The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry

It feels like every time a major platform caves to age checks, smaller sites quietly slip into the vacuum—and regulators eventually notice. That’s what’s happening now in the U.K., where Ofcom has opened investigations into 20 additional adult sites under the Online Safety Act’s age-assurance rules.

In a statement released Thursday, the agency named five providers that collectively operate the 20 sites under scrutiny: HQPorner, Porntrex, Fapello, XXBrits, and Sun Social Media, which runs playvids.com and peekvids.com.

According to Ofcom, these particular platforms weren’t chosen at random. They appear to have gained new users from the wave of traffic migrating away from larger, fully compliant sites—the ones that turned on age verification last summer and took the hit.

“We have prioritized action against these companies based on the risk of harm posed by the services they operate,” the statement reads. “We have taken particular account of their user numbers, including where we have seen significant increases in their user traffic since age-check laws came into force last summer.”

People have been predicting this shift for years: enforce age-verification on big platforms and users will simply move to smaller, noncompliant sites. Now it’s playing out in real time—major sites reporting steep traffic drops while their competitors grow without the same legal burdens.

Suzanne Cater, Ofcom’s Director of Enforcement, didn’t mince words. “The use of highly effective age assurance to protect children from harmful pornographic content is non-negotiable, and we will accept no excuses for failure. Any service that fails to meet its age-check duties under the Online Safety Act can expect to face robust enforcement action, including significant fines.”

Ongoing Investigations

Alongside the announcement about newly targeted sites, Ofcom also updated progress on a series of ongoing cases.

The agency fined Itai Tech Ltd., operator of the AI “nudification” site Undress.cc, a total of 55,000 pounds for failing to implement required age-assurance measures and for ignoring a statutory information request.

It also issued provisional decisions against 8579 LLC and Kick Online Entertainment for similar issues. “Both providers now have an opportunity to make representations to us before we make our final decisions,” the statement notes.

Meanwhile, investigations into Cyberitic LLC and the operator of xgroovy.com are expanding, as regulators assess whether those companies also failed to properly respond to formal requests for information.

One case did end on a more cooperative note: Ofcom closed its investigation into Trendio Ltd., concluding the provider has “taken steps in good faith towards compliance.”

With these new additions, the total number of platforms Ofcom is actively investigating under the Online Safety Act now sits at 76.

It started with a post on X that felt less like an announcement and more like a warning shot. Krystal Davis shared that one of her platforms would no longer accept adult content tied to Alabama or North Carolina—and suddenly a lot of creators across the U.S. were scrambling to figure out what this meant for them.

Some Adult Platforms Are Banning Content and Creators From Alabama and North Carolina

The notice laid out the new rules in blunt terms. The platform will reject:

Any productions shot in Alabama or North Carolina.

Any productions featuring talent who legally reside in those states.

Any productions featuring talent whose ID documents were issued by those states.

And it’s not just some vague future plan. The policy is attached to specific launch dates:

Alabama: applies to content shot on or after October 1, 2024.

North Carolina: applies to content shot on or after December 1, 2025.

Why Adult Platforms Are Banning Content From Alabama and North Carolina

Krystal Davis said her notice came from Adult Empire, and another creator reported getting a similar notice from Adult Time. It wouldn’t be surprising if more platforms quietly follow the same route. In a way, it feels like another one of those “small changes” that’ll end up reshaping the industry before anyone has time to react.

But why this move? Why now?

Both states recently passed sweeping laws regulating adult content online—laws that carry enough legal risk that platforms appear to be choosing exclusion over compliance. Instead of building new legal infrastructure, they’re just geoblocking the problem.

So let’s unpack the laws behind the panic.

Alabama’s HB164: A Strict Age-Verification and Consent Law With Heavy Penalties

Alabama

HB164 went into effect October 1, 2024, packaged as “consumer protection.” On paper, it reads like safety policy. In practice, it puts massive responsibility on platforms hosting adult content.

