It really does seem like this would be easier to implemnent from the ISP end rather than individual sites having to do it. For about ten years I couldn't come here on my phone because I couldn't be arsed doing 02's age verification, so doing the same with Virgin and BT and Plusnet et al would presumably be the least disruptive way of doing it, if we must do it at all.

Or is that not THINK OF THE CHILDREN enough for these wankers who need the government to change their kid's nappies for them. In fact let's cut the shit here and get to the real issue, and that's the fact that the vast majority of people are simply not fit to be parents. What can we do to stop people with no business raising a child from popping them out, or at least mitigating their absolute incompetence?

Every time the alarm has sounded about government regulation of the internet as if it's an existential threat, the world has kept turning largely unchanged. You've cried wolf too many times and now I don't believe this will be any different.

>>42024

The world also keeps turning for people in China, who aren't allowed to access a good bit of the Internet outside its borders, and who have to fear social credit deductions for circumventing blocklists and accessing undesired websites.

>>42014
Why don't they just ban porn?

>>42036
Is there filth in your backyard? I don't have a backyard, I have 3/4s of an acre and an orchard, but is there filth in your backyard?

This won't bother me any, because I've decided I will seduce, and subsequently marry, Tessa Fowler by the Summer.

My favourite pornographic website appears to have vanished from the online airwaves. I've never seen anything illegal there myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if the occasional bad thing appeared there, and it's not very well-known so it's probably small enough to have just excused itself from the UK market altogether. That would be very frustrating.

I'm checking if it's online using root so that you don't doxx me from my username, so don't get all uppity about IT security with me, thank you very much.

>>42052

It's down worldwide, so probably nothing to do with the UK legislation. I think it's probably quite hard to monetise videos of lads shitting on each other.

It's not going to achieve it's intended effect. Secondary school age people will still manage to find offending content, they'll just trade via Bluetooth or flash memory.

I don't see what the big deal is anyway, most .gs users probably saw porn as teenagers and did we all turn out warped individuals?

>>42083

>most .gs users probably saw porn as teenagers and did we all turn out warped individuals?


We're .gs users.

That should answer your question.

>>42084

I'm old enough to have found porn in the woods, so we can't blame the internet for me being a terrible pervert.

>>42085

I found porn once together with a friend from primary school in the back of an unlocked trailer at a building site. We must have been about ten. We then brought the porn magazines back home to my mum, who was horrified both at us finding porn and at the fact that we had been playing at a building site.

But for us it was just the kind of dangerous fun you got to have as an 80s kid. Not like today where your entire childhood is effectively sanitised.

Just make all teenagers see Alaska Zade's Onlyfans. That'll put them off porn, sex and human interaction forever.

>>42087
I just looked her up and she must be doing something heinous behind the paywall because she her appearance perfectly normal.

>>42088

She is a perfectly normal-looking autistic lesbian. Her scenes with women are awkward; her scenes with men are existentially bleak.

>>42087

>Onlyfans

Isn't its popularity waning?

>>42089
I've said it before, I'll say again: kill all men.

I know, I know, I'm not happy about it either, lads, but there's no other way.

>>42090

As of their last accounts, they made a profit of $649m on revenues of $1.3bn.

>>42091

If she wants to carve out a career as "that girl who sucks dicks really badly", then more power to her.

>>42092

>that girl who sucks dicks really badly

It takes all kinds.

>>42092
What are the chances that OnlyFans is a money-laundering scheme? I have seen no evidence to support this, but the arguments that it could be are inescapable. OnlyFans themselves want to promote the idea that women can get rich selling their bathwater and photos of their armpits, and some women make tens of millions of dollars a year. That's a lot of money when most women who use it make zero. And the richest women are not necessarily the most attractive ones. And I've never sent anyone money on OnlyFans, and most of us are the same, I think. So where is this money coming from?

That's Argument #1. Argument #2 is: it's a platform that presumably hides a lot of its financial details, to protect its customers. So nobody else really knows where these millions are coming from, nor where they are going to. It would be the perfect way to launder money.

Argument #3 is that pornography has always been a bit seedy, since the dawn of time, and that is unlikely to have suddenly changed just because OnlyFans wants to present itself as an empowering #girlboss company. Drug dealers often know prostitutes and strippers whose OnlyFans profiles can be used to launder money effortlessly. And we all know the women you see in pornography often don't manage their own social media.

So if I was a drug dealer, it would be trivial to ask a prostitute I know, and probably even provide drugs for, to pose for a few photos, then I could set up the OnlyFans profile for her, and send all my drug money to that profile, which I manage, and if anyone asks where the money came from, I can say it came from OnlyFans and nobody will suspect a thing. Like I say, I have zero concrete evidence that this is what happens, but anyone who wants to launder millions of dollars would really be missing a trick if they didn't do this.

