Age verification, in the legacy porn industry, was non-debatable. Albeit, many of the performers, pornographers and distributors only agreed with age verification because no one wanted the public backlash, rather than due to a moral duty to protect minors. However, the legacy porn biz did not have a shortage of single moms trying to make a decent living or dads paying child support. James DiGiorgio (Jimmy D) once said, “Almost everyone in front of the camera has a kid. We’re a business that loves our kids and will protect them with a bat.” For the few smut creators left of the old school, arguing against some form of age barrier is something akin to a South Park episode.

Big tech and the political scam

Technology was once the porn industry’s ally, but the big tech platforms turned out to traitors. Porn tube sites (platforms such as P0rn Hùb) allowed users to upload and share adult content for free.

1. No demands for paperwork which attested to the performer’s age.
2. No proof that videos were uploaded with consent and not as revenge porn.
3. No proof of copyright ownership.

But worse of all…

• No proof that those who “Clicked Yes to Enter” were legal adults.

The “click to enter” function was normally accompanied by some pseudo legalese text giving it the appearance that it was some form of an electronic attestation /contract with the user. Except those under 18 cannot be bound by such a contact. More importantly though minors cannot be expected to be truthful. Especially when faced with the “attractive nuisance” that online pornography is. To simplify, any site’s “Enter only if you’re over 18” button, legally has less worth than the paper it was printed on (NB: it’s not written on paper). Yet, despite this reality, worldwide governments, lawyers and even anti-porn groups accepted this as a sufficient gate-keeper to deter children.

One of the first and largest porn tube sites, received large sums of startup capital from Fortress Investment Group which as founded in 1988 by Wesley R. Edens, a former partner at BlackRock. In 2002, Fortress welcomed Peter Briger, a former Goldman Sachs banker into its executive roster. Clearly this private equity firm has substantial financial assets and powerful political influence. Quite literally the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of: Were the last 20 years liberal porn access due to global incompetence among the ruling class or were there other agendas being pursued ?

Clearly politicians don’t really have our best interests at heart. They can’t get elected unless they have the support of those who control the thoughts (media) and purse-strings of the nation. Whether it’s political contributions, insider trading, or direct bribery, even the most saintly individual will eventually exchange favors for money. Because anyone who is able to resist this temptation will eventually be replaced by someone who isn’t so morally inhibited. Therefore at this point in time, it’s irrelevant if various governments were just neglectful or if some conspiracy was at play. In all likelihood, it’s probably varying degrees of incompetence and corruption.

Big Tech holds all the Cards

Twenty plus years with tube sites having free reign over adult content is all the proof one needs that activist groups and lawyer organizations were not really fighting to protect minors. All which was needed was to enforce the laws that were already in place. Instead we got rhetoric that these “new” technologies required “new” digitally specific legislation. By exposing and discrediting these organizations, we can better focus on legitimate solutions to the issue at hand.

Politicians are using the issue of age verification for adult sites as a means to garner media attention. By championing the cause of protecting children from explicit content, they can present themselves as moral crusaders. Pandering, on the surface, to the well meaning public. This seemly noble cause to protect the innocent, covers a corporate fascist agenda.

The twenty years that they took to address this issue was just time enough to consolidate most of the porn industry into a handful of tech companies. Furthermore, in this time, the world has developed a dependency on social media. The combination of profiling through social media and porn consumption will create a complete profile of individuals. Social media already has a profile based on contact information, personal tastes, public values, as well as social circle. Giving big tech control over the ID verification for porn consumption will allow social media profiles to be over-layed with your physical address, as well as your most intimate and private desires.

Online ID verification is a database readily accessible by corporations, banks, government agencies and law enforcement, with little or no oversight and even less transparency. Any individual’s sexual proclivities can easily be cross-referenced with their government issued Identification. A married woman with children may have secret lesbian desires. While a middle-age man might enjoy seeing barely legal videos. Imagine the potential for blackmail and damage if it were to be irrefutably known that a high ranking military official, national security agent, head of state or even banker enjoys watching humiliation and degradation videos.

Democratizing means in the hands of the people.

Many of the jizz biz old schooler’s have commented that if there ever was an industry that didn’t require democratization, it’s the porn industry. The porn tubes and fan platforms (eg: 0nly Fàns) do little to promote individual sexual expression or diversity, in fact, strict rules of engagement ensure conformity. All the platforms use monetization and banning as tools of censorship for any sex act or scenario, they deem too divergent from their desired norms. Meanwhile, they financially reward only a small elite group of content makers. The truth is that 99% of content creators earn little, to nothing, for their work.

The legacy pornographers fought for the Right to Freedom of Speech. Only, this right wasn’t won through the direct use of technology. It’s impossible to create democracy by using corporate controlled social media or blogging about social problems when google (and soon AI) controls what the public sees. Porn became recognized as a form of Free Speech when people were willing to go to jail for creating it. In other words, democracy is in defiance and it’s in an angry mob. It’s not going to be found on the Internet.