1. Mandatory Age Verification for All Adult Sites

Any commercial entity that “knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes sexual material harmful to minors” must verify users are 18+ using a “reasonable age-verification method.”

And those verification services? They must be designed so they can’t retain user data.

If platforms screw up, they’re exposed to:

Civil lawsuits

Up to $10,000 per violation

Penalties under deceptive trade laws

2. Strict Written-Consent Requirements for All “Private Images”

Before publishing any “private image,” platforms need written, notarized consent from every person depicted—and those records have to be stored for five years.

3. Mandatory Warning Labels on Every Page

Not subtle ones either. We’re talking big, government-scripted warnings like:

“Pornography is potentially biologically addictive…”

“Pornography increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography.”

4. A 10% Tax on Pornography Produced or Sold in Alabama

Section 10 slaps a 10% gross-receipts tax on memberships, subscriptions, and any material produced or sold in the state.

Why Platforms Are Responding by Blocking Alabama

If you’re a platform, you’re staring at:

High legal liability

Restrictions on data handling

Constant compliance demands

A tax on any content tied to the state

And lawsuit exposure for every alleged violation

At some point, it stops being a legal puzzle and starts being a cost-benefit analysis. And Alabama isn’t worth the math.

North Carolina’s HB805: Extremely Broad “Pornographic Image” Verification Rules

North Carolina

HB805 drops December 1, 2025 for adult-content sections, and while the bill covers everything from school libraries to “biological sex” definitions, the part that matters to creators is Article 51A.

This isn’t just strict; it’s procedural overkill.

1. Age and Consent Documentation for Every Person in Every Pornographic Image

Before publishing a pornographic image, platforms must verify:

The person was 18 at the time of creation

Written consent for each sex act performed

Written consent specifically for distribution

And, crucially: consent for performance does not equal consent to distribute

Platforms must collect:

A full consent form with personal details

A matching government ID

2. Mandatory Removal System With 72-Hour Deadlines

If a performer requests removal, platforms must comply within 72 hours—even if consent was properly documented.

If consent is questioned, content must be pulled down temporarily.

Re-uploads? Permanently banned.

3. Massive Civil Penalties

The Attorney General can impose:

Up to $10,000 per day per image for failure to remove

Up to $5,000 per day for publishing violations

Performers can also sue for $10,000 per day per image.

Why Platforms Are Banning North Carolina Content

HB805 basically forces platforms to:

Re-document performers from NC

Handle disputes more aggressively

Maintain permanent blocks on re-uploads

Maintain 1:1 traceable consent for every act in every piece of content

That’s not a tweak—it’s an entirely new compliance department.

You may also notice the bans include things like:

Talent living in those states

Talent whose IDs originate from those states

Content filmed in those states

This is because the laws follow the people and the production location—not just where the content is uploaded. That means:

An NC resident filmed in Las Vegas? Still a risk.

A performer who moved out of Alabama but still has an AL ID? Risk.

A scene shot in Alabama and uploaded from New York? Still covered.

The jurisdiction sticks like glue.

Adult platforms aren’t banning performers because they suddenly want to. They’re doing it because Alabama and North Carolina have created legal terrains where one clerical oversight could turn into six-figure penalties.

Alabama’s HB164 demands notarized consent, strict age verification, no data retention, warning labels, and a 10% tax.

North Carolina’s HB805 requires different consents for each act, ID verification, rapid takedowns, and crushing per-day fines.

Faced with that, some companies are choosing the path of least resistance: eliminating content tied to those states entirely. Will others follow? Probably. Not because they want to—because compliance costs more than creators do.

The laws don’t just restrict porn; they quietly redraw who gets to participate in the industry at all.

