I know the HB 2112 thing has passed, but let's not forget about this one:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/kids-online-safety-act-will-make-internet-worse-everyone

Wait what it passed?

So uh, what does that mean for e621?

fucking go all out people, both in this one and the one looking to criminalise all porn and lgbtq+ content

eranormus said:
fucking go all out people, both in this one and the one looking to criminalise all porn and lgbtq+ content

And let's not forget the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Even thought that one was already passed.

If these people really cared about the safety of children, they'd outlaw child marriage, which is legal in more states than you would think. But no, it's not about protecting anyone, it's just more censorship. I hate this timeline.

111111111one said:
If these people really cared about the safety of children, they'd outlaw child marriage, which is legal in more states than you would think. But no, it's not about protecting anyone, it's just more censorship. I hate this timeline.

lets not forget putting children back in unsafe factories instead of schools and who knows soon official fing child soldiers...

electricitywolf said:
And let's not forget the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Even thought that one was already passed.

What even is "Fair Use" anymore?

casmin7~ said:
Wait what it passed?

So uh, what does that mean for e621?

In essence, it means that when the legislative session ends (Which I think I read it was scheduled fer May 23, but it could be pushed back) any effected entities (Such as e6) would have 90 days to comply with the new laws. This window is usually given to allow businesses to update their protocols, but given the structure of the site, would effectively mean that the window would be used to relocate. The time it would take to relocate would probably not be very extensive, so I can totally see E6 waitin' to see if the bill gets revoked due to public outcry. But in the likely event it gets fully initialised, it will be fully in effect 90 days after the legislative session ends.

111111111one said:
If these people really cared about the safety of children, they'd outlaw child marriage, which is legal in more states than you would think. But no, it's not about protecting anyone, it's just more censorship. I hate this timeline.

The same side that screams 'Think about the children!' is also screaming that safe abortions should be illegal, thus forcing births on women who could die from it, and women who had the situation forced on them should also be forced to carry to term, because 'my religion means you have no choice'.
Oh, and none of these single moms should get any sort of government support.

Almost like they don't give a single whit about 'the children' and only want to control everyone. 🤔

keep the pressure at the maximum people

We need a porn religion like the Slackers and Pastafarians have their things.

alphamule said:
We need a porn religion like the Slackers and Pastafarians have their things.

How about "Mass Debaters" as a name for that religion?

Well...here we go again meow.

indigohowl said:
Well...here we go again meow.

its not going away soon, so people must keep on guard for an while

Hopefully they move e6 to another place

The fact Arizona seemingly passed this moronic bill speaks volumes about the people in charge there

lewddoggy2500 said:
Hopefully they move e6 to another place

The fact Arizona seemingly passed this moronic bill speaks volumes about the people in charge there

Hopefully outside of US, unless it's temporary until they can find a more definitive home to the files.

I think USA is becoming hostile... It might be a better idea for long run just move to outside of USA... But where is the issue

jota_the_fox said:
I think USA is becoming hostile... It might be a better idea for long run just move to outside of USA... But where is the issue

Actually, the trend seems to be moving toward isolation and self-sufficiency; much like we saw between the Great Depression and World War 2. It's going to be an interesting decade or two.

At the center of the bill is a requirement that platforms “exercise reasonable care” to prevent and mitigate a sweeping list of harms to minors, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, substance use, bullying, and “compulsive usage.”

Just ban minors from the internet at that point.

While it hopefully won't go anywhere, there is also the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act to worry about, which is a blanket national ban on porn by adopting a national definition of obscene to "depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person".

crazybu5grandt0ur said:
What even is "Fair Use" anymore?

Your post reminds me of SOPA (does anyone remember?), but I digress.

jota_the_fox said:
I think USA is becoming hostile... It might be a better idea for long run just move to outside of USA... But where is the issue

It has been and still is. Switzerland might be the best bet regarding server migration.

I've been waiting to see an announcement post in the news section so that we all know what e621 staff is planning to do.

It's not wise to keep this many people in the dark, we'll speculate worst-possible scenarios. For example, I've already seen several PSAs telling everyone to save (to hard drive) all their e6 favs because they think this bill (or the other one) will take e621 out.

But to my surprise, it's been 20 days and I've seen no news posts about it. That's concerning.

afterglow said:
I've been waiting to see an announcement post in the news section so that we all know what e621 staff is planning to do.

It's not wise to keep this many people in the dark, we'll speculate worst-possible scenarios. For example, I've already seen several public PSAs telling everyone to save all their e6 favs because they think the bill will take e621 out.

