Age Verification = Death to your porn site - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Mr Pheer · 05-21-2025, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzebox

Also I hate that a DVTimes news spam thread is getting traction.

3 fucking pages now. This shit is nuts.

CaptainHowdy · 05-21-2025, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roshnikhanna

I'll simply remove all HC pics from the tour, this should be fine for the beginning.

The good old times are coming back then . . .

NatalieK · 05-22-2025, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

The good old times are coming back then . . .

no more freebies...

pay to see the porn

Retiree · 05-22-2025, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatalieK

no more freebies...

pay to see the porn

There will be still plenty of free porn sites around the world...and even more freebies than now. The only ones who will suffer will be the legal businesses, who will have to verify every surfer, because their traffic will drop by 99%.

goodoff · 06-17-2025, 08:04 AM

I reread the entire discussion and it seems I didn't come across a single mention of VPN... How are American and European legislators going to fight that resourceful underage visitor who gets onto the porn site through the IP of that country that doesn't give a shit about all these age restrictions?

Matyko · 06-25-2025, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodoff

I reread the entire discussion and it seems I didn't come across a single mention of VPN... How are American and European legislators going to fight that resourceful underage visitor who gets onto the porn site through the IP of that country that doesn't give a shit about all these age restrictions?

I had a meeting with Ofcom - they seem to the the UK law enforcment team regarding AV - and they told me that if I redirect the traffic to a VPN ad it is not OK. I can block the traffic of course, and select from multiple AVS options, but they won't give any other hints.
They highlighted that I must take care of this before 25th July 2025, otherwise they will start sending me penalty-bills, for extreme high amounts..

Scary..

And as a free tube network owner I am pretty confused and scared and have no idea really what to do.

My colleaues came up ith the idea to redirect this kind of trafic to a gambling site that has AVS, with an affiliate tracking link.

xxxclusive · 06-25-2025, 02:11 PM

Seems first stats are out, over 60% traffic drop for compliant websites, traffic shifting to non-compliant websites

https://x.com/FSCArmy/status/1929524257534378442

esham · 06-25-2025, 03:02 PM

looks like tomorrow we get the news. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n/84330035007/

Push everyone to the dark web great plan republicans.

INever · 06-26-2025, 05:31 AM

The Age Check Trap That Means Surveillance for Everyone
A new Senate bill designed to strengthen online privacy protections for minors could bring about major changes in how age is verified across the internet, prompting platforms to implement broader surveillance measures in an attempt to comply with ambiguous legal standards.

The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (S.836) (COPPA 2.0), now under review by the Senate Commerce Committee, proposes raising the protected age group from under 13 to under 17. It also introduces a new provision allowing teens aged 13 to 16 to consent to data collection on their own.

The bill has drawn praise from lawmakers across party lines and received backing from several major tech companies.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Supporters frame the bill as a long-overdue update to existing digital privacy laws. But others argue that a subtle change in how platforms are expected to identify underage users may produce outcomes that are more intrusive and far-reaching than anticipated.

Under the current law, platforms must act when they have “actual knowledge” that a user is a child.

The proposed bill replaces that threshold with a broader and less defined expectation: “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.” This language introduces uncertainty about what constitutes sufficient awareness, making companies more vulnerable to legal challenges if they fail to identify underage users.

Instead of having to respond only when given explicit information about a user’s age, platforms would be required to interpret behavioral cues, usage patterns, or contextual data. This effectively introduces a negligence standard, compelling platforms to act preemptively to avoid accusations of noncompliance.

As a result, many websites may respond by implementing age verification systems for all users, regardless of whether they cater to minors. These systems would likely require more detailed personal information, including government-issued identification or biometric scans, to confirm users’ ages.

More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda

Mandatory age verification carries significant risks. Systems that request sensitive documentation create new pools of personal data that can be targeted by attackers, misused internally, or sold for commercial gain. Once uploaded, personal information becomes subject to opaque storage and retention practices, often beyond the user’s control or awareness.

No method currently in use for verifying age balances reliability with privacy protection. Facial analysis tools and ID upload mechanisms are prone to errors and require the collection of intrusive data. Systems that offer users different verification options do not eliminate the underlying vulnerabilities; they shift where and how those vulnerabilities appear.

Without a comprehensive national data privacy framework, users remain exposed. There are no federal requirements mandating clear limits on data retention, transparency around third-party access, or redress mechanisms for misuse. This absence of structural privacy safeguards undermines the very protections that the bill aims to strengthen.