Sometimes a legal fight doesn’t end with a dramatic ruling—just a quiet deal and a check. That’s what happened in Texas, where Hammy Media, the company behind xHamster, agreed to settle a lawsuit over alleged violations of the state’s age verification law with a $120,000 payment.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched the suit in 2024. The complaint painted the site’s early verification screen as little more than a digital speed bump, arguing, “Minors can simply click almost anywhere on the webpage away from the ‘I’m 18 or older’ button, including the ‘X’ in the top right corner of the message, to dismiss the pop-up message and proceed to the Defendant’s pornographic website … The age verification methods used by the Defendant on its websites cannot be said to verify anything at all.”

The state didn’t start small. Texas initially asked a district court to impose penalties of up to $1.67 million, plus another $10,000 for every day after the filing date—a financial threat large enough to make most companies blink.

Those cases stalled for a while as everyone waited for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether these types of laws even hold up under the Constitution. The case—FSC v. Paxton, brought by the Free Speech Coalition—became the legal bellwether. In March, the court sided with Texas, declaring the law constitutional and effectively giving other states a green light to move forward with similar efforts. Once that happened, dormant lawsuits snapped back to life.

According to the agreed final order filed Nov. 7, the company made changes quickly. “Promptly after suit was filed, on March 21, 2024, Hammy Media restricted access to its website,” and it has now rolled out the kind of age verification Texas requires. The order also “resolves any and all claims based on the facts alleged in the State’s Petition” and specifies that the settlement isn’t an admission of wrongdoing—just a resolution.

Texas didn’t stop at xHamster. The state filed similar lawsuits in 2024 against Multi Media, the company behind Chaturbate, and Aylo, which operates Pornhub. Chaturbate settled in April; the Aylo case is still moving through the courts.

There’s a strange finality in watching a 30-year legal fight end not with a bang, but with a single line from the highest court in the country. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that lets New York City enforce a zoning law from 2001—one designed to quietly squeeze adult retail shops out of almost the entire city.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the application for certiorari, closing the door on a legal battle that began back when Times Square was still transforming from peep booths and neon sex ads into a place where tourists buy oversized M&M’s.

When the law first passed in 1995, the city’s mission felt almost moralistic: push out adult businesses in most neighborhoods, especially in midtown, as part of the larger effort to “clean up” Times Square. The rule was mathematical, too—if 40% or more of your inventory or floor space involved sexual content, you were officially labeled an adult establishment.

But the city later decided that loophole was too easy to dance around. A 2001 amendment replaced the 40% rule with a broader mandate targeting any business that “primarily” markets adult entertainment, whether that meant a bookstore, strip club, or video shop.

What followed was two decades of litigation. Adult businesses argued the change trampled their constitutional rights—free speech, equal protection, the basics. The city argued the law was simply a zoning measure, not a moral crusade. Courtrooms kept the fight alive longer than most of the original storefronts survived.

In 2024, a district court judge finally sided with the city, deciding New York could enforce the amendment. Suddenly, even those who had meticulously complied with the old 60/40 rule were told to pack up and move to the tiny slivers of the city that still permit adult businesses—or to leave entirely.

The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. That effort fell flat in July, when a three-judge panel rejected it.

They tried again, asking the full 2nd Circuit for a rehearing. In August, that request was denied as well.

By October, the 2nd Circuit wasn’t just done hearing arguments—it declined to issue a temporary stay and issued a judgment mandate, effectively giving the city permission to start enforcing the law.

So the plaintiffs went to the final stop: the Supreme Court. On Oct. 22, attorneys requested review. Nine days later, Justice Sotomayor shut the door.

With the Supreme Court denying certiorari, the legal journey is over. No more appeals. New York City now has full authority to enforce the zoning restrictions—and the businesses affected have to deal with what that means in the real world, not just on paper.

And that’s where things get messy. Even in the rare parts of the city where zoning technically allows adult shops, there are layered restrictions requiring a set distance from residential areas, schools, places of worship, and even other adult businesses. Put all those rules together and you start to wonder how many legal locations actually exist. Maybe none. Maybe a handful on the outskirts where nobody walks. It’s a bit like being told you’re “free to speak”—but only in an empty room no one’s allowed to enter.