But to my surprise, it's been pretty long and I've seen no news posts about it. That's concerning.

BD/DFV is probably still weighing its options on the matter, there's still 80-ish days left before a final decision is needed.

in any case, shutting the site down entirely is almost certainly not one of the options.

I've also seen a lot of speculation about whether this incoming law even applies to e621 website or not, depending on what kind of org technically owns it, if it counts as commercial or not, that kind of thing. That would also be great to hear where the staff lands on that matter, to cut the speculation.

afterglow said:
I've been waiting to see an announcement post in the news section so that we all know what e621 staff is planning to do.

It's not wise to keep this many people in the dark, we'll speculate worst-possible scenarios. For example, I've already seen several PSAs telling everyone to save (to hard drive) all their e6 favs because they think this bill (or the other one) will take e621 out.

But to my surprise, it's been 20 days and I've seen no news posts about it. That's concerning.

afterglow said:
I've also seen a lot of speculation about whether this incoming law even applies to e621 website or not, depending on what kind of org technically owns it, if it counts as commercial or not, that kind of thing. That would also be great to hear where the staff lands on that matter, to cut the speculation.

I am not sure if you have read all of the previous threads already made topic relating to the plan moving forward, see topic #55289, topic #57126, & topic #57070.

Once a viable plan has been formulated by e6's owners, it may be announced. Though it wouldn't hurt to be prepared if changes all happen suddenly.

afterglow said:
I've also seen a lot of speculation about whether this incoming law even applies to e621 website or not, depending on what kind of org technically owns it, if it counts as commercial or not, that kind of thing. That would also be great to hear where the staff lands on that matter, to cut the speculation.

This kind of speculation should be completely disregarded unless it's coming from an actual lawyer or judge. Otherwise it's purely baseless conjecture of the ignorant.

Kinda unrelated, but...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j58pwy82no

I wonder if the EU will go after sites like e621.

clamchowder said:
Kinda unrelated, but...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j58pwy82no

I wonder if the EU will go after sites like e621.

Not yet, at least according to the article you linked. But we will very likely see this:
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-seeks-feedback-guidelines-protection-minors-online-under-digital-services-act
Basically mandatory age verification for such sites but actually done pretty sensible, at least from what I read. So with that in mind my guess is that they are currently going after the really big players first. And as well known as e6 is in the furry fandom, it is mosty unknown outside of it.
Though I would hope that for smaller sites they are more waiting on the respective age verification methods (i.e. the interim age verification app and subsequently the EU Digital Identity Wallet) to be available and ready to be implemented for these sites before smiting them. We'll see in due time.

Government shouldn't have Control of the Internet.

Also, The Law should go after the PARENTS. Since its the PARENTS that are suppose to Control 100% on what THEIR kids Do and See on the Internet. So The PARENTS are the ones that are ALLOWING their KIDS to have Full Unrestricted Control on the internet. So The Law Should Go 100% after the Parents for Allowing it to Happen in first place.

lizzyroo said:
Government shouldn't have Control of the Internet.

Also, The Law should go after the PARENTS. Since its the PARENTS that are suppose to Control 100% on what THEIR kids Do and See on the Internet. So The PARENTS are the ones that are ALLOWING their KIDS to have Full Unrestricted Control on the internet. So The Law Should Go 100% after the Parents for Allowing it to Happen in first place.

Just to entertain this for a bit, let's assume it happens like that. Who would then be the ones reporting this?
The websites? Certainly not. They have a user browsing the site, bringing in ad revenue. So they couldn't care less, really.
The parents finding their childs on these sites? Also no. Why would you incriminate yourself?
The ISPs? How should they know if it isn't the parent browsing the site? So that is a no too.
So with whom are you now left? Sure, schools and institutions when the children talk about this and they then subsequently find that stuff on their PC/Tablet/Smartphone. But that is then the only situation and those kids are generally smart enough to keep it hush-hush.

And as much as I disagree with using the approach of the analog world (i.e. showing your ID in a store) be transfered to the internet (as that stuff is saved somewhere), I do understand having to put something in place so that minors don't end up where they shouldn't. We have a solution in the analog world (again, showing your ID) and that responsibility is on the store offering adult material instead of the parents. Just that this isn't really working in the digital world.

lizzyroo said:
Government shouldn't have Control of the Internet.

