Political Attacks

As a guy who crossed the magic line of his 18th birthday over 35 years ago, it has been a damn long time since I was last asked to present identification documents as part of purchasing any age-restricted product.

More accurately, I should say it had been a damn long time – until last week, when I tried to log in to the members area of an porn website of which I’ve been a member for several months now.

Rather than simply being prompted to enter my username and password, I was presented with a dialog box informing me that before I could gain access to the site in question – a site to which I’ve already prepaid for nearly 90 more days of access, by virtue of a billing rollover that took place weeks ago – I needed to verify my age.

This struck me as odd and more than a little irritating. I was aware my home state is among those that have passed an age verification law directed at porn websites, but I had assumed existing customers, particularly those whose credit cards had been successfully billed several times already by the merchant involved, might somehow be “grandfathered in,” at least with respect to members’ area access.

No such luck, though. If I wanted to continue to access this site – in other words, if I wanted to receive the full benefit of the membership I’d already paid for – I would have to do business with whatever third-party service they’ve employed to perform the act of age verification on the site’s behalf, as well.

My immediate reaction was to close the browser, so I could weigh the question of whether to continue as a member of the site, cancel my account, or cancel my account and demand a refund. Nowhere in the agreement I ‘signed’ as part of joining the site did it state I’d have to do business with a third party to maintain future access to the site. Foisting that requirement on me without notice seemed dicey.

The first decision I made was not to act at all, right then. Among other things, the unexpected access-block had pissed me off a bit, and anger is never a good frame of mind for making decisions. I joined the site because I like the content they make and because I like watching it; should requiring me to show my ID really be so off-putting as to make me cancel, let alone demand a refund?

I sat on the decision for a couple days, straddling the fence on whether I’d jump through the age verification hoop that had been presented to me. Finally, I decided it made sense to see what the process required, how invasive it was of my privacy – and how effective or ineffective it seemed towards the stated end goal of verifying the users’ age and deterring minors from accessing the site. I could always back out before submitting anything, I reckoned.

The site in question offered only one option for an age verification service, one based in the United Kingdom. The system informed me that to verify my age, I’d need to upload a scan of one of several state-issued forms of ID: a driver’s license, a state ID, a passport, or state-issued military ID. It also referenced the possibility of uploading a selfie, in which I’d be holding the ID – so my face could be compared to that on the ID, presumably.

I wasn’t thrilled about doing any of this, for a variety of reasons. For starters, I don’t trust the promises from these third parties to not retain any of my “personally identifiable information.” I believe most online companies will look for every means available to monetize any piece of data they collect on their users (and seek every loophole in every law preventing them from doing so), and my assumption is that companies offering age verification services will be no different from their peers in that regard. And if such companies collect and store this data, malicious hackers will access it eventually, rest assured.

Beyond privacy concerns, I kept thinking about the lack of notice involved here. One day I’m a member of a porn site who can log in any time and check out the latest updates, then the next day, I’m forced to hand over my name, contact information and ID to some company out of the UK, just for the honor of accessing content I’d already paid to access? Even if that’s not an illegal or tortious arrangement, such a transition certainly doesn’t feel right.

Ultimately, despite my reservations, I decided to go ahead with the age verification process. As much as anything, I was now curious to see just how onerous it was and what all it would require of me.

A funny thing happened though; after uploading a photo of my ID, I was told I’d been verified and could now continue to the members area – no selfie required, no further personal information, just the email address I’d already given them on the previous page of the form and the scan of my ID.

Maybe I should be pleased by the fact I didn’t have to upload a selfie, but instead I’m struck by the pointlessness of it all. All this service had done was verify that someone had uploaded a driver’s license belonging to a man in his 50s, but in no way had they established it was the man in his 50s himself who had uploaded it.

The good news, I suppose, is that now I have access to the content for which I’d already paid. The bad news is… well, the bad news is unknowable, really. But when the bad news comes, with it may come answers to several questions I now have.

How many members of this same site will opt to cancel their memberships, or demand refunds, as I considered doing, rather than go through with the age verification process?

