Another "Age Verification" act ===> BS
 

Here we go again. |bullshit| |angry|

I thought the supreme court put this to rest years ago. |whisper|

So basically they want the payment processors to deny processing to websites unless you can prove the surfers ages. |huh |catfight|

And of course there is no mention of how a website operator is supposed to determine the ages of the surfers. I guess we could hope for RFID technolgy with retina scanning, and match against some government database. But, that would pretty much require everybody on the planet to submit to big brother style tracking. |scared| |crazy|

I'm hoping that the ACLU, EFF, and FSC step up and bitch slap them before the bill even starts to process. |attention

BTW, penalties: 10 years prison, conspiracy charges, forfeiture provisions, racketeering charges. |banghead||banghead|

|bullshit||bullshit| It will never pass.

This bill has been referred to the House financial Services committee.
These are the members to contact asking them to not let it leave committee:
http://financialservices.house.gov/who.html

I saw something on one of the other boards about this the other day, and was really surprised how many seemed to think this is such a Fab!Idea!

And, guys? I love me some porn, but I'm still new enough to this business that I can tell you - any time I hit a site that asks for my credit card? Huh uh.

Know why? 'Cos five years ago I got hit with them there cross sells. No way, no day. I'll go to the creepy dirty store first.

Never say never!

The Germans are living with this very monster right now and there were those that claimed it would never pass there.

Contact your Congress Man and raise hell now or you might have to live with what they shove down your throat.

They are trying to backdoor this through the credit card processors, and you can bet they will be arguing all about how it's part of FTC doing business regulating stuff, rather than an attack on porn. |catfight|

So with no way for a site to verify a visitor, the processors can't let you make money. I guess we could go back to checks to a P.O.Box |loony|

Accept the check - without age verification and face jail time.................. This has nothing to do with protecting kids and everything to do with putting us out of business.

I tried contacting the Colorado Senator on the committee and he blocks all emails that are not from constituents in his district. Monday morning a letter goes out to his office - along with one to every other prick on that committee.

Sad truth is - none of them want to come out looking like they support porn (or don't want to protect children) and the cock suckers that wrote the bill know that - thus the title.

Bottom line - this will put hundreds of small operators out of business just like 2257 did and that IS their goal.

And the cock suckers mask it by claiming to protect children - and millions of "parents" with jump on board because it's obviously the governments job to protect their children. Truth is, these are the same lazy fucking parents that can't tell you where their 16 year old daughter is at 11pm on a school night after they let her drive to her friends alone because they are too fucking lazy to supervise anything in their children's life.

If this is going to happen. Then a fair amount of money will be loss to the credit card companies and processors. I am sure they will have a voice on this, including visa and master-card.

Not to mention the money lost to the programs.......

Oh jez - that was their goal in the first place.

I wouldn't bet on that. Online adult revenue is but a drop in the ocean for visa/mc compared to mainstream and the offline world.

-N

Hmmmm....

And most of us are in the business of selling porn memberships in one way shape or form, yeah, by convincing someone to pull out their credit card.

This is a porn business forum, correct?

Sorry for being snarky, but these kinds of posts always get me riled up.

Discussions of sponsors that cross-sell, the impact of cross-selling on the industry are constructive. Comments like this are pure, unadultered rubbish.

As a woman in this business, I'm sorry you feel that way. My job depends on folks pulling out their cards, just like yours does. However, I ALSO am a consumer of our product - and frankly, I've been burned more than once by having my card jacked by cross-sold BS - and if I've been burned by it, working with this business, and I'm mistrustful of having it done again, how do you think the average consumer feels?

Several of my clients are here, and we've all been hurt by damage to the consumer market - in all aspects.

Think what you will, but by and large, if it's not someone I work with, I have a hard time ponying up my hard-earned cash to purchase, and so do most of our consumers. It's worth thinking about.

I don't understand what it is about Liz's comments that you are objecting to. You've effectively said nothing, other than "I disagree," but in a sort of asshole-ish manner.

Well it's been 2 weeks and I still haven't really even seen a response from any of the folks that the bill is directed against. |crazy|

Any of the processors want to chime in here! |attention
ccBill
Epoch
Paycom
Verotel

How about some of the sponsors with their own processing? |attention

Maybe even some of those folks that are challenging these things all the time in courts. |attention
EFF
ACLU
FSC

I concur |thumb

First off, her comments were akin to a person in the car business, selling cars that never drove them because they were unsafe. I was not disagreeing with "her" so much as comment on her comments.

I have been in quite a few businesses and have little tolerance for people who sell things they either do not believe in or are afraid of themselves.