>>42094

OnlyFans is to women what Uber and Deliveroo are for men. It's the raw capitalist exploitation of the "gig economy" dressed up in an empowering message. And women lap that shit up.

Part of me is salty about the raw injustice that I grew up as part of a generation of men who had to listen to fisherpeople bleat on about how bad women have it and to give women the room to succeed and all that shit, but also at the very same time see them have it both ways like this. But far more than that I just see the parasitic ultra-capitalism we are all just folding over and permitting without so much as blinking.

>>42094

>So where is this money coming from?

Your dad.

>>42095

I think OnlyFans is very different from Deliveroo and Uber, because it's so much easier.

Deliveroo and Uber you're cycling or driving about for 8 hours, trying to get orders/passengers about quickly while obeying road laws, having to maintain your bike or car.

OF you can put on some lingerie, get your boyfriend to give you backshots while a camera rolls, then upload and done. You don't even need to upload daily. It's even easier for the ones who just take foot pics like Lily Allen.

There is potentially more drain on your social battery if you're messaging with punters and doing personal requests, but I imagine you can make a lot more from them in 8 hours than you can on Deliveroo. And you can do while sat in bad watching TV.

You don't even need to be very attractive like a lot of modelling jobs; fat mediocre women who look like they work in a call centre (nowt wrong with that) can make good money just having three guys jizz on their face on film.

If I could make good money, with the only worries being uploading a lingerie set every couple of days, and uploading getting jizzed on every couple of weeks, I probably would do it. And I mean that in the least gay way possible.

I wouldn't ride a bike dozens of miles a day through rush hour traffic to get people's McDonalds to them fast enough for it to still be warm.

>>42099

Ahh, but that's only because you are swallowing the bait about what they want women to think it's like. You are falling for the grift of thinking it's really as easy as just uploading a few saucy selfies and money will come flooding in. It won't, and that's exactly where I think the analogy is appropriate- It's way harder work than people think it is, and you get fuck all out of it unless you fully sell your soul to it.

That's why the people at the top of the chain make so much money, because they have all these little worker bees bending over backwards for them. It's actually a lot easier to make reliable money delivering half-cold Maccies on an e-bike than it is trying to generate interest for your OnlyFans as an average woman. That's real work, it's exploitative shite work at shite rates, but it IS real work, ie economic activity based on the purchase and transit of material goods that people need. Onlyfans isn't real work, it's promising something for nothing in almost exactly the same way as most pyramid schemes. It only works out if you are lucky or especially attractive, and you are prepared to fully commit to catering to perverts for a living; it's exactly like we always used to say about Facebook. You aren't the user, you are the product.

A closer analogy I suppose would be Avon, they were Uber and Deliberoo for women way ahead of their time; and similarly they were really a grift where you will more than likely get nothing out of it. Onlyfans is just Avon but you have to show the world your minge before you realise you're being conned.

>>42101

It's more skill than luck. The ManyVids charts are dominated by people who are good at roleplay.

https://www.manyvids.com/creators/all?sortBy=score

>>42094

>What are the chances that OnlyFans is a money-laundering scheme? I have seen no evidence to support this, but the arguments that it could be are inescapable.

Any place where somebody gets paid a constant stream of small amounts invites money laundering. It's called smurfing, whereby you break up larger amounts of dirty money into smaller amounts, one at a time, to evade AML scrutiny. It's a technique that's near enough as old as the concept of money laundering itself. In fact, Al Capone, the absolute kingpin of money laundering of his time, used actual laundry and laundromat businesses to obfuscate the origin of illegally obtained funds. The money would then come in as small individual cash amounts through the laundry's normal everyday operation. Which is where the term money laundering originated in the first place.

Onlyfans doesn't accept cryptocurrencies, which are probably still the best way to launder money, but there are still ways you can launder money you've made with online (or offline) scams by passing it through a platform like it.

>>42083
>Secondary school age people will still manage to find offending content
A kek from me at the thought of today's teens asking sound looking strangers not to go in and buy cigarettes for them, but instead, "M8 can I use your face for age verification real quick?"

>I don't see what the big deal is anyway, most .gs users probably saw porn as teenagers and did we all turn out warped individuals?
In fairness lad porn NOW is not the same as porn THEN. I remember actually having to work to find fetish content but these days it's baked right in to mainstream pornography. Kids aren't growing up watching men fuck women on their phones, they're watching gagging puke blowjobs and women sucking multiple loads out of a prolapsed anus (the anus of her 'stepdaughter', of course). Gen Z are going to be warped as fuck by our age, Christ knows what the next generation after that is going to look like.