How many minors will find out about how easy it is to circumvent the age verification process of this age verification vendor?

Is this vendor truly not storing age verification documents? If they are storing such documents, will I learn that’s the case via an extortionate email threatening to reveal my porn preferences to my employer or family members?

But the biggest question, at least as I sit here right now typing, is this one: Through this age verification process, what was “verified,” exactly?

Exactly. I don’t know, either.

LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 1043 on Monday, implementing an age verification regime that requires users’ ages to be verified at the device operating system and/or app store level when setting up a new phone, tablet, or computer.

The bill, known as the Digital Age Assurance Act, covers all major operating systems, including Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS. Set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, it requires the companies that own and operate these systems to develop a mechanism allowing users to enter and confirm their ages by the summer of that year.

This also means that age verification must occur when users download or purchase apps and content from Google Play or the Apple App Store.

Under the legislation, violations could cost companies up to $2,500 per affected child, with intentional violations climbing to $7,500 per child. The law also “shields” companies from liability for so-called “erroneous age signals” as long as they make a good-faith effort to comply.

Erroneous signals may arise from the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and other proxy tools designed to bypass age restrictions online.

In addition, the law introduces new safety requirements for digital platforms and services, including measures to prevent suicide and self-harm, clear warnings about social media and AI-powered chatbots, and tougher penalties for profiting from unlawful deepfakes.

“Emerging technology like chatbots and social media can inspire, educate, and connect—but without real guardrails, technology can also exploit, mislead, and endanger our kids,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement issued by his office. He continued, “We’ve seen some truly horrific and tragic examples of young people harmed by unregulated tech, and we won’t stand by while companies continue without necessary limits and accountability.

“We can continue to lead in AI and technology, but we must do it responsibly—protecting our children every step of the way. Our children’s safety is not for sale.”

Beyond device-level age verification, the legislation mandates warning labels on social media platforms to alert young users to the potential risks of excessive use.

It also strengthens penalties for deepfake pornography, allowing victims of non-consensual deepfakes to pursue civil damages of up to $250,000 against individuals who knowingly distribute such material.

“These bills establish guardrails that protect our children’s health and safety while ensuring innovation moves forward responsibly, showing that we can have both at once, always with future generations in mind,” said Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the First Partner of California.

Industry stakeholders have long touted device-level age verification as a potential compromise to existing age-gating systems, which typically occur at the website or platform level. Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub.com, has previously endorsed device-level verification as a privacy-preserving alternative to ID uploads and facial scans.

DECATUR, Ga. — Tokyo Valentino, an adult retailer with multiple locations across Georgia, was denied a building permit for a new store under construction on Lawrenceville Highway in the Greater Decatur area, according to local reports.

Juliana Njoku, DeKalb County’s planning and sustainability director, informed company representatives that they failed to clearly disclose the property’s intended use.

DeKalb County later issued a public statement explaining, “Following a thorough administrative review, the County has determined that the building permit and related business license applications associated with this property contain incomplete and inconsistent information regarding the intended business use.

“As a result, the building permit has been revoked, and the business license application remains incomplete pending further documentation from the applicant. … Specifically, the applications did not fully disclose the intended use of the premises at the time of submission, and subsequent filings identified the sale of adult-oriented materials. This change in use requires a different level of zoning review and compliance with County ordinances that regulate adult-oriented establishments.”

In an email to Njoku, company representative Michael S. Morrison said Tokyo Valentino believes the revocation was a misunderstanding.

“It is Tokyo Decatur’s intention to comply with local ordinances to be a compliant, good corporate citizen,” Morrison wrote on behalf of Tokyo Decatur, the firm responsible for the new location. “We are a proud and vocal participant in the LGBTQ+ community.”

According to the letter, Tokyo Valentino entered into a lease for the property at 1850 Lawrenceville Highway, Suite 200. The landlord, Air Hospitality Group, agreed to bring the space up to code before occupancy and hired MSM Builders LLC for the renovation. The building permit in question was issued between the landlord and property manager.

