Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cains
I agree the US government isn't going to block .XXX, however alot of people seem to be basing their arguments on this. It isn't going to happen.
|
i don't recall reading anywhere the suggestion of fear by "tin foil wearers" that with .XXX means the US can block porn sites.
the argument has always been made that ISP and blocking software/hardware could block via IP and domain. Private sector can do alot more controlling and filtering than the US government.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cains
it'll never pass but the media buzz it generates is enough to show that whoever is against that public issue.
|
not necessarily.. the 25% number is way