Also, The Law should go after the PARENTS. Since its the PARENTS that are suppose to Control 100% on what THEIR kids Do and See on the Internet. So The PARENTS are the ones that are ALLOWING their KIDS to have Full Unrestricted Control on the internet. So The Law Should Go 100% after the Parents for Allowing it to Happen in first place.

I was going write something longer, but I'll counter-argument with one point. Parents can't...literally CAN'T...monitor what their kids do 24/7; and even if they have things set so their own kids can't view "controlled material"; they can't control what other kids show them. When you try to force that level of control...you end up with a case where society collectively becomes responsible (which we know doesn't work); and that doesn't even delve into how some kids are more mature than others.

carbohybrid said:

lizzyroo said:
Government shouldn't have Control of the Internet.

Also, The Law should go after the PARENTS. Since its the PARENTS that are suppose to Control 100% on what THEIR kids Do and See on the Internet. So The PARENTS are the ones that are ALLOWING their KIDS to have Full Unrestricted Control on the internet. So The Law Should Go 100% after the Parents for Allowing it to Happen in first place.

Just to entertain this for a bit, let's assume it happens like that. Who would then be the ones reporting this?
The websites? Certainly not. They have a user browsing the site, bringing in ad revenue. So they couldn't care less, really.
The parents finding their childs on these sites? Also no. Why would you incriminate yourself?
The ISPs? How should they know if it isn't the parent browsing the site? So that is a no too.
So with whom are you now left? Sure, schools and institutions when the children talk about this and they then subsequently find that stuff on their PC/Tablet/Smartphone. But that is then the only situation and those kids are generally smart enough to keep it hush-hush.

And as much as I disagree with using the approach of the analog world (i.e. showing your ID in a store) be transfered to the internet (as that stuff is saved somewhere), I do understand having to put something in place so that minors don't end up where they shouldn't. We have a solution in the analog world (again, showing your ID) and that responsibility is on the store offering adult material instead of the parents. Just that this isn't really working in the digital world.

The websites would have an incentive to catch minors if they could sue the parents and get an amount far greater than what they would have got from advertising revenue. In addition, parents would be more vigilant about their kids. If there is something a large number of parents nowadays care more about than the safety of their own children, it is money. I'm aware that some perverse incentives might exist in this approach, but so do in some age-verification laws. As for parents self-incriminating, people have incriminated themselves on way worse things just for a few likes on social media.

Let's also talk about the unintended consequences of what would essentially be a pornography ban for anyone who is uncomfortable with giving any sort of ID to watch porn. They would just turn away from any website that asks for their ID and go to the shadiest corners of the Internet. Let's imagine... let's call her Jane. Jane goes to this site where she is not asked for any ID or even asked to sign up to watch porn. And there is a dynamic and fun community on the site. She came for porn and stayed for the community. One day, she stumbles upon "cheese pizza" AKA "Confocal Scanning Acoustic Microscopy" on this site. And she realizes the moderation of the site won't do anything about it. She is in a dilemma, she knows she has to report it to the authorities and distance herself from this site, but doing so would feel as if she was betraying someone who has treated her with some sort of respect this whole time. And she would also lose many of her friends on the site. She is not alone in this.

Edit: Wait! Wait! I did not mean that story as "think of the children", i meant it as "people will stop caring about what is legal and what is not".

Alternatively, one could buy prints and microforms from a local dealer if one is paranoid about computers. These laws have the potential to create a profitable black market.

carbohybrid said:

clamchowder said:
Kinda unrelated, but...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j58pwy82no

I wonder if the EU will go after sites like e621.

Not yet, at least according to the article you linked. But we will very likely see this:
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-seeks-feedback-guidelines-protection-minors-online-under-digital-services-act
Basically mandatory age verification for such sites but actually done pretty sensible, at least from what I read. So with that in mind my guess is that they are currently going after the really big players first. And as well known as e6 is in the furry fandom, it is mosty unknown outside of it.
Though I would hope that for smaller sites they are more waiting on the respective age verification methods (i.e. the interim age verification app and subsequently the EU Digital Identity Wallet) to be available and ready to be implemented for these sites before smiting them. We'll see in due time.

As far as I know, the EU Digital Identity Wallet would be used not just for age verification, but for many other important things, too. It makes me really concerned about people who don't have and don't want a smartphone, or don't even want anything to do with the Internet at all. Are they just gonna get forced into homelessness with no real legal way to get out of it?