Officials likely denied the permit based on the assumption that the store would operate as a fully adult-oriented business, which is restricted under local zoning laws.

“‘Tokyo Valentino’ is only a retail store that will be selling less than the allowable 20 percent threshold of marital aids,” Morrison clarified. “We mostly serve the LGBTQ+ community. This location has no live entertainment, nor video booths, etc. Tokyo is no different than the ‘Spencer’s’ stores found in malls all over America.”

“Tokyo is happy to sign any document affirming its intention to comply with DeKalb County code,” Morrison added. “It is always Tokyo’s intention to be a good corporate citizen and a proud supporter of the queer community.”

NEW YORK — New York City has filed a sweeping lawsuit accusing Facebook, Google, Snapchat, TikTok, and other major online platforms of contributing to a youth mental health crisis by making their products addictive to children.

The 327-page complaint, filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court, seeks damages from Meta Platforms, owner of Facebook and Instagram; Alphabet, owner of Google and YouTube; Snap Inc., which operates Snapchat; and ByteDance, parent company of TikTok. The city accuses the companies of gross negligence and creating a public nuisance.

The lawsuit aligns New York City with a growing wave of state and local governments, school districts, and individuals involved in roughly 2,050 similar cases consolidated in federal court in Oakland, California. With a population of 8.48 million residents, including 1.8 million minors, New York City is among the largest plaintiffs in the national litigation. The city’s school system and healthcare agencies are also listed as plaintiffs.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda pushed back on the claims, saying that allegations involving YouTube are “simply not true,” noting that “it is a streaming service and not a social network where people catch up with friends.”

The other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for New York City’s law department said the city withdrew from a separate lawsuit announced by Mayor Eric Adams in February 2024 in California state court so it could instead join the consolidated federal case.

Platforms Accused of Exploiting Youth Behavior

The complaint alleges that the defendants “designed their platforms to exploit the psychology and neurophysiology of youth” to encourage compulsive use and maximize profits.

It cites data showing that 77.3% of New York City high school students — and 82.1% of girls — report spending three or more hours daily on screens, including phones, computers, and televisions. The city claims such heavy use has led to lost sleep, chronic school absences, and worsening mental health.

In January 2024, the city’s health commissioner declared social media a public health hazard, noting that the city and its schools have been forced to spend increasing taxpayer funds to address the mounting youth mental health crisis.

Link to Dangerous Trends

The complaint also ties social media use to a surge in “subway surfing” — the dangerous trend of riding on top of or clinging to the sides of moving subway cars. Since 2023, at least 16 people have died while subway surfing, including two girls aged 12 and 13 this month, according to police data.

“Defendants should be held to account for the harms their conduct has inflicted,” the city said in the filing. “As it stands now, (the) plaintiffs are left to abate the nuisance and foot the bill.”

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has issued formal warnings to 19 pornography websites, alleging they are violating the state’s new age-verification law and could soon face legal action if they do not comply.

“This duly enacted law protects young, impressionable children from the harms of adult-only material found online,” Yost said in an Oct. 8 news release. “It’s time for these companies to explain why they think they’re above the law.”

The recently enacted Ohio law requires any organization that sells or presents materials or performances deemed “obscene or harmful to juveniles” to verify users’ ages using photo identification or other official records, such as mortgage or employment data. Companies that fail to meet these standards risk being sued by the state.

Pornhub, one of the sites named, argues that the legislation doesn’t apply to its operations due to an exemption for web hosting platforms. However, according to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, a review of 20 adult sites determined that all but one failed to comply with the new verification requirements.

Yost’s office sent violation notices to the noncompliant companies, warning them that they could face lawsuits if corrective measures are not taken within 45 days.

“Intentional noncompliance places minors at risk,” the letters stated. “We urge you to take immediate corrective action.”

Michael McGrady opines on faith based porn panics:

What happens when a small faction of politicians attempts to impose their faith-driven vision of “American values” at the expense of free speech, queer visibility, and secular governance? The growing wave of anti-pornography proposals—ranging from full bans on adult content to invasive age-verification laws—illustrates how far the far-right is willing to transform moral panic into legislation, regardless of constitutional limits or practical absurdity.