There’s something strangely jarring about a state telling people how long they’re allowed to look at a screen. Maybe it’s because most of us grew up sneaking extra time on whatever device we had — the old family computer, a flip phone under the covers, whatever — and now here we are, watching lawmakers try to ration minutes like they’re passing out rations during a storm.

That’s the backdrop for a new fight in Virginia, where a major tech trade group just hit the state with a lawsuit over its sweeping new social-media law. NetChoice — the group that represents some of the biggest names in the digital world — filed its challenge in federal court in Alexandria, arguing that the state has stepped way, way over the line with Senate Bill 854. The suit names outgoing attorney general Jason Miyares and doesn’t pull punches about what’s at stake: the First Amendment rights of both adults and minors.

“Virginia must leave the parenting decisions where they belong: with parents,” said Paul Taske, co-director of NetChoice’s Litigation Center. “By asserting that authority for itself, Virginia not only violates its citizens’ rights to free speech but also exposes them to increased risk of privacy and security breaches.”

And then he doubled down: “We look forward to defending Virginians’ First Amendment rights in court.”

The law they’re talking about was signed back in May by Gov. Glenn Youngkin — who won’t be around when it actually kicks in on January 1, 2026. And once it does, things change fast. Anyone in Virginia who wants to access protected speech online has to verify their age. Adults, minors, parents — everyone gets checked at the door. No ID, no entry.

But the age-checks are only half the story. There’s also a hard, government-imposed time limit: one hour per day for anyone under 16. If an adult wants more time? They have to confirm that they’re the ones asking for it. It’s like a digital permission slip from the state.

Taske didn’t mince words about the absurdity he sees in that: “Virginia’s government cannot force you to read a book in one-hour chunks, and it cannot force you to watch a movie or documentary in state-preferred increments. That does not change when the speech in question happens online.”

Then there’s the kicker — the law also bans cellphones and mobile devices in schools. Not just a tweak, not a pilot program, but an across-the-board prohibition framed as a public-health move to protect kids. It’s sweeping, dramatic, and almost guaranteed to reshape daily life for families if it survives the courts.

NetChoice’s membership list reads like a who’s who of the digital universe: Meta Platforms, Netflix, Google, X, Etsy. The people building the platforms most of us touch every day. And they’re staring down a law that tries to regulate not just what people can see online, but how long they’re allowed to see it.

The whole thing feels like one of those moments where technology and policy collide in a way that makes you stop and wonder which part of the future we’re actually building — and who gets to hold the timer.

And here I thought being outraged by the things politicians say and do had become passe. Apparently not, if your transgressions include (please, those with delicate sensibilities, cover your eyes) following OnlyFans models and escorts on social media.

“‘Devout Christian’ Dem caught following prostitutes, OnlyFans models on social media,” proclaimed the New York Post, which as a publication that backs Donald Trump, clearly demands a higher standard of social media decorum than following an OnlyFans model. As I’m sure the discerning editors of the Post would tell him, James Talarico should stick to more family-friendly online activities, like sharing videos of well-informed patriots who can inform us of important, well-established facts – like Osama bin Laden is still alive.

Naturally, Talarico’s publicity flacks had to deny any meaningful personal interest in the eyebrow raising follows on the part of the good would-be Senator. After his timeline became news, they quickly fired off a statement stating the campaign’s “social media team – including James – follows back and engages with supporters who have large followings and does not investigate their backgrounds.”

To be fair, that explanation is plausible enough, so far as these things go. I can’t help but wonder, though; is part of the reason some of our elected officials are so inclined to support laws restricting and regulating all manner of sex-related things a need to distance themselves from their own desires? Or maybe more to the point, a need to be seen as standing against certain “immoral behaviors,” regardless of whether they truly are against those behaviors?