The only workable solution to truly protect minors remains a paywall, with access purchased at a physical store. There are much fewer of these places than there were 20 years ago, but like the few remaining die hard pornographers, some do continue despite of online domination. Without a doubt, Big tech will continue to dominate distribution because of their resources. However, many avenues could open up for the small “mom and pop” adult businesses willing to deal directly with the public.

For example:

• In a strip bar, dancers could directly sell access to their sites or content. The bar could use off hours to allow dancers who worked there to make content, which could be used to get more people interested in seeing the dancers in person.

• Swingers could sell access to their amateur home movies at parties and swinger clubs. Or the clubs could offer (in person verified) members a whole technical immersion. Everything from a members only chat/ dating app, to a virtual tour of the club, to a place for member created content visible only to other club members. With membership incentives for popular content.

• Likewise small independent producers could promote their productions at venues such as Exxotica. Or perhaps, future independent pornographers could partner with their local adult boutiques.

The list of possibilities for direct sales is only limited by imagination. Big corporations can only limit what someone sees, and they increase these limitations regularly. Whereas small producers innovate and create art! In a very ironic sense, this grassroots approach to porn production would be even more democracy within porn. Unfortunately, it’s a form of sexual and economic freedom that neither government, nor the big corporations desire or will allow.

Now more than ever, what’s required is 20^th century anger and bravery. The corporations and government have gained control over the minds and hearts of many people. It stands to reason that they also want control over your genitals. Orwell’s 1984 is already upon us, it’s now just a question of who will finally acknowledge the threat and take a stand.

by

The post Age verification appeared first on Steele Hard.

Freedom of Movement ‘s destruction will usher in the dawn of a New Slavery.

Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right that is essential for the realization of other rights and for promoting human dignity (United Nations, 1948). It enables individuals to travel, reside, and work in different locations, and is crucial for the development of a vibrant and diverse society. However, numerous governments are implementing policies and practices that restrict or even destroy this basic right. Without Freedom of movement, no other human right is possible. Freedom of speech, bodily autonomy, due process and even the right to arms don’t happen in a closed society, where travel is controlled. Freedom of movement, stimulates individual thought, thereby encouraging the exchange of ideas, or learning other ways of life through personal experience. It also breaks the back of traditional censorship tactics because information passes by word of mouth.

Governments worldwide are imposing restrictions on this essential liberty, ostensibly for reasons such as national security, public health, and environmental protection. The restrictions on freedom of movement imposed by governments around the world represent a disturbing trend towards overreach and control. This overreach is particularly concerning when it comes to career politicians, who may be using these restrictions as a means to consolidate power and maintain their grip on society.

The imposition of these restrictions can be seen as a form of mass enslavement, where individuals are no longer free to make fundamental decisions about their own lives. As long as whom you speak to and where you are allowed to go is limited, people can be corralled like livestock. What’s more, they trample the outliers who try to break from the herd and go their own way. Instead, they become subject to the whims of those in power, who can dictate where they live, work, and travel. This insidious form of control is often cloaked in the guise of public safety, health, or environmental protection (Source 1).

Border Controls and Immigration Policies

Governments have implemented strict border controls and immigration policies, regulating the movement of people across their borders. These restrictions are often said to be justified in order to protect national security, and maintain cultural cohesion. However, people who seek power tend to have the desire to control and dominate the population. As it stands only the very wealthy, who can literally purchase multiple passports/citizenship and those who claim refugee status (and absolute dependence on the government) are able to go where they want. Any hardworking regular person, must return within a short term to their “owners”.

Played out there are several examples globally of this overreach. Nationalist ideologies often emphasize the importance of maintaining cultural and ethnic homogeneity, which can lead to policies that limit immigration and freedom of movement (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017). The United States’ travel ban, which restricts entry for citizens of several Muslim-majority countries, is a prime example of how nationalist and populist rhetoric can translate into policy (DHS, 2020). Another tactic is in the name of security, where governments implement stringent border controls and immigration policies, arguing that these measures are necessary to protect their citizens from potential threats (Neal et al., 2018). These measures often disproportionately impact innocent individuals seeking to exercise their right to freedom of movement. For example: The European Union’s External Border Management Policy, has been criticized for limiting freedom of movement and imposing additional hardships on refugees and asylum seekers (European Commission, 2020).

Resource Management

Some argument could even be made that this global practice of border control and stringent immigration policies, isn’t really to keep fresh minds out as much as it is to keep citizens home. The reasoning being that citizens, particularity the working class are part of a country’s resources. Concerns resource scarcity are also used to justify restrictions on freedom of movement. Australia’s strict immigration policies, which are often justified on environmental and resource scarcity grounds, have been criticized for limiting freedom of movement and failing to address the root causes of migration (Baker, 2012). While managing resources and addressing environmental challenges are crucial, these concerns should not be used as a pretext for limiting the fundamental rights of individuals.