One striking example comes from Michigan state representative Josh Schriver, a Republican known for racist, homophobic, and inflammatory rhetoric. In September 2025, Schriver went viral after introducing a proposal to completely outlaw online pornography in Michigan’s digital sphere. Even many conservatives expressed skepticism, acknowledging the proposal’s blatant overreach into free speech protections.

Schriver’s bill, House Bill 4938—formally titled the “Anti-Corruption of Public Morals Act”—would impose sweeping criminal penalties and steep fines for distributing or possessing what it vaguely defines as “prohibited material.”

A History of Gendered Censorship and the Costs of Faith-Based ‘Porn’ Panics - TheHumanist.com

Bigotry rebranded as moral purity.

Read More

thehumanist.com

Adult industry attorney Corey Silverstein talks about North Carolina’s HB 805 and how it impacts our business.

Breaking Down HB 805 and How it Affects the Adult Industry

North Carolina House Bill 805 was enacted July 29, after the state legislature overrode Governor Josh Stein’s veto. The provisions that relate to the adult industry, imposing requirements for age verification, consent and content removal, are scheduled to become effective Dec. 1. Platforms have until then to update their policies and systems to comply with the new regulations.

Read More

www.xbiz.com

KYIV — Ukraine’s State Tax Service has announced that local content creators collectively owe the equivalent of $9.3 million in unpaid taxes, primarily tied to income earned through the subscription platform OnlyFans between 2020 and 2022.

According to a report from the Ukrainian outlet Economic Truth, the tax debt amounts to 384.7 million hryvnia and stems from revenue generated by Ukrainian residents from the London-based company Fenix International Ltd., which operates OnlyFans.

“The total amount of tax debt that arose for individual residents of Ukraine due to nonpayment of taxes on income received from Fenix International Ltd. (the company that owns the OnlyFans platform) during 2020–2022 is UAH 384.7 million,” the report states.

Economic Truth also noted that the OnlyFans platform “is used primarily for posting and monetizing pornographic content,” and emphasized that the production or distribution of pornography remains a criminal offense in Ukraine.

“According to Article 301 of the Criminal Code, liability for such activity can reach up to seven years in prison,” the publication added.

In July, Ukrainian officials faced renewed debate over the issue after President Volodymyr Zelensky responded to a petition from OnlyFans users urging support for draft law No. 12191, titled “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Improve Certain Provisions on Criminal Offenses Against Public Order and Morality.”

Zelensky did not publicly take a stance on decriminalization but noted that the proposal was currently under review by the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament.

He explained that his involvement “will only come into play should the Verkhovna Rada adopt the law.”

RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Wednesday signed into law new rules governing the use of social media, online video games and other digital services by children and adolescents.

Known as the “Adultization Bill” — shorthand in Brazil for its goal of protecting minors from premature exposure to adult content — or “Digital ECA,” for updating a 1990 statute that guarantees fundamental rights for children and adolescents, the law will take effect in 180 days.

In his speech, Lula said the measure represents a step toward Brazil’s digital sovereignty and emphasized that foreign companies are welcome as long as they comply with national laws. He criticized Big Tech’s lack of self-regulation, defended stronger protections for children and announced a provisional decree elevating the National Data Protection Authority into an autonomous agency.

“Freedom of expression is a nonnegotiable value, but it cannot serve as an excuse for committing crimes in the digital world,” Lula said.

The law obliges digital platforms to adopt safeguards, limits the collection of data from minors and sets tough penalties for violations. Companies are required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent children and adolescents from being exposed to illegal or inappropriate content, including sexual exploitation, harassment, violence, self-harm, gambling, deceptive advertising and other predatory practices.

Parental controls must be provided and set by default to the highest protection level, including time limits, blocking geolocation, restricting unauthorized adult contacts and controlling content recommendations.

