pear01

I do like bringing up the potential for dissolution. I would add just the general ways in which they profit off distorting the economy for massive private gains, often to the ruin of many individuals.

Credit has become ubiquitous, in a manner that belies its supposed purpose, at least as was originally practiced before consumers were offered and employed credit for absolutely everything.

Then again, governments and "regulated" entities are also capable of blackmail. I'm not sure these private companies would ever have an incentive to care about what you spend their money on unless governments gave them a reason to - which is why this is happening. At the end of the day you run into the same perpetual problem - you want x, some mob wants y. Good luck.

Just some feedback: Most people are going to ask about the difference between you and the incumbents. Mentioning spies in this regard - especially at this stage - even as a passing joke imo comes off as a little odd. You're pretty early in this process, and it sounds like the kind of incumbent dynamic where you should be relishing (along with improving/iterating on) the answer to the incumbent question rather than thinking of it in any way as a burden.

Fwiw your landing page seemed to do a good job in this regard.

Best of luck!

I get it and yes, you are technically correct that they are not "literally blocking" it. I just hope you can also see where I'm coming from. In context of the larger comment thread your reply felt like a nitpick that missed the point, and focused on that nitpick to the detriment of the larger point of that OP, which imo has some merit. Or at least some merit you didn't address. But I understand you are correct on this particular point. As a suggestion, maybe next time you could reply more as providing context rather than seeming to suggest their entire take was "backwards". Thanks for replying.

You don't seem to grasp the argument.

From above:

> These people will never actually ban pornography

> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay

You then say, well actually they weren't blocked by the states, they were blocked by the sites themselves to protest a bill that passed.

The issue is this clarification is totally irrelevant given the context of the above comment.

The root comment claims in this domain, the right wing is targeting "anything other than heterosexuality". Not sure what their evidence of that claim is. I would think anyone with even a basic familiarity re the right-wing American culture warrior would know this isn't the case. They are simply following the standard far right modus operandi, which is to start their cultural attack on the most vulnerable at the margins where it is easiest.

Similarly, passing age verification is essentially a strategy to enact an effective ban, because it is a demand that cannot be met and is easier to pass than an outright ban. So the comment suggesting it's not serious to suggest this is simply or _only_ about "anything other than heterosexuality" is correct, or at least, not impeached by your conclusion they have it backwards by essentially hyperfocusing on some rather irrelevant pornsite protest tactic which entirely misses the point. If anything, the fact they passed the bills after the self initiated “bans” simply bolsters the rejoinder to the root comment.

The bills still passed so what's your point? The protest failed.