When access to online services depends on passing an age check, some users will choose not to engage at all. Public forums, creative platforms, and educational resources may become inaccessible unless users agree to verification procedures. This introduces a barrier to speech and participation that affects more than just teenagers.

Age-gating policies can create a chilling effect, especially in communities where anonymity plays a role in safety or free expression. The more sensitive the verification process, the more likely it is to dissuade users from contributing content or seeking out information.

This reconfiguration of access doesn’t appear in the text of the bill, but it is the logical result of shifting legal obligations onto platforms without providing clear enforcement boundaries or privacy protections for the resulting data flows.

Though the bill’s authors intend to update a law passed more than two decades ago, the proposed mechanism places the burden on platforms to make risk-averse decisions without clear guidance. The cost of avoiding liability could lead to invasive systems that erode online privacy for all users.

Efforts to protect minors online deserve serious legislative attention, but those efforts require precise definitions and strong, enforceable rights over personal data. Expanding the scope of regulated users while weakening the clarity of legal standards invites overreach and exposes everyone to new forms of digital scrutiny.

The direction of this bill signals an approach that outsources responsibility to platforms while leaving users with fewer protections and more demands. Until federal privacy legislation is passed that addresses the broader environment of data collection and surveillance, piecemeal reforms like S.836 will continue to produce complex and far-reaching consequences.

mrmister · 06-27-2025, 08:21 AM

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...f0d888259543cf

RIP

2MuchMark · 06-27-2025, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodoff

I reread the entire discussion and it seems I didn't come across a single mention of VPN... How are American and European legislators going to fight that resourceful underage visitor who gets onto the porn site through the IP of that country that doesn't give a shit about all these age restrictions?

You can detect VPN's.

muze · 06-28-2025, 01:58 PM

What happens if a webmaster does nothing?
In the US:
Server in the US (While it is still at the state level, does the state location of the server matter) if it becomes federal law?

In the UK:
When it goes in effect in the UK - what happens if I do nothing? I have a smallish site, free, but I just started accepting premium memberships - largely via crypto

xxxclusive · 06-28-2025, 02:35 PM

Seems the big players (tubes) simply block all relevant regional IPs. As with age verifications you lose over 60% of your traffic you can as well simply ban the IPs, maybe consumers are so annoyed that the put pressure on the political authorities.

If child protection would be the real reason they could simply block all adult sites from internet provider side.

But seems they only want to harm the legit porn creators.

xxxclusive · 07-02-2025, 01:30 PM

Good analysis

https://pornbiz.com/post/17/the_scam...verification#8

CyberHustler · 07-02-2025, 01:45 PM

I tried to warn y'all, but every time I bump the threads of my warnings, I get banned.

Wonder why? 🤔

Libz pwnd ✅

Have fun 🍿😎🍿

asorelli · 07-02-2025, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxclusive

Good analysis

pornbiz.com/post/17/the_scam_of_age_verification#8

Read that yesterday, and I can say it's spot on about many things. These lawmakers (politicians/attorneys/judges/etc) have lost their minds, and not just in the adult industry. Obviously, the focus here is on the adult industry, but their control-obsessed ideologues run rampant throughout many sectors, and our civil rights continue to be diminished.

100% Truth right here ...

Quote:

"These same people pretend to stand on a moral high ground, while lying through their teeth about their true intentions."

"Device-level parental controls have existed for years, and can actually block a million sites. But politicians can’t take credit for them. So instead of empowering parents, lawmakers give them a headline and a false promise."

"Watch these pricks go on TV or social media and pat themselves on the back for “making the internet safer” — while anyone can still run a basic Google search and instantly find billions of porn images. Bold-faced liars."

"The one “good” thing about AV is that it’s a clear sign of political incompetence. If your lawmakers passed this kind of law, you can be sure they’re either corrupt, lying to you, stupid — or some combination of all three. At least it makes them easier to spot."

"the hypocrites in charge are systematically and deliberately sparing mainstream platforms."

A few more important take aways from that article ....

Quote:

"In any case, it’s mind-boggling that platforms are punished, adults are forced to take privacy risks, and everyone is expected to endure a disastrous user experience — all because we’re supposed to accept that it’s “too difficult” for parents to spend two minutes setting up parental controls."

"And if some parents struggle with tech, the answer is education and support — not mass surveillance and regulatory theater."

"In reality, this is just the state outsourcing its child-protection duties to private companies, who are now expected to police everyone else’s kids."

"Shifting responsibility away from parents is exactly the wrong direction."