If you’re James Talarico, I suppose you must put out a statement like the semi-denial offered by his team. Your name isn’t Donald Trump, so you can’t simply say “Those social media follows were planted on my timeline by the Deep State” and expect half the country to believe you.

And I suppose if you’re the New York Post, you can’t go around taking the position it doesn’t matter if some Democrat from Texas likes and/or follows an OnlyFans model, just because the guy you endorsed for President paid hush money to a porn star. The same can be said for the rest of the media that seized on the story; they all have bills to pay and a sex-related scandals are reliable eyeball magnets.

But would the world (or the truth) truly suffer if we were to give a story like Talarico’s little social media snafu the sort of mundane headline it arguably deserves? Would people miss the momentary rush of self-righteous glee that accompanies such a story if we crowned it with something like: “Semi-Famous Texan Likes Pictures of Attractive Women”? Or how about “Guy Who Believes in God Sometimes Also Thinks About Sex”? Or perhaps “Stunner: Would-Be Senator Has Actual Blood in Veins”?

Either way, maybe James Talarico should look at the bright side: at least he isn’t a politician in the UK who was, say, following someone who made porn that depicts strangulation, or he could have much bigger problems on his hands.

There’s something strangely surreal about watching two adult platforms square off against one of the most powerful regulatory bodies in Europe. It’s like seeing the quiet kid in class suddenly challenge the teacher on the grading rubric — bold, a little chaotic, and honestly pretty fascinating. That’s what played out this week in Luxembourg, where attorneys for Pornhub and Stripchat told the EU’s General Court that the European Commission misjudged them based on shaky data.

Both cases — Aylo Freesites v. Commission for Pornhub and Technius v. Commission for Stripchat — orbit around the same issue: whether these sites really belong in the Digital Services Act’s “very large online platform” category, the VLOP bucket reserved for players with at least 45 million monthly EU users. It’s a label that comes with heavy regulatory weight, not to mention a fee structure that can make a CFO sweat.

But on Friday, according to reporting from MLex, something interesting happened. Christopher Thomas, Aylo’s lawyer, basically asked the court the digital equivalent of: Why are you trusting the substitute teacher but not the person who actually runs the classroom? He questioned why the commission brushed off Pornhub’s own methodology as noncompliant with DSA rules — yet readily accepted Similarweb’s data, even though no one seemed to know “what underlying data Similarweb used, or the maths applied.”

Pornhub’s internal numbers reportedly fell below the VLOP threshold. Similarweb’s outside numbers? Above it.

A small difference in theory, a massive difference in regulatory reality.

Thomas drove the point home with a simple comparison:

“If a provider said they had purchased an estimate below 45 million, but didn’t know the data or methodology on which that was based and couldn’t explain it to the commission, it would obviously be unacceptable.”

It’s one of those arguments that’s hard to un-hear once it’s been said.

From the commission’s side, attorney Paul-John Loewenthal offered something that sounded like a quiet confession about the digital universe we all live in. He acknowledged that user counts are, at the end of the day, approximations. There is “no golden method to calculate user numbers; it’s not possible.”

And with that, the case hung in the air — unresolved, unsettled, and oddly revealing.

Stripchat’s situation wasn’t far off. Their VLOP label also came from Similarweb data, which originally pinned the site above the 45-million mark. Then came the twist: Similarweb later revised the estimate downward, dropping Stripchat below the threshold entirely.

On Thursday, Stripchat operator Technius asked the court to go back and undo the European Commission’s 2023 ruling that labeled them a VLOP in the first place — not just reversed going forward, but retroactively scrapped. And even though the commission already revoked the VLOP status earlier this year, Technius still has reasons to chase a clean erasure.

According to MLex, attorney Tobias Bosch explained that a retroactive annulment could do more than tidy the record. It could help Stripchat recover the supervisory fee it paid. It could shift the jurisdiction over who gets to police them. And it could influence an active investigation into whether the platform violated the DSA in the past.