Age verification is now mandatory. Until now, most platforms relied on self-declaration, with users merely confirming they were over 18. The new law bans that practice and requires stronger mechanisms, still to be defined by regulators, to prevent minors from accessing harmful content.

In addition, accounts of users under 16 must be linked to responsible adults, who will receive reports and be able to restrict interactions.

Noncompliance may result in fines of up to 10% of a company’s Brazilian revenue, capped at $10 million per violation, according to Stephanie Almeida, a lawyer at São Paulo-based Poliszezuk Advogados specializing in civil and corporate law.

Luiza Teixeira, a child protection specialist at UNICEF Brazil, described the law as “very robust, with high technical quality.” She acknowledged that digital technologies provide opportunities for learning, expression and connection but warned of serious risks as well.

According to João Victor Archegas, a lawyer and researcher at the Institute for Technology and Society in Rio de Janeiro, the new legislation is more specific than earlier frameworks such as the Statute of Children and Adolescents, the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights and the General Data Protection Law.

“These are important legal frameworks in the country, because they address protection of fundamental rights online and of minors,” he said. “But there was still a lack of specific normative language on the use of social media and digital platforms by this audience.”

The bill was introduced in 2022 but gained momentum in August 2025 after influencer Felipe Bressanim Pereira, known as Felca, published a viral video exposing cases of child exploitation online. Public debate intensified following the arrest of influencer Hytalo Santos on Aug. 15, accused of producing and sharing sexual content involving minors.

Data from SaferNet Brasil, which monitors human rights violations online, highlights the scale of the problem. Between Jan. 1 and July 31, 2025, it recorded 76,997 reports, with 49,336 (64%) related to child sexual abuse and exploitation. After Felca’s video went viral, reports of child pornography more than doubled.

Teixeira warned that generative artificial intelligence has amplified risks by enabling the manipulation of harmless images of children into sexualized material that circulates openly on pedophile networks. “Contrary to common belief, it is not just on the dark web,” she said.

After the public outcry, the lower house approved the bill on Aug. 21 with minor amendments, and the Senate quickly confirmed it before sending it to the president. During debate, some lawmakers cautioned about potential overreach in internet regulation.

“The bill was seen by some as a ‘thermometer’ for broader regulation of Big Tech in Brazil,” Almeida said. “Opponents argue that the text, in its current form, could open precedents for restricting freedom of expression, while supporters stress that the proposal actually seeks to restore parents’ power to oversee their children’s digital lives.”

Ariel de Castro Alves, one of Brazil’s leading child rights experts, stressed that the law is only a first step. “The internet cannot be a lawless land,” he said.

Alves explained that companies will need systems for removing harmful content, technical teams dedicated to child safety, effective reporting channels, and investments in protective measures. They “can no longer simply profit from views, engagement and boosted content” that violate children’s rights.

He added that Brazil should also adopt a content rating system similar to that used for television and include safe internet education in school curricula.

Teixeira noted that the law “put Brazil on equal footing with other countries that already had a robust legal and political framework for protecting children and adolescents online, such as England,” but warned that the main challenge will be “to regulate and put it into practice.”

Archegas highlighted three key difficulties: developing effective age verification without creating digital exclusion or excessive surveillance, managing the economic burden of adapting global platforms to Brazil’s requirements, and ensuring enforcement so that the rules are more than symbolic.

Three Ofcom regulators with clipboards spent the weekend walking the exhibition floor of an international adult industry conference in Prague, urging the 1,700 delegates to comply with the UK’s new Online Safety Act.

“Don’t lie to us,” one of the regulators told a room full of pornography site owners and employees during a lunchtime presentation on the law’s age verification requirements, introduced in July to stop children from viewing explicit content. “Be honest and open. If your measures are not good enough yet, put that on your risk assessment.”

Delegates, some drinking champagne provided by conference sponsors, pressed the regulators with questions. What if a company couldn’t afford to install age verification? How big would the fines be? Could sites avoid compliance by blocking UK traffic? And what if competitors tipped off the regulator in an attempt to sabotage rival businesses?

