this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
246 points (97.3% liked)

Privacy

31808 readers
345 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Here's a link to the news. https://e621.net/news_updates

Edit: As people in the comments pointed out, this bill targets all websites hosting porn. e621 just happens to be hosted in Arizona, and it therefore affects them directly.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] barbara@lemmy.ml 68 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

This is not a witch hunt against that site. It's probably the only site residing in arizona that cares and which you visit. They could easily relocate, which they probably do if the bill is passed.

[–] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 36 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My bet is that it is a law against porn, and furry porn would be inside that

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They just outlawed 99% of the internet?

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not outlawing. It's inlawing.

Wait. That's something different. It's regulating.

No wait, that's something different too. It's "but think of the children!!!"

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago

inlawing

Feel bad for the Arazona guys that don't get to witness the newest porn fad.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 64 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I have no idea how government regulation of the Internet has become so normalized.

https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 32 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Mostly the party of small government.

They just want to keep children safe... from the LGBTs.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 7 months ago (3 children)

From your article:

Despite this, KOSA enjoys bipartisan support, including a July endorsement from President Joe Biden.

The worst laws in the US are usually supported by both parties.

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We have two parties: regressives and regressives but slower.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

In the same way living a full life is equivalent to suicide, sure.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

But in reality, bigots tend to be Republicans.

Is this you?

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 31 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

oh, no, not the furries! but honestly:

FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE FURRIES AND I DID NOT SPRAK OUT

I mean, laws like this don't just effect furries. It's a privacy issue for everyone in the state, and everyone who who usesa website based out of the state.

[–] ji59@kbin.social 27 points 7 months ago (3 children)

...PUBLISHES OR DISTRIBUTES MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS ON THE INTERNET FROM A WEBSITE THAT CONTAINS A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS...
Since furry porn isn't harmful, they should be ok.

[–] blujan@sopuli.xyz 40 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't know the site that much, but I know that "harmful to minors" can mean anything.

[–] FilterItOut@thelemmy.club 10 points 7 months ago

Think of the children!

I'll believe they're thinking of the children when they use that phrase to make laws that agree with the environmental groups and governing bodies.

[–] Dirk_Darkly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah, like it could mean they'll become furries.

[–] ignotum@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

How much is a "substantial amount"? There's not thaaat much porn on e621, most of it is marked safe
Well a lot of it is...
Well some of it is...
I'm relatively sure i saw one marked safe once...

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that viewing pornography can be harmful to young children.

Not all "minors", but some people forget that the phrase includes both 17 year olds and 4 year olds in some states...

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If a 4 year old is exposed to furry porn, I don't think the culprit is the website.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I didn't assign blame to the website, or to anything. I just said that viewing sexual material can be harmful to children.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago

Which is the problem with completely open ended language, which is always used in such bills so as to only apply to whoever they want to persecute.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml 14 points 7 months ago

At this point, I honestly expected it to have been moved to some European country... I mean, what site? Never heard of it.

[–] neutron@thelemmy.club 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I assume there are more issues preventing them from simply relocating to another hosting?

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago

I don't think that matters if they have a business nexus presence in that state. Like if (most of) the developer(s) working on it are in the state they could be subject to the law.

[–] Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago

WHY CANT I JUST GOON TO PICS OF KRYSTAL FROM STAR FOX IN PEACE

[–] Titou@feddit.de 10 points 7 months ago

Why not moving the website on another country/continement ? Or even better federating it

[–] AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago
[–] LodeMike 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The politicians in Arizona

Which ones? The republican minority?

[–] LodeMike 1 points 6 months ago

Hi. That is incorrect. Sorry.