My personal opinion on age verification, while predominantly based on privacy concerns, goes in part something like "How dare you ask an adult to prove they is an adult? Only children should have to prove they are adults! Let me speak to the manager!"
For some other people, the later is the predominant or only reason, and they would try to prove they are adults in every possible way but the one they were asked to, doxing themselves in the process. And many of them would also be the kind of person who would pay a smuggler thousands of dollars so they can save 3 dollars on import duties for a screwdriver.

electricitywolf said:
-snip-

(Sorry for snipping it but I think it is more readable that way.)
For the first part of your reply:
You have a point that the sites would be incentivised to sue the parents. But that would, just like the ISPs in my example, need the proof that this is coming from the children and not from the adults in that household. At which point you will have issues with data protection laws (as you need to save that stuff somewhere). Which in return can open up counter lawsuits for violating data protection laws. So it isn't that easy to do.
And yes, showing IDs is pretty much a ban on porn online. However, as I said, I understand both sides. Which is why I am actually pretty positive on what the EU plans to do. You aren't sending your ID around and children won't be able to access these sites. Of course there will always be the black market out there and it can not really be avoided. Just like dark allyways with scetchy characters are unavoidable in cities.

For the second part of your reply:
I agree that older folks especially will have issues with it. But this doesn't mean that there will be no way to get certain things (especially important things) done in an official capacity. You can still go to the Citicens Advice Bureau (hope I translated this correctly from "Bürgerbüro" in German; i.e. where you are doing your stuff like getting your ID renewed etc.) for these things. In the end we will have to see how it pans out.
And while I can understand your point on having to ask an adult to show they are an adult, you can not really do any age verification by just hoping that you fish out the children (and I have no idea how you could do that that won't be going against privacy).

Sounds like FAFO time.

carbohybrid said:
(Sorry for snipping it but I think it is more readable that way.)
For the first part of your reply:
You have a point that the sites would be incentivised to sue the parents. But that would, just like the ISPs in my example, need the proof that this is coming from the children and not from the adults in that household. At which point you will have issues with data protection laws (as you need to save that stuff somewhere). Which in return can open up counter lawsuits for violating data protection laws. So it isn't that easy to do.
And yes, showing IDs is pretty much a ban on porn online. However, as I said, I understand both sides. Which is why I am actually pretty positive on what the EU plans to do. You aren't sending your ID around and children won't be able to access these sites. Of course there will always be the black market out there and it can not really be avoided. Just like dark allyways with scetchy characters are unavoidable in cities.

For the second part of your reply:
I agree that older folks especially will have issues with it. But this doesn't mean that there will be no way to get certain things (especially important things) done in an official capacity. You can still go to the Citicens Advice Bureau (hope I translated this correctly from "Bürgerbüro" in German; i.e. where you are doing your stuff like getting your ID renewed etc.) for these things. In the end we will have to see how it pans out.
And while I can understand your point on having to ask an adult to show they are an adult, you can not really do any age verification by just hoping that you fish out the children (and I have no idea how you could do that that won't be going against privacy).

It's just that i miss how things used to work back in the day. Well, and also that i'm concerned that the European approach to age verification approach might have some kind of backdoor in it created by a mathematics genius, and all the official documentation is written in a way that cognitively blinds you to said backdoor.

Maybe something that makes me so against age verification is that my story with this site started when i was still a minor and so did many other users'. I did not create an account until much later, but i realized there was something special about this site early on. And once i did create an account, i knew i was part of a very special community.

Also, what will happen to personal websites that happen to host porn? And what will happen to anonymous imageboards that are both on Tor and on the clearnet like 8chan?

electricitywolf said:
It's just that i miss how things used to work back in the day. Well, and also that i'm concerned that the European approach to age verification approach might have some kind of backdoor in it created by a mathematics genius, and all the official documentation is written in a way that cognitively blinds you to said backdoor.

Maybe something that makes me so against age verification is that my story with this site started when i was still a minor and so did many other users'. I did not create an account until much later, but i realized there was something special about this site early on. And once i did create an account, i knew i was part of a very special community.

Also, what will happen to personal websites that happen to host porn? And what will happen to anonymous imageboards that are both on Tor and on the clearnet like 8chan?

I'm no expert on such things, but I have a feeling that the Internet will be less accessible in the future, and it's not just for porn.

electricitywolf said:
It's just that i miss how things used to work back in the day. Well, and also that i'm concerned that the European approach to age verification approach might have some kind of backdoor in it created by a mathematics genius, and all the official documentation is written in a way that cognitively blinds you to said backdoor.