Having said that I still think it's pointless trying to crack down on it at this point, the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

>>42110
> In fairness lad porn NOW is not the same as porn THEN.

And it happened really quite quickly, at most a generation or two, relatively speaking. Porn pictures have been around for a long time, but spank mags were rare, physical, non-shareable. As a young-un, maybe you had a hook up or you didn't. I'm not sure when exactly it changed, by 1995 VHS dubbing was not esoteric and it got worse from there before it got slightly better. It's best to forget the time when "darknet" meant something.

>>42111

I saw my first actual porn movie when I was 17, on a grainy third-generation copy VHS tape that somebody had brought to a house party. It was some low-budget, forgettable, American lesbian porn. Aside from a few more vanilla nude magazines that were much easier to get, that was pretty much my only encounter with hardcore pornography up to that point, and this being 1991 and before the Internet, it was another few years before Internet porn was even really a thing for the average user.

I'm normally a very liberal person about all these things, but I'm also very sure that a lot of pornography harms younguns that age or younger today. And I think a lot of it has to do with the lack of context they have at that age. They're being inundated and oversaturated with niche hardcore porn, and they've got no own frame of reference.

What I mean by context is, once you've got some first-hand sexual and relationship experience, watching a lass shit on a lad's stomach while snowballing him is a right laugh. It probably won't alter your perception of sex or women. But it's just not the kind of material that teenagers below a certain age should be exposed to, at all, because it can harm their development of healthy attitudes and sexual behaviours during their most formative years. Most of them have no own frame of reference yet against which to judge if sexual practices they see in pornography are harmful.

>>42112
To be honest, is rimming really THAT bad? It feels like we're falling into a moral panic that pretends that weird fetishes are new and don't exist in repressive cultures.

We should focus on making pornography good, if you want then make state-sanctioned porn with high-quality lighting, good plot and direction that blows fart porn out the window. Looking around I think that if there's one thing I think we all need it's a good wank, the kind that leaves you feeling a bit weak at the knees and ruins the wallpaper.

>>42094
How exactly would you send the dirty money to the woman? Would you ask your clients to do it but then as (I presume) OF operates on a subscription model you would have to operate with regular customer orders and have OF and the government cutting into your profit?

Better to just run a high-street shop.

>>42113
>How exactly would you send the dirty money to the woman?
She works for you; her money is your money. And it can't be that hard to set up multiple anonymous accounts on a pornography site. As for paying taxes and fees that you otherwise wouldn't have to pay, yes, that's a key part of money-laundering. I'm sure the fees aren't as much as business rates for a corner shop or taxi firm.

>>42113

>It feels like we're falling into a moral panic that pretends that weird fetishes are new and don't exist in repressive cultures.

Of course they exist.

But is that what we want our teenagers to start off with, who are just exploring their budding sexuality?

If your fetish gets you off as an adult, then fine. Be into all the depraved shit you'll ever fancy. But it's not repressive to keep it from somebody who's sixteen, perhaps even much younger.

>>42115

Pornhub has been around for 17 years, so the people who were first exposed to the flood of internet pornography in their youth are now well into their thirties. Younger generations don't seem to be meaningfully more perverted than older generations and they're certainly having a lot less casual sex. I think the effects of pornography are probably very small compared to the overall change in social norms; while porn might be exposing people to a wide range of weirdness, mainstream culture has become far more prudish and desexualised.

>>42116

> and they're certainly having a lot less casual sex

You don't see the connection right there?

So seeing more porn makes them have less sex but playing more GTA and Call of Duty makes them do more mass shootings. Right. Maybe it's all bollocks, have you lot ever thought of that? Maybe it's more to do with the real world socioeconomic trends keeping them living with their parents longer and not having decent career prospects, maybe it's just all the microplastics turning their balls into polystyrene.

Whatever it is, I don't think it's porn. I've said many times how jacking off to the weirdest pansexual fetish furry porn you can think of since about 13 has never stopped me having perfectly normal healthy straight vanilla sex, and I have always noted that the same is true of the lasses who were flicking their beans to depraved shit all over acrobat when they were teenlasses, and I am sure the same would be true of Gen Z, were there not other things in the way.

If anything I am more convinced that it's the other way around, and that modern porn trends reflect the real world and its worsening material conditions and the egotistical nature of identity politics. The internet, and the porn therein, went mental because it went mainstream. The internet didn't leak out into real life, real life penetrated and corrupted the internet.

