Consume Product

He moved to Arkansas.

Age Verification for Porn is the wedge issue of ID Verification to eradicate Internet Anonymity.

Pornhub today, Communities.win tomorrow

In a country not run by kikes, shitskins, and satanists, I’d agree no downside.
But I don’t trust any non-white government with these laws

I don't support government protecting me from anything, because they won't. There will still be all sorts of ways to get around it for kids while creating justification for mandatory digital ID.

**I** protect **my** people. My kids don't go looking for porn because I've made a point to mock it their entire lives; they know it exists but they also know it's "cringe".

It's not that hard.

Te downside is a theoretical one of privacy and freedom. The upside is concrete in reduction of degeneracy. I support the move, but it does invite a discussion of "where does personal freedom end" and thats a slippery slope both ways

The problem is, what they are doing is used against dissidents like us. Just imagine there is something like an "internet pass" every person must have, and when registering one needs to show it. So all websites can directly report a person to the ZOG police for wrong-think.

In Germany it would mean you say the holocaust is a hoax, you'll get reported and the police is knocking on your door, and get put in jail until you publicly admin the errors of your ways. In England you say perhaps they went a little overboard with immigration, and you get gang-raped by niggers in jail. In the US it's the banker jews that fuck you over (debanking) if you are a little too right wing, and perhaps antifa will burn your house occasionally.

Just imagine: They introduce the ID check, and then some kiked politician has the idea to extend it to "fight antisemitism" and every other politician agrees and cheers resoundingly. They LOVE their jewish masters, so they'll all agree immediately in droves.

The word "freedom" used to mean "free to pursue good" and that's how people used it when creating things like individual rights; governments can't stop you from, say, feeding the hungry or healing the sick (which they absolutely do today).

No one should be free to pursue evil; preventing that is exactly why we have laws in the first place.

Then you get into the moral relativistic question of what is good, who defines good, who defines good in 200 years, etc. I don't disagree with you, but it gets murky in a lot of places so it needs to be very well defined