"That solution is simple: require all parents to install a parental control app — and have teachers verify its presence in school, once a year. The app could display a small icon on the home screen, making it instantly visible without needing to unlock the device."

There was more, but just wanted to highlight a few from that article.

If and/or when sales begin to plummet, more will probably be concerned. Apparently, the ACLU and Free Speech Coalition brought repeated cases to the courts and even took it all the way to the Supreme Court. They consistently held that requiring users to verify their age to access protected content is unconstitutional when less restrictive alternatives, like filtering software, are available. Still, the laws were passed.

I believe like everything else, a big part of this is about money. Simply another way for the government to line their pockets and maybe even try to get their hands on this data at some point. I can see the headlines: "YOTI Hacked! Leaked Data Exposes Millions of Porn Consumers-- And You Won't Believe Who Is On This Naughty List!!"

Will they actively start enforcing these laws? I think yes, based on the following:

"Based on Texas’s insane $10,000-per-day penalty, and assuming one million adult sites currently lack AV, the State of Texas stands to gain ~$6,000,000,000,000 — that’s 6 trillion dollars — more than what the entire industry has ever made, worldwide, and counting. As we said before: all reason is long gone"

Wow, no incentive there!

xxxclusive · 07-03-2025, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asorelli

I can see the headlines: "YOTI Hacked! Leaked Data Exposes Millions of Porn Consumers-- And You Won't Believe Who Is On This Naughty List!!"

This will happen as it will very profitable, because the hackers can then blackmail the users, like "hey CEO bro with a subscription to Premiumbukkake, you better give me 0.1 BTC or you family and company will know."

asorelli · 07-03-2025, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxclusive

This will happen as it will very profitable, because the hackers can then blackmail the users, like "hey CEO bro with a subscription to Premiumbukkake, you better give me 0.1 BTC or you family and company will know."

Then yoti (or whatever US company) magically gets billions of dollars from the government to help further "secure" this data. I can see some shit like that happening. There are many companies getting paid huge $$ by the gov., all tax payer dollars for useless programs. Bunch of corrupt mofos. Sadly, probably not much that can be done, other than succumb to the continued abuse of power. Obviously, this scenario is a bit of a reach and pure speculation, but stuff like this happens all the time.

xxxclusive · 07-31-2025, 08:55 AM

So you fuckers and fapers, is this children friendly enough?

NatalieK · 07-31-2025, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxclusive

So you fuckers and fapers, is this children friendly enough?

ahhh haha, like the old images we used to upload to the 2hot4fb website :

mainstreammix · 07-31-2025, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberHustler

I tried to warn y'all, but every time I bump the threads of my warnings, I get banned.

Wonder why? 🤔

Libz pwnd ✅

Have fun 🍿😎🍿

Burn the witch!

The Porn Nerd · 07-31-2025, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxclusive

So you fuckers and fapers, is this children friendly enough?

Fixed it for ya.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatalieK

ahhh haha, like the old images we used to upload to the 2hot4fb website :

Exactly!

06-25-2025, 03:02 PM	#108
esham Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 621	looks like tomorrow we get the news. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n/84330035007/ Push everyone to the dark web great plan republicans. __________________ Double Your profit From Ad Brokers