It’s wild how much hinges on something as mundane-sounding as user-count methodology. But maybe that’s the real tension here — in a world obsessed with data, the people interpreting the numbers often have more power than the numbers themselves.

There’s a strange kind of déjà vu when a major tech company gets accused of dipping into the piracy pool — that uneasy feeling like we’ve been here before, even though each case somehow feels bigger than the last. That’s the energy swirling around the latest clash between Vixen Media Group owner Strike 3 Holdings and Meta, after Meta asked a federal judge in Northern California to toss their lawsuit.

Strike 3 didn’t pull any punches in its original complaint. They say Meta didn’t just accidentally stumble across their movies online — they accuse the company of deliberately scooping up VMG content from pirate sites to help train its AI systems. And they’re specific about it. BitTorrent, they say, is where those downloads came from. It’s the kind of accusation that makes you imagine a massive tech company hunched over a torrent client, pretending to be invisible.

Meta’s response in October? A very different story — one that almost sounds like a shrug. They told the court that if videos were downloaded, the timing and the number of those downloads “point solely to personal use, not AI training.” And then came the eyebrow-raising line:

“Meta contractors, visitors, or employees may have used Meta’s internet access over the years to download videos for personal use.”

In other words: Hey, people do stuff on our Wi-Fi. Not our problem.

Meta insisted the download activity — the volume, the pattern — just didn’t look like anything tied to large-scale AI development and “is plainly indicative of private personal use.”

They also brushed aside Strike 3’s attempt to link non-Meta IP addresses to the company, calling it a stretch.

Strike 3 fired back this week, and you can almost hear the disbelief between the lines. Their response to the “employees were just downloading porn” defense was blunt:

“Meta’s excuse that employees must be infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights for ‘personal use’ does not fit the facts.”

What they say does fit the facts?

Something far more coordinated — something algorithmic. They point to what they call “unique patterns of Meta’s piracy,” arguing those patterns don’t look like a person casually searching for adult videos. Instead, Strike 3 claims the behavior “not only indicate[s] the use of a universal ‘script’ (likely developed, supplied, or encouraged by Meta), but also show[s] that the BitTorrent downloads are ‘for AI training data and not for personal use.’”

They bolster that argument with another recent copyright case: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

In that suit, Meta “admitted to using BitTorrent to obtain digital copies” of books for AI training — and Strike 3 alleges that the same IP addresses used in the book-related downloads also appear in their own infringement logs. According to them, Meta even acknowledged in that case that it masked its corporate IPs to avoid detection.

And then comes one of the more striking accusations (no pun intended):

“Plaintiffs were able to correlate Meta’s infringement through its Corporate IPs to six hidden data centers that were used to engage in massive infringement of both Plaintiffs’ and the Kadrey plaintiffs’ works as well. The scale of these infringements is staggering and are ‘beyond what a human could consume.’”

Strike 3 says activity from those masked IP addresses mirrors the activity from Meta’s known corporate IP blocks — a kind of digital fingerprinting that, in their telling, points to one conclusion: these downloads were never about personal viewing habits. “Those ends,” they write, “were to train Meta’s AI and not for the personal use of its employees.”

And if the court believes that interpretation?

Meta wouldn’t just be facing another infringement spat. The numbers involved are enormous — the complaint lists at least 2,396 allegedly infringed movies. Multiply that by the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, and you land at a number that barely feels real: $359.4 million.

But the money, oddly enough, may not be the part that echoes the loudest. This lawsuit drops the adult industry directly into the center of the broader fight over whether training an AI model on copyrighted material counts as “fair use” — or whether it’s just a slicker version of old-school piracy wearing a futuristic badge.

No one really knows yet how courts will treat AI training that leans on protected works. Everyone’s waiting for the first big ruling — the one that will set the tone for all the cases piling up behind it. And maybe that’s the real story here: not just whether Meta downloaded some videos, but whether we’re watching the early days of a legal shift that’s going to redraw the boundaries of ownership, creativity, and machine learning.

