not aggregate data collection about users' browsing habits. Additionally, none of the laws limit government collection of data.

- The laws are close enough to each other that they can be read interchangeably. This is false, although the laws are templates of each other they often differ on details, and the presence of a provision in one bill does not solve problems for other bills.

- Information does not need to be stored or collected to implement 3rd-party ID checks. This is false, there are no 3rd-party ID checking services that I'm aware of that do not collect and store information about users.

- Retention laws would solve the security problems. This is false and a misrepresentation of security professionals' criticism of the bills. Retention is one part of the security and privacy risk.

- Porn companies have not proposed any alternatives. This is false, they have -- both ID systems and labeling systems. What's wild about this one is that you're suggesting you knew that this was false when you said it, which is not something I would have suggested.

- Porn verification is identical to alcohol/gun verification. This is false, most porn consumption online is not via a transactional relationship.

----

Like I said, I don't care if you support the bills, that's fine. It's a free country, you can support whatever you want. Just don't spread misinformation while you're doing so.