Maybe something that makes me so against age verification is that my story with this site started when i was still a minor and so did many other users'. I did not create an account until much later, but i realized there was something special about this site early on. And once i did create an account, i knew i was part of a very special community.

Also, what will happen to personal websites that happen to host porn? And what will happen to anonymous imageboards that are both on Tor and on the clearnet like 8chan?

Sure, there might be a backdoor. But you have to admit that this is way more in line with data protection and privacy than actually sending your ID somewhere like virtually any other age verification bill wants to require you to do. I am not saying that your concern or experience is invalid but I think we can both agree that minors shouldn't really be on adult only websites or spaces. Sure, one might find a nice communty. Someone else though might find traumatising stuff. Even on this site.

As for the personal websites and the likes: On page 4 of the guidelines document (which is accessible in the link I provided earlier), in paragraph 3 of that page (and footnote 8), are the applications outlined. As long as it is a small or microenterprise and it isn't a video-sharing platform, they aren't required to implement it. Which might also be a way of how e6 doesn't have to do it. Though I am not a lawyer so please take what I said with some salt and not as legal advice.

clamchowder said:
I'm no expert on such things, but I have a feeling that the Internet will be less accessible in the future, and it's not just for porn.

That's a very important point i forgot to mention in my last post. And i fear age verification bills together with unrelated regulations are getting us into a "boiling frog" situation. Just imagine how someone from 1995 would react to the anti-money laundering laws from 2025.

Sorry if my previous posts looked rushed. It's just that there are so many things that worry me besides age verification bills. There are so many things happening one right after another, giving me no time to process them. And i miss all that optimism me and many others had in the 2010s. To some extent, i feel trapped now.

electricitywolf said:
Sorry if my previous posts looked rushed. It's just that there are so many things that worry me besides age verification bills. There are so many things happening one right after another, giving me no time to process them. And i miss all that optimism me and many others had in the 2010s. To some extent, i feel trapped now.

We are as trapped as you are.

notknow said:
Hopefully outside of US, unless it's temporary until they can find a more definitive home to the files.

The problem is if the owners or operators move the site to another country the site may be safe from US law but the owners aren't, charges could still be placed on who ever owns E621

indigohowl said:
I was going write something longer, but I'll counter-argument with one point. Parents can't...literally CAN'T...monitor what their kids do 24/7; and even if they have things set so their own kids can't view "controlled material"; they can't control what other kids show them. When you try to force that level of control...you end up with a case where society collectively becomes responsible (which we know doesn't work); and that doesn't even delve into how some kids are more mature than others.

The issue is someone will be made responsible. Parents don't have to provide iphones, tablets, desktops for their children they choose to knowing what is on the internet. Forcing platforms and ISP to be responsible for everyone doesn't work either. There's always going to be someone complaining about something. Also, being more mature than others is a moot point, even if a 13 year old is smarter and more mature than a 25 year old the 13 year old is still, by law, not old enough to make adult decisions. There are plenty of examples where parents are held responsible for what their child gets ahold of.

Examples:
Many states have Child Access Prevention laws. If a child accesses a firearm that was not properly stored, the parent/guardian can be criminally charged with negligence or reckless endangerment, and can be civilly sued if the child injures or kills someone.

Parents may face child welfare involvement if it's discovered the child is regularly smoking with their help or neglect.

If a child ingests medication and is harmed the parents can be criminally liable for negligence or endangerment. Also, Child Protective Services may get involved.

Parents may be liable for "social host" laws if a child gets alcohol and harms someone else.

Access to porn seems to be the only thing or elected officials want parents to not be responsible for

kaiselius said:
While it hopefully won't go anywhere, there is also the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act to worry about, which is a blanket national ban on porn by adopting a national definition of obscene to "depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person".

If it does pass based on the wording the internet would have to fully shut down. I'm sure someone gets off to bothersome ads

royalgator said:
If it does pass based on the wording the internet would have to fully shut down. I'm sure someone gets off to bothersome ads

Like, the act wouldn't just ban porn, but everything considered "obscene". Owning a copy of the Sopranos would be a felony, playing the Witcher would be a felony, owning a copy of Mice and Men would be a felony, hell even GTA 6 would be a felony.

It would, quite literally, make the entire US population criminals.

joeyski said: ...

If my Eastern European history knowledge is not failing me, it was fairly regular practice in USSR: make some common behavior technically illegal but not enforce the new law too much if at all. One of easy ways to have something justifying prosecution in case it is ever needed/wanted. In other words — more control.