Because if AI is the future, then this messy, uncomfortable question is coming along for the ride whether Silicon Valley likes it or not.

Ben Suroeste opines on a new age verification service. Here’s a summary:

Brady Mills Agency just rolled out AgeWallet, their shiny new age-verification system they say will help small adult-sector merchants survive the avalanche of new compliance rules. They’re leaning hard on the idea that the Supreme Court’s FSC v. Paxton ruling kicked the industry into fast-forward, and honestly, they’re not wrong—tools like this are going to keep popping up like mushrooms after rain.

What stands out, though, is the quieter warning baked into the announcement: the beginning of a serious crackdown on VPNs. AgeWallet claims it can detect proxies, masked locations, all of it—and force users to re-verify if anything looks off. Great for merchants trying to stay legal. Not so great if you’re living under a government that already decides what you’re allowed to read or watch. For those of us who remember the scrappy, boundary-free internet, this feels less like progress and more like another brick in the wall.

YNOT NEWS | Open The Age Verification Floodgates!

ATLANTA, Ga. – Earlier this week, the Brady Mills Agency, an Atlanta-based technology firm, announced the launch of AgeWallet,

Read More

www.ynot.com

Over on Forbes.com right now, there’s an article making the point that when you read somewhere that traffic from the UK to Pornhub is down 77%, you might want to take that figure with a grain of salt. Or maybe a pillar of the stuff.

Writing for Forbes, Zak Doffman goes further still, suggesting “you can completely ignore” such a claim because “it’s not true.”

“What’s actually happening is that U.K. adults are turning to VPNs to mask their locations,” Doffman writes. “Just as residents of U.S. states affecting bans now pretend to be someplace else. Pornhub makes this as easy as possible.”

The article goes on to cite (perhaps accurately – I’m certainly no expert on VPNs) a variety of reasons why this sudden expansion in VPN use may not be a good thing, including the eye-catching assertion that “VPNs are dangerous.”

“You are trusting all your content to a third-party provider who can see where you are and the websites you visit,” Duffman writes. “At a minimum. There are plenty of reports of rogue VPNs doing much worse than that. In particular, you must avoid free VPNs and Chinese VPNs. Stick to bluechip options.”

Duffman is probably right and his advice on sticking to the name brand VPNs probably makes good sense. But as a guy who misses the era of what people call the “open internet” my concern isn’t so much rogue VPN operators as it is rogue legislators.

As I read Duffman’s piece, I couldn’t help but imagine some elected official somewhere reading the same piece and saying to himself/herself: “OH. MY. GOD. This VPN thing MUST be stopped, whatever it is.” The manner of legislation that follows this sort of epiphany typically tries to solve one problem by creating another. Or maybe several others.

The thing is, it’s not Duffman’s warning about the potential dangers of VPN use that will drive the concern of my hypothetical legislator, not the potential security threat or the nefarious actors out there offering free VPNs.

No, what will get the legislators all fired up and ready to wield their pens again will be the part about the ease of using VPNs to get around their precious, legally mandated age verification walls.

I don’t expect too many legislators will seek to ban VPN use altogether, although doubtlessly there will be some bright bulb somewhere who proposes exactly that. More likely, what they’ll do is add something to an existing age verification statute that prohibits “facilitating the use of technology to circumvent state law” on the part of the adult site, or mandating that adult sites have to do what a lot of paywalled sites do for their own reasons, which is try to detect and defeat VPN use.

As Duffman notes, websites can “look at your browser settings or cellular settings or recognize you from previous visits…. That’s why it’s harder to watch live sports from your usual provider when you’re away from home, their market restrictions try to catch you out. Porn sites do not.”

For the sake of adults in the UK and elsewhere who would rather not hand over their sensitive personal information to a third party just to exercise their right to look at sexually explicit images, here’s hoping porn sites aren’t soon forced to do what they’re currently choosing not to do.