• 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    209
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jesus, at this point over half the country will ban porn because of religious extremists who hate freedom. Fascism and anti free speech.

    • qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Age verification for pornography has something like a 70% approval rating. It’s not a religious extremism issue, it’s a “normies don’t want or care about their freedoms issue”.

      • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        64
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think there’s a lot of vague support for keeping porn away from children that evaporates in the context of the actual issue at hand where porn sites are being mandated to collect and store the IDs of every visitor.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The concept is not terrible, the implementation is. Passing this law with no secure way of proving identity is where it’s clearly just a Christo-fascist power move.

        • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think there is a lot more to this that a secure way or protecting children.

          It’s the base idea that I have to prove who I am online at all. That I cannot lie. Lieing should be a fundamental right. Not identifying yourself should be a fundamental right. Giving a false name should be a fundamental right.

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I get that too, but we wouldn’t want people buying alcohol or fire arms anonymously. Imo access to pornography should be like access to R-Rated movies or Parental Advisory music. Guidelines set either by the industries or government, but policed by parents.

        • Obsession@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The only implementation I would support is one where the asking website doesn’t know your ID, and the verifying website doesn’t know what you’re trying to visit. Essentially just asking for a one-time use token that verified your age, and providing that token to the website you’re trying to visit.

          Edit for a bit more detail: User authenticates to ID website, which provides them a token with age verification (true/false) and a short (10 minute?) TTL. This token is encrypted by the ID website. User then provides this token to the asking website (eg: pornhub). Pornhub then sends the token back to the ID website to decrypt it. All pornhub knows about you is whether or not you’re of age, and the verifying website never knows what the token is for.

          • NecroSocial@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            There would be too much value in tracking that token for such a scheme to stay secure. Governments or shady corporations or illegal black markets or all of the above would be all over keeping tabs on what sites are visited by which tokens and matching them to identities.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The way the US is going, with anti-LGBT laws popping up all over the place, I have less trust for the government collecting that information than the sketchy porn sites themselves.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The concept is fine, but even the best known implementation is impossible without putting an unacceptable level of trust in one group.

          This should be parental controls - make websites declare a rating, then let the owners lock down devices

          Nothing is going to be absolute, but we have to prioritize freedom or soon our Internet will look like China’s. They’ve already been talking about banning vpns and kosa would make you tie ID to anywhere you can post - all social media is considered possible adult content by default

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That just means that almost every politician on both “sides” are pushing a Christo-fascist power move.

            The Democratic party is only better than the Republicans on this in relative terms. As a non-American looking in, both of them are right-wing parties that bow to religious interests. It’s just that one of them is waaaay off to the right wing, out in the reeds of loonieville, whereas the other has kept at least within spitting distance of center most of the time.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not sure where stating that means there’s any difficulty in understanding anything. That’s such a naive perspective to take. No one is claiming a Texas state senator that is a Democrat is the same as a Democrat in a deep blue state. It’s all relative and only fools or liars would claim otherwise.

            • qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, not “no one is claiming that”, because I am claiming that. Contrary to your apparent belief, large swathes of urban Texas are little different politically from a blue city anywhere else in the country. A state rep for Austin fought prescription drug companies and against putting the 10 Commandments in classrooms. Does that sound Christofascist to you? Because he voted for the bill. Close to 40% of the State legislature are Democrats and the majority of them approved this bill. Acting like a representative for Austin and a representative for rural Texas are both Christofascists because they come from the same state is actively counterproductive to gaining a better understanding of the situation. If you’re tilting at windmills and blaming imaginary enemies you’re going to miss the real forces that are driving these decisions.

              • phillaholic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Even if they aren’t Christian, there is a stream rolling effect on “protect the kids” bills where going against it is going to get you thrown out of office. That’s the kind of political climate we are in unfortunately.

      • whileloop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s kinda tragic too. I do agree with the sentiment behind age verification, it is in the kids’ best interest that they not be using porn at that age. But there’s really no way to effectively enforce this without violating basic rights. There is no good solution. Given that dilemma, all we can do is try to better prepare parents to deal with this in their home.

        • SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Is it really that bad if kids see a bit of porn? Like really? I grew up before the internet, but even in my day porn mags and VHS tapes got passed around when I was a teenager. Kids are always going to be curious.