“We exist to help you,” another Ofcom regulator assured an audience of about 50 men and seven women. “It’s hard. There are many, many things you need to know, but we exist to help members of the adult industry with compliance.”

Seven weeks after the introduction of the Online Safety Act, Ofcom officials said they wanted to emphasize positive progress. According to the regulators, all of the top 10 and most of the top 100 adult sites had either implemented age checks or blocked UK access. Social media sites that allow explicit content, such as X and Reddit, have also deployed age assurance. In August, there were 7.5 million visits to the top five age-verification providers, up from 1 million in June.

Officials described 27 July, the day the law came into effect, as “AV Day”—a moment they hoped would decisively shut off children’s access to online pornography. But the rollout has faced complications.

In the days immediately after implementation, downloads of VPNs surged as users sought to bypass geographic restrictions and age checks.

“The rollout has been fairly disastrous,” said Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition in the U.S. “VPNs have surged; people have not been compliant; we’re seeing traffic go to pirate sites … I don’t think Ofcom would look at this and say: ‘This is what we wanted.’”

American lawyer Corey Silverstein, who has challenged similar age-verification laws in several U.S. states, said there was hostility among delegates. “People are very professional and very polite, but this isn’t the friendliest audience. Some people steer very clear of them. You can see it must be uncomfortable for them walking into a trade show like this.”

Still, Silverstein advised adult site owners to work with regulators. “Their goal is not to cut your legs off. They smile and they’re very nice. They’re not trying to kill you,” he said. “My understanding is they’re actually not even looking to financially fine you. They just want to push you in the right direction for compliance.”

At the conference, regulators in white shirts handed out paper questionnaires to delegates as steel drums played and dancers in feathered leotards entertained the crowd. The anonymous forms asked whether companies had adopted age verification and, if not, why they had done nothing. By Saturday evening, one official admitted few delegates had filled them out but expressed hope for more participation the next day.

So far, no company has been fined under the Online Safety Act, but Ofcom has opened 12 investigations covering more than 60 pornographic sites and apps.

This has caused unease among site operators, many of whom are already contending with new regulations in the U.S. and France. Still, some acknowledged the value of Ofcom’s outreach.

“In the U.S., people really don’t want to talk to us,” said Alex Kekesi, Pornhub’s vice president of brand and community. “We appreciate that Ofcom has invited us to have a seat at the table. We’re often not included in conversations that have to do with regulating our industry.”

Ahead of the law’s introduction, Ofcom created a Porn Portfolio team of six compliance officers to encourage adherence. Members of the team, who requested anonymity for safeguarding reasons, have attended similar conferences in Berlin, Amsterdam, and Los Angeles. A separate enforcement team of more than 40 staff investigates violations.

“We are very conscious of the size of the sector and the ease with which anybody can set up a service that shares pornographic content,” one official said. “We’re not saying that we are going to manage to get every single service into compliance. The approach we take is targeting our resources on those areas where the most children are at most risk of harm.”

Penalties, when imposed, will be significant. Sites could face fines up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue.

“Companies can choose to not comply and take the risk that we will come after them and find them. We want enforcement to change that balance of incentives, so they think it’s just not worth taking the risk,” another regulator explained.

Officials also pushed back on the idea that VPN use means the law has failed, stressing that the main goal is to stop children from accidentally stumbling across pornography rather than blocking determined adults.

Beyond age verification, site operators are also wrestling with AI-generated pornographic content. Regulators warned companies to prevent the creation of violent or illegal imagery that could result in action by Ofcom or payment processors like Visa and Mastercard.

“From a compliance perspective, how can you tell the difference between a 15-year-old AI model and an 18- or 19-year-old AI model?” one delegate asked, concerned about preventing users from producing child sexual abuse material.

Steve Jones, who operates an AI porn site, explained how his team manages the issue. “We say your creation has to be at least 5ft tall, can’t be completely flat-chested and we ban things like pigtails and braces and all the childish toys and teddy bears and things like that,” he said. “AI doesn’t understand the difference between an adult woman that looks young and a young girl. We have to teach it. The AI itself has no morals and no ethics.”