>>42116
This is probably either the most dishonest or the most naive post I've ever seen on this site... I'm not even sure it's worth replying to as I'm almost certain you're speaking in bad faith, but I've have a few so fuck it.

>Pornhub has been around for 17 years
As above: porn THEN is not the same as porn NOW.

>Younger generations don't seem to be meaningfully more perverted than older generations
Don't seem to whom? Was eating arse commonplace when our grandparents were dating? I've seen the change even in my own dating life from being a teen or even in my twenties to now. Ten or so years ago the majority of women I hooked up with a blowjob wouldn't entail hocking up phlegm all over my cock and balls (without me asking) and there was a time not that long ago that when I ate a girl's arse she'd react with surprise and enjoy it begrudgingly rather than just expect it to happen - one of my more selfish personal gripes regarding how pornography has changed sexual culture (I always found it really rather cute when they'd feel embarrassed to enjoy a tongue up the arse). And don't even, by the way; I am in no way exemplary of the norm back then. I had my little arse spat on and hotdogged by a carpet-bagger when I was 7. My standard is very, VERY warped - and I know this, because I had a LOT of sex from a very young age and I could count the number of both girls and lads (no homo) who weren't shocked by my depravity on one and a half hands. Contrast that against today and girls are telling me their kinks in the first day of conversation on Tinder and a lot of them disgust even me.

>and they're certainly having a lot less casual sex
I can't even pretend to believe that you actually believe this.

>mainstream culture has become far more prudish and desexualised
This either.

When I was in school, as I'm sure will be the case for the majority here who are in my age group, there were a handful of girls who were even fucking: usually half a dozen who were in full on relationships and kept it on the quiet and another half dozen (if even that) communal bikes who had 'favourite uncles' and started getting fingered in year 7 - and they were LOOKED DOWN UPON for it. They're all at it now, and it isn't looked down upon. That says everything that need be said. Anecdotally and with the above in mind (school-aged girls who actually fucked were fairly rare back in the late 90s/early 00s), I've had a couple exes with considerably younger sisters and one with a niece. One aforementioned younger sister was fucking multiple lads by 14 and her best friend sucked off three separate lads during the same house party; another's little sister let a 19 year old fuck her up the arse when she was 13; the aforementioned niece wore BDSM gear and was calling her (15-year-old) boyfriend 'Daddy' before she was through puberty. This sort of shit would've been notable to hear about twenty years ago. If you think the widespread availability -and ever increasing extremity- of pornography has had nothing to do with that then you are either lying to yourself, lying to others, or absolutely retarded.

>>42119

>I can't even pretend to believe that you actually believe this.

It's factually true, across many developed countries. People are blaming that on porn, too.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023121996854

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/10/e030708

I think you're extrapolating from your extremely weird social circle.

>>42119

>As above: porn THEN is not the same as porn NOW.

I don't know if that's true. Sites like Meatholes were mainstream enough for me to find on my dial up connection 25 years ago.

>>42121

Max Hardcore was getting himself jailed for obscenity back in the golden age of VHS.

If I go on porn sites nowadays, I get pretty much the same stuff I got in 2009 when I started watching it. The only time I see fucked up shit is if it goes viral or goes on efukt. It's very easy for me to just find innocuous stuff like SSBBW facesitting and fart femdom, instead of two girls one cup and simulated rape.

You really have to seek out the malicious stuff.

>>42123
>If I go on porn sites nowadays, I get pretty much the same stuff I got in 2009 when I started watching it
I get bombarded on the trending section by flavour of the month OF models who look like the 3rd Bogdanoff sibling licking arse as opposed to 20 years ago, when what seemed to be trending was Latinas with fat arses who looked normal.

There has defo been a small, but noticeable, swing to the extreme in terms of what the average person watches, like massive evangelist christian korean youtuber dongs making the front page of the trending section when, or so I hear, that used to be buried in the menus.

I don't know what "zoomers" are in to, because I don't interact with them.

I definitely think female-on-male analingus needs to be got rid of, I'll say that much.

>>42125

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_trombone

>>42125

Quite the contrary, I think it should be mandatory. If a bird isn't willing to rim out my arsehole is she even really worth my time or effort at all?

>>42128
You're a latent homosexual (the most disreputable kind) and a scat fetishist.

>>42127
It's no SeedFeeder is it?

>>42129

You'll live your whole life and die without knowing the pleasures your bumhole can give you, and I find that tragic.

>>42129


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45GbVVfnj34

>>42127
He doesn't really seem to be into it.

>>42132

Maybe he's a latent homosexual.

>>42099
>while obeying road laws
What sort of utopian town do you live in?