06-26-2025, 05:31 AM	#109
INever Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: .......in a niche, in orbit...... Posts: 3,579	The Age Check Trap That Means Surveillance for Everyone A new Senate bill designed to strengthen online privacy protections for minors could bring about major changes in how age is verified across the internet, prompting platforms to implement broader surveillance measures in an attempt to comply with ambiguous legal standards. The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (S.836) (COPPA 2.0), now under review by the Senate Commerce Committee, proposes raising the protected age group from under 13 to under 17. It also introduces a new provision allowing teens aged 13 to 16 to consent to data collection on their own. The bill has drawn praise from lawmakers across party lines and received backing from several major tech companies. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. Supporters frame the bill as a long-overdue update to existing digital privacy laws. But others argue that a subtle change in how platforms are expected to identify underage users may produce outcomes that are more intrusive and far-reaching than anticipated. Under the current law, platforms must act when they have “actual knowledge” that a user is a child. The proposed bill replaces that threshold with a broader and less defined expectation: “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.” This language introduces uncertainty about what constitutes sufficient awareness, making companies more vulnerable to legal challenges if they fail to identify underage users. Instead of having to respond only when given explicit information about a user’s age, platforms would be required to interpret behavioral cues, usage patterns, or contextual data. This effectively introduces a negligence standard, compelling platforms to act preemptively to avoid accusations of noncompliance. As a result, many websites may respond by implementing age verification systems for all users, regardless of whether they cater to minors. These systems would likely require more detailed personal information, including government-issued identification or biometric scans, to confirm users’ ages. More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda Mandatory age verification carries significant risks. Systems that request sensitive documentation create new pools of personal data that can be targeted by attackers, misused internally, or sold for commercial gain. Once uploaded, personal information becomes subject to opaque storage and retention practices, often beyond the user’s control or awareness. No method currently in use for verifying age balances reliability with privacy protection. Facial analysis tools and ID upload mechanisms are prone to errors and require the collection of intrusive data. Systems that offer users different verification options do not eliminate the underlying vulnerabilities; they shift where and how those vulnerabilities appear. Without a comprehensive national data privacy framework, users remain exposed. There are no federal requirements mandating clear limits on data retention, transparency around third-party access, or redress mechanisms for misuse. This absence of structural privacy safeguards undermines the very protections that the bill aims to strengthen. When access to online services depends on passing an age check, some users will choose not to engage at all. Public forums, creative platforms, and educational resources may become inaccessible unless users agree to verification procedures. This introduces a barrier to speech and participation that affects more than just teenagers. Age-gating policies can create a chilling effect, especially in communities where anonymity plays a role in safety or free expression. The more sensitive the verification process, the more likely it is to dissuade users from contributing content or seeking out information. This reconfiguration of access doesn’t appear in the text of the bill, but it is the logical result of shifting legal obligations onto platforms without providing clear enforcement boundaries or privacy protections for the resulting data flows. Though the bill’s authors intend to update a law passed more than two decades ago, the proposed mechanism places the burden on platforms to make risk-averse decisions without clear guidance. The cost of avoiding liability could lead to invasive systems that erode online privacy for all users. Efforts to protect minors online deserve serious legislative attention, but those efforts require precise definitions and strong, enforceable rights over personal data. Expanding the scope of regulated users while weakening the clarity of legal standards invites overreach and exposes everyone to new forms of digital scrutiny. The direction of this bill signals an approach that outsources responsibility to platforms while leaving users with fewer protections and more demands. Until federal privacy legislation is passed that addresses the broader environment of data collection and surveillance, piecemeal reforms like S.836 will continue to produce complex and far-reaching consequences. __________________ I love Camdough

06-27-2025, 08:21 AM	#110
mrmister Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,103	https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...f0d888259543cf RIP __________________ Looking for a link exchange

06-28-2025, 01:58 PM	#112
muze Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 111	What happens if a webmaster does nothing? In the US: Server in the US (While it is still at the state level, does the state location of the server matter) if it becomes federal law? In the UK: When it goes in effect in the UK - what happens if I do nothing? I have a smallish site, free, but I just started accepting premium memberships - largely via crypto __________________ Easiest money? Embed live cams in your pages with Chaturbate - Join here today! iStripper has best ad tools that convert to sales - Learn more here!

06-17-2025, 08:04 AM	#105
goodoff Producer and Actor Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2024 Posts: 35	I reread the entire discussion and it seems I didn't come across a single mention of VPN... How are American and European legislators going to fight that resourceful underage visitor who gets onto the porn site through the IP of that country that doesn't give a shit about all these age restrictions?

06-25-2025, 02:11 PM	#107
xxxclusive Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 677	Seems first stats are out, over 60% traffic drop for compliant websites, traffic shifting to non-compliant websites https://x.com/FSCArmy/status/1929524257534378442

06-28-2025, 02:35 PM	#113
xxxclusive Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 677	Seems the big players (tubes) simply block all relevant regional IPs. As with age verifications you lose over 60% of your traffic you can as well simply ban the IPs, maybe consumers are so annoyed that the put pressure on the political authorities. If child protection would be the real reason they could simply block all adult sites from internet provider side. But seems they only want to harm the legit porn creators.

07-02-2025, 01:30 PM	#114
xxxclusive Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 677	Good analysis https://pornbiz.com/post/17/the_scam...verification#8

07-02-2025, 01:45 PM	#115
CyberHustler Masterbaiter Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 26,022	I tried to warn y'all, but every time I bump the threads of my warnings, I get banned. Wonder why? 🤔 Libz pwnd ✅ Have fun 🍿😎🍿

07-31-2025, 08:55 AM	#119
xxxclusive Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 677	So you fuckers and fapers, is this children friendly enough?