          Even so on the internet there are much worse things than porn that are harmful for the development of children. There are various groups of questionable morality like incels, or other mysogynistic groups, alt right stuff like neonazis, christofascists, climate deniers, … If I had children, I would be much more concerned about them falling into one of those ideological traps than them seeing some titties. Hell, even TikTok is probably more harmful for giving them a dopamine addiction and an increasingly short attention span.

          So to me, it seems a bit weird to single out porn. It feels like a convenient scapegoat for parents who don’t want to spend time raising their kids and paying attention to what they are looking at on the internet.

          • threadloose@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t have kids either, but my siblings and friends do, and kids today aren’t just seeing a little porn. It’s not like Playboys in the woods or a single 2 MB image downloaded for hours on dial-up. It’s pretty violent sexual activities in video, like strangling or surprise anal sex. Even twenty years ago, my first sexual partners had moves they picked up from porn, but they weren’t violent. Talking to young women today, the moves their partners are picking up and have been normalized by porn tend to be violent. Like, I never had a friend in college tell me that her boyfriend slapped her during sex and called her a dirty whore while she cried, but that seems to be a pretty common experience today.

            The issue is that even older teens don’t have the life experience to contextualize what they see in porn and separate it from how you act in real life. If you’re into slapping people, that’s fine, but you’ve got to talk to your partner about it before you do to. If you’re getting your sex education from porn, then you don’t get the people skills part that’s important for successful relationships in real life.

            This study touches on a lot of what I’m mentioning here, and they found a correlation between violence in teen relationships and porn viewing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/

            So, yeah. I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t think it’s sending a copy of your ID to a porn site, which seems incredibly risky for other reasons. I think sex and relationship education would help a lot, but that only connects with the kids who listen. Obviously there’s a parenting component there, but I don’t know how many parents are mentally health enough to have those conversations honestly. 🙃 Probably not the ones who wrote this bill.

        • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The simple “Are you over 18? Yes/No” prompt worked just fine. If a kid lies and presses yes, who fucking cares lol. They’re not seeing it on accident at that point. We need to stop this puritan society, kids are going to explore this stuff. They always have and they always will.

      • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Are you over 18: Yes/No”

        Think nobody is arguing against that. I’d rather not give 1000 different private companies my government ID who get hacked all the time. The same people passing these laws had nude magazines growing up too.

      • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        70% approval rating but what’s the base? If it only surveyed 10 people and 7 say yes, it is 70% but means nothing.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The only porn left will be yiff, because sites struggle to classify it as porn (it even makes it past google’s filters). And a new generation of furries will be born. Their ban will be their undoing, lmao.

      “The elder scrolls told of their return. The defeat was merely a delay.”

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, don’t forget kosa, it has bipartisan support

      They want to hold sites responsible for children accessing NSFW content on them. Which means ID of some kind

      It would also apply to user posted content

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I doubt it could be actually banned. The US had this fight decades ago and Porn was given 1A protections. If they could ban it they would but they can’t so they are doing the next best thing by making it inconvenient and uncomfortable for people to get to.

      • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem though is that all those things we fought for before and being rolled back. You could have said the same about abortion, but then we regressed because of religious extremists.

    • Master@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      and then those same people who want it banned close their curtains and start watching it.

      • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you think these bills will do anything to stop teens from accessing porn or women from being trafficked, I have a bridge to sell you. And if you think Republicans actually care about the health and well-being of vulnerable women, I have an even more luxurious bridge to sell you.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        LOL, you went with a strawman & personal attack because you know your actual argument is garbage.

        • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh the attack isn’t personal. I did refer to all republicans , there’s enough of my disgust to go around.

          Keep in mind that the republican party is the one that is courting Fuentes, and the meak attempts of republicans trying to curb pornography, sex ed, and LGBTQ content in public libraries is based off of a conservative Christian attempt to control and curb the dissemination of information related to sex and gender.

          I do find this whole discourse sad and pathetic since this kind of control over content and identity never ends up having any positive lasting effect. The children of conservative parents generally become fed up with their repressed out of touch parents and becoming liberals. Or they end up in a hate filled exclusionary community that only accepts them based off of some form of restriction of expression and personhood.