As far as being "ass-holish", I did apologize for being snarky. I, furthermore, directed my comments at her comments and not her personally. If that is "ass-holish" so be it.

If you think it reflects a professional approach to be in a business that you would never purchase due to fear of being ripped off, then you are entitled to your opinion. I personally do not think it reflects either professionalism or commitment. If I was snarky, it is because many bad experiences both with business partners and employees that had the same approach and felt it was something to be rationalized, and I reiterate my advance aknowledgement to Liz and anyone else for coming off as snarky.

If the issue is one of cross-sales and their impact on our busines, it is both a problem and opportunity from a business standpoint. And, I am all up for those discussions - althought the horse has been repeatedly beaten to death and devolves into bitch fests rather than the business opportunity the present - namely establishing trust with your surfers so that they do not fear a repetition of the same event with the site that you are selling.

BTW, I did want to respond to this but instead had one of my pet peeves hit and unfortunately let it come off as a snarky response, my apologies to any, including Liz who were offended.

On the topic, it will never pass a number of Consitutional tests, most specifically that it cannot be de facto censorship. Since there exists no reasonable way to prove age over the net - in fact even arguably in person - it will never become law even if passed.

I would not worry about it. Such bills are proposed all the time in a variety of industries that will never get 10 minutes in a committee only so that the sponsoring Congresspersons can issue a press release to their consituents that may be in favor of a certain position in their local area.

This bill, however, is so draconian that it barely passes the smell test as a serious effort at crafting legislation.

Bottom line is big brother USA wants everyone in a nice little office 9-5 where they can be tracked, leaving the internet to the big firms to turn into one giant mall.

OK - I can see where whitey's going with that, and that's my fault for poor communication.

My beef is with using credit card for age verification - this doesn't provide me with an opportunity to see if it's something I'm willing to risk having my card dinged far. I do choose to buy porn on the web, on occasion, if I find the content to be compelling. But if I have to hand over my card info before I've been able to take a look? Nuh uh. It's really tough for me to decide to risk shelling out an undisclosed sum of money before I have any idea what I am getting into.

My word choice in "any site that asks" was poor - I didn't think how badly that could be interpreted. But my point is still valid - if we in the business are concerned with it, imagine how much more so it is outside the business?

I buy porn. I sell porn. I give porn as presents. But I don't think like a porn-person. I think like a business person. And all too often, it seems those are mutually exclusive. We dun those that think "like surfers" - but surfers are our customers. I think more of us should think like surfers and consumers, and less like webmasters. The best CEO is the one that knows what the buyer wants.

A-men - seems we have to do an awful lot of that these days. They're trying to stick their noses everywhere they don't belong. I'm sick and tired of it and even thought about joining some patriot group.

This particular idea is WAY bad - no make that WAY stupid.

DC needs one hell of a house cleaning. hope everyone gets out and votes in 2010 to stop this kind of garbage and make them get back to the business they're supposed to do - 1) Deliver the mail. 2) Print the money (that they got down, eh?) and 3). most important of all - protect and defend our shores. And that's it!

Semper Fi.

Huh? I don't think we are a drop in the bucked compared to mainstream online.

http://internet-filter-review.topten...tatistics.html

Thanks for your balanced response Liz, and I both apologize again for being snarky and somewhat poor communication on my part.

The part I bolded is something I could not agree more with. In the public webmaster boards there is continual complaining about tubes, surfer forums, and file sharing. Much of this bitching lacks information.

Take surfer forums, for example, which I make it a point to surf once per week. I suspect that amongst the participants in surfer forums are the most dedicated and repeat purchasers of porn. One can learn quite a bit by reading their comments on sites they have bought memberships to and also realize that most would prefer a great membership site - and are serial membership purchasers. But, it is easier for WM's to bitch about the boards themselves, and the freeloaders that hang out in them, than either learn from them or understand that many of their best potential customers for a new membership haunt those places (other than the clever webmasters that have started surfer forums and understand how well they convert traffic). Just one example.

Anyway, sorry for starting out on a bad note!!

My attitude towards the "freeloading public" is what I learned from others in the online adult biz several years ago. Which is basically:

1) Hotlinking is bad.
2) Surfer forums are bad.
3) Tube sites are killing the business.

But my beliefs appear to be in the minority. Webmasters seem to think one way... and the rest of the world thinks another way. And what I think is the noble effort of affiliate marketing, is widely thought of as ignoble. Bordering upon the wider public thinking, that porn affiliates practice predatory black-hatting on those poor vulnerable surfers.

Made me think about what I was taught.