No, I'm not comparing USA to USSR, just illustrating fairly straightforward logic of such decision, regardless of how insane it seems to people.

royalgator said:
The issue is someone will be made responsible. Parents don't have to provide iphones, tablets, desktops for their children they choose to knowing what is on the internet. Forcing platforms and ISP to be responsible for everyone doesn't work either. There's always going to be someone complaining about something. Also, being more mature than others is a moot point, even if a 13 year old is smarter and more mature than a 25 year old the 13 year old is still, by law, not old enough to make adult decisions. There are plenty of examples where parents are held responsible for what their child gets ahold of.

Examples:
Many states have Child Access Prevention laws. If a child accesses a firearm that was not properly stored, the parent/guardian can be criminally charged with negligence or reckless endangerment, and can be civilly sued if the child injures or kills someone.

Parents may face child welfare involvement if it's discovered the child is regularly smoking with their help or neglect.

If a child ingests medication and is harmed the parents can be criminally liable for negligence or endangerment. Also, Child Protective Services may get involved.

Parents may be liable for "social host" laws if a child gets alcohol and harms someone else.

Access to porn seems to be the only thing or elected officials want parents to not be responsible for

justkhajiit said:
If my Eastern European history knowledge is not failing me, it was fairly regular practice in USSR: make some common behavior technically illegal but not enforce the new law too much if at all. One of easy ways to have something justifying prosecution in case it is ever needed/wanted. In other words — more control.

No, I'm not comparing USA to USSR, just illustrating fairly straightforward logic of such decision, regardless of how insane it seems to people.

This is what i had in mind for a while, but i did not have the courage or focus needed to actually say it. Forcing myself to bring those points up would likely have made me look like a madman and quite likely backfire.

My ADHD makes me not bother to give an opinion when i'm not worried enough and give a messy one when i'm too worried.

electricitywolf said:
This is what i had in mind for a while, but i did not have the courage or focus needed to actually say it. Forcing myself to bring those points up would likely have made me look like a madman and quite likely backfire.

My ADHD makes me not bother to give an opinion when i'm not worried enough and give a messy one when i'm too worried.

Trying to think of any scenario, optimistically or not, isn't doing any favor for my brain. Maybe I should move on and touch grass?

carbohybrid said:
How about "Mass Debaters" as a name for that religion?

Not to be confused with the sister organization, The Baiters.
Trolling as a religion. :P

carbohybrid said:
...as that stuff is saved somewhere)...

Yeah, the Facebooks and Palantirs of the world are a huge problem. Reminds me of some of the warnings about early 20th-century Futurism/science fiction. Basically, someone pointed out what a country like the Soviet Union would do with all their cool new inventions. It's not like there wasn't a precedent for abusing technology. :(

Anyways, plans seem to be in place at a lot of sites to deal with the censorism. At least we seem to have some warning unlike with the Tumblr "Oh shit, there's porn!" incident. Or... another I won't name. XD Try checking with your favorite sites, and seeing if people are working on solutions, and if not, start one. I'm currently working on some other sites' efforts, ATM, myself. It's part of why I've been so inactive on here, recently, in fact!

clamchowder said:
Trying to think of any scenario, optimistically or not, isn't doing any favor for my brain. Maybe I should move on and touch grass?

Meh, don't let the stress get you. Hope is good, and you can contribute in small ways. No one has to Do It All. Yeah, take a break if you need to.

electricitywolf said:
Also, what will happen to personal websites that happen to host porn? And what will happen to anonymous imageboards that are both on Tor and on the clearnet like 8chan?

Super++ bad thought sites get you lifebanned. (joke) Seriously though, there seem to be quotas on some laws for that the 'small site' reason, and those will likely require a proxy to access (TOR is already one, so...). We could also end up with door services being more popular. Many sites already have TOR gateways to use them.

I think people already covered the selective enforcement crap, enough. It's not like the same things haven't been said for centuries. :/

carbohybrid said:
How about "Mass Debaters" as a name for that religion?

Porn, and Fishing!

Master Baters!

Don't forget NNN folks: Masturb-lators

while everybody in the united states that frequents the site need to manifest their discontent to their representatives and if needed,protest in as many parts of the united states as possible. everybody should still not only make back ups online, but also phisical ones through pendrives

alphamule said:
We need a porn religion like the Slackers and Pastafarians have their things.

It's not only porn what's being attacked. By the way, i have unironically treated the Rules of the Internet as some sort of sacred text at some point.