Economic factors play a significant role in driving restrictions on freedom of movement. Some governments believe that limiting immigration is necessary to protect domestic labor markets and ensure employment opportunities for their citizens (Friedberg, 2001). These concerns can lead to policies that restrict the movement of workers, such as, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. Which was driven in part by concerns about immigration and labor market competition, now has led to increased restrictions on the freedom of movement for both British and EU citizens (Jones et al., 2018). Post Brexit only the those with at least half a million euros in investment capital can purchase their freedom and an EU passport. (source 4)

Travel Restrictions and Quarantines

In response to public health crises, governments have imposed travel restrictions and quarantines. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant curtailment of freedom of movement around the world. Governments implemented travel restrictions, border closures, and quarantine measures in an attempt to control the spread of the virus (WHO, 2020). While many in the medical community have good intentions, there is a growing body of both rumors and evidence which point that the health crisis was a pretext for a political power grab. A soft coup carried out by career politicians, high-level political bureaucrats and their billionaire allies to impose draconian authoritarianism by limiting freedom of movement.

The closure of international borders and implementation of strict quarantine measures in countries such as New Zealand and Australia severely limited freedom of movement, even for citizens and permanent residents (Hufbauer et al., 2020). Looking back, the use of quarantines and lock-downs were a form of mass imprisonment, stripping individuals of their basic rights and liberties.

Throughout history, restricting freedom of movement has often preceded episodes of mass enslavement and oppression. For example, the Nazi regime in Germany began by imposing restrictions on the movement of Jews and other minorities, eventually leading to the Holocaust (Source 2). In the United States, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 allowed for the capture and return of escaped slaves, severely limiting the freedom of movement for African Americans and perpetuating their enslavement (Source 3).

The restrictions on freedom of movement have far-reaching implications for society as a whole. They stifle the exchange of ideas, culture, and knowledge, as people are prevented from interacting with one another on a global scale. This isolation can lead to increased xenophobia, as individuals are less exposed to diverse perspectives and experiences. Moreover, these restrictions can have devastating economic consequences, as individuals are unable to pursue job opportunities or engage in international trade. This can lead to increased poverty, inequality, and social unrest, as people become more desperate to provide for their basic needs.

Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right that is under significant pressure from various governmental actions around the world. From nationalism and populism to security concerns and economic factors, governments are implementing policies that restrict or even destroy this basic right. It is crucial that we remain vigilant and continue to advocate for the protection of freedom of movement, both in our own countries and on the global stage. Only by doing so can we ensure that this fundamental human right is preserved for future generations.

It’s your future… It’s your children’s future… It’s your grandchildren’s future… Use your voices today or have no choice but to use guns tomorrow. What your future will be depends on what you do now.

Also read : The Dumbing Down of Society

Sources:

1. “The Global Compact for Migration: A Threat to Sovereignty and Freedom.” (2018). Retrieved from <https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-global-compact-migration-threat-sovereignty-and-freedom>
2. “The Holocaust: A Tragic Legacy.” (n.d.). Retrieved from <https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143>
3. “The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.” (n.d.). Retrieved from <https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=10&title.raw=Fugitive%20Slave%20Act%20of%201850>
4. “EU Passport for non-EU citizens:” (2024) <https://www.globalcitizensolutions.com/how-to-get-an-eu-passport-for-uk-citizens-after-brexit/>
5. DHS (2020). Proclamation 9645. Retrieved from <https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/01/31/proclamation-9645>

1. Baker, G. (2012). Environmentalism and the ‘New’ Immigration Politics in Australia. In G. Connor & S. Lester (Eds.), Immigration, Emigration and Migration: International Perspectives on a Changing World (pp. 19-34). New York: Routledge.European Commission (2020).
2. External Border Management. Retrieved from <https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/background-information/external-border-management_en>Friedberg, R. M. (2001).
3. You Can’t Take It with You? Immigration and the Portability of Human Capital. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2), 221-251.Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., & Zhang, Y. (2020).
4. The Global Trade Disruption: COVID-19 Consequences and Policy Responses. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Jones, R., Lodge, G., & Jayasuriya, K. (2018).
5. Brexit and the British Constitution: The Impact on the Union State and the Future of the UK. The Political Quarterly, 89(3), 425-434.Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017).
6. Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Neal, R., Aas, K. F., & Kalland, A. H. (2018).
7. The Ethics of Immigration Policy: A Survey. Journal of Ethics and Migration Studies, 4(3), 325-346.United Nations (1948).
8. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from <https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/>WHO (2020).
9. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020. Retrieved from <https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—11-march-2020>

by

The post Freedom of movement crisis appeared first on Steele Hard.