          To the majority of republicans, I will say that you’ve made your vision for the future plain. We all get that you want a future where generally white male strongmen determine the course of humanity. And to that I say fuck off.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    My parents had a porn blocker, and all it made me do was learn enough about computers to circumvent it. Even if they put age verification in front of every porn site in the world there’s still torrents and chat rooms and forums all over where you can find it, and kids will find it. Next thing they’ll mandate is putting toothpaste back in the tube.

    • Muddobbers@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not only will they find it, they’ll end up going to the sketchier sites that don’t do the age verification because they’re not well known enough and not following the laws and they’ll likely get something infected on the computer/network or worse.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not only will they find it, they’ll end up going to the sketchier sites that don’t do the age verification because they’re not well known enough and not following the laws and they’ll likely get something infected on the computer/network or worse.

        It’s like that time we declared a war on drugs and then there were no drugs. Wait, actually that led to a massive black market and tons of violence.

        Point being, you’re not gonna stop it. You’re just gonna make it less safe.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny you should mention putting toothpaste back in a tube, because I actually helped someone do that last night. It’s possible, but also a huge pain in the ass. That’s not a commentary on anything besides literal toothpaste.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          My housemate was going on a trip to Alaska the next morning. She had a mostly empty 3 oz toothpaste tube and she was trying to refill it from a larger tube. No idea what she was so opposed to just buying toothpaste when she arrived. I think she was mostly just doing it because she could.

          The solution involved holding the tubes end to end and squeezing the larger tube, alternating with using a stirring rod to pack the toothpaste into the smaller tube.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          My housemate was going on a trip to Alaska the next morning. She had a mostly empty 3 oz toothpaste tube and she was trying to refill it from a larger tube. No idea what she was so opposed to just buying toothpaste when she arrived. I think she was mostly just doing it because she could.

          The solution involved holding the tubes end to end and squeezing the larger tube, alternating with using a stirring rod to pack the toothpaste into the smaller tube.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d build some kind of suction device to put negative air pressure on the tube while holding the nozzle in the toothpaste

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When my wife insisted I put a porn blocker on the internet, I did some simple DNS tinkering, then told my son not to let his mother catch him bypassing the “blocker” I put on.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        When I was growing up we had the ultimate porn blocker.

        Dial up internet was far too slow to load more than about half an image per hour.

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It would loan line by precious line. Should I look now and enjoy the suspense or wait ten minutes and see the whole pic in all of its glory? Usually I would be weak and sit there enjoying the anticipation…one line at a time…then finally, when you were so horny you just couldn’t take it anymore…you see her penis :/

          Kids today don’t know how good they got it.

      • LuckyCat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This blows my mind. Why not just push back on your wife for being ridiculous? I say this as a woman with two boys who has been married for 10 years.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mine straight up used Spyware. I learned to make multiple copies of older sessions to cover up anything I wanted, then I replaced current sessions just like they did on security cameras in the movies lol.

    • Achird@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just think of it as a safety net to prevent (or at least reduce the risk) of young children accidently stumbling upon something nasty or graphic that they didn’t mean to.

      This should also be done by proper parenting and supervision but as technology and internet devices are friggin everywhere I don’t think it’s a bad idea for parents to also have some decent filters on their internet connection.

      Doesn’t stop someone who even knows half way what they are doing, but by that point hopeful parents will have talked and educated their children about things before there’s a concern about intention seeking stuff out.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Porn sites have had “Confirm you are over 18” since the dial up days. That’s about as much of a safety net as I think is necessary or practicable.

        • Achird@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          A decent filter on a network (think pi-hole and next dns and the like) helps block adverts, trackers, scam sites, shady pop ups as well as bog standard porn sites etc

          Internet is full of things that it’s easy to accidentally stumble on that you wouldn’t want a young kid to see and I think it’s a reasonable step to have some basic levels of controls on your own network

          The onus is on the parents to manage internet access in a way the feel best and shouldn’t be forced or assumed. definitely not to porn sites (or any other site!) to collect entirely unnecessary personal data which would inevitably get leaked.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I totally agree and I put in a good faith effort to block that stuff from my kids’ devices using a pihole and what’s available on their phones. But I remember being their age and getting away with things because I figured out the workarounds.

            At the very least it’ll teach them a little about networking and computers which will serve them well in their careers.

            • Achird@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Absolutely, that’s why I keep saying “accidentally” - anyone who thinks an internet filter will stop someone with any determination is kidding themselves.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am a parent and I have decided not to worry about this stuff. Teens will look at porn and that is just a fact about our existence. I don’t have to like it or approve of it or concern myself with it.

        • Achird@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Teenagers will. Young children though may accidentally stumble upon something nasty which is far from age appropriate and something they aren’t ready for.

          Having good network controls can help with that, but so does good supervision and education about internet safety.

  • Polar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    America is such garbage lol. You guys should really focus on the important stuff.

      • what_is_a_name@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please separate government and politicians and media. Plenty hard work happening in our agencies solving important issues. And of course then congress wakes up and just spews bullshit.

  • poshKibosh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if there was some secure, hardened way of verifying people’s ages without handing over PII to random websites, these age verification laws are still utterly ridiculous.

    It’s not the government’s job to parent your kids on the internet. If you don’t want your kids visiting specific websites or viewing specific content, you take 15 minutes out of your goddamn day to do your job as a parent, and set up a content blocker on your home network.

  • qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The sicko in me hopes they spend the next two weeks linking every policymaker in the state to their pornography habits and just dump the whole dataset online. Yeah, it would probably counterproductive and not great for democracy but I wouldn’t it be the sickest burn of all time?

    • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ironically it would be so much easier to do that if they actually implemented the law they’re suing over, which demands they record the ID of everyone who uses the site.

          • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not a member of the house or Senate so I don’t know what they can do. But I’m sure they can have as many open doors as they’re like.

      • qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. Malicious compliance, while reminding people exactly why they shouldn’t be so quick to give up their anonymity on the internet.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see what you’re saying about it not being good for democracy…we shouldn’t have politicians making decisions based on their personal use, and trying to avoid scrutiny of that use…but at the same time, we have that anyway. Honestly, at this point, burn it all down. Make the entire apparatus of government so transparent that the shitheels currently in office can’t justify staying on. Make it to where the only people who can function in elected positions are political monks.

  • wheresmypillow@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think a lot of these states are going about this wrong. We should be helping parents restrict access for their children rather than trying to verify identities of adults who likely want to remain anonymous.

      • Khotetsu@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, anytime you see somebody making the “think of the children!” argument, look at what the possible end goal could be with that removed. Protecting kids is a favorite smokescreen because kids can’t speak up for themselves in these cases.

    • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I think that’s the proper route. Parents who want to restrict what their children see need to take responsibility for doing so and not try to make the government do it for them at the expense of everyone else’s privacy.

    • Eggyhead@artemis.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m of the opinion that protecting children has little to do with the actual intended purpose of laws such as these.

    • BoofStroke@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Make a kid safe tld that requires whatever government certification. Done. Now parents, if they choose, can filter all but the kidsafe tld. Trying to instead blacklist is never going to work.

      Whether companies choose to certify and publish there is something those who want this type of thing should provide incentives for.

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “You show me some lazy prick who’s laying around all day watching game shows and stroking his penis and I’ll show you someone who’s not causing any fucking trouble”

    -George Carlin

    Republicans really believe shit like this and banning abortion will be successful at restoring the nuclear family… at gunpoint.

    What it will really do is increase sexual assault, suicide, violence in general…

    Of course that will be everyone else’s fault for not submitting to their attempts at coercion correctly. Republicans insist on personal responsibility, exclusively for their many enemies and explicitly not for themselves.

    The funniest bit is, they are the reason for the death of the nuclear family and the reason it won’t be restored. If you give the owner class all the money out of the asses of the working citizens that would have kids, herp derp they won’t have kids.

    If they really wanted the “traditional American family” to come back, they need only restore tax levels to pre-reagan levels, and actually enforce them. Instead they’d rather threaten everyone for masturbating instead of making new wage slaves they can’t afford to raise so Republicans can also get that dopamine hit of schadenfreude by calling them irresponsible.

  • yeather@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Guess a state with a big enough user base finally tried this horse shit lol.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    From reading about the law it sounds like they are trying to take a page from CA’s overreaching prop 65 law that effectively labels everything a potential carcinogen. Based on the data the main beneficiary of this are a handful of law firms. I wouldn’t be surprised if this law is backed by a few law firms who smell easy money.

  • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Porn hub should make a VPN and offer it for free to people in texas They could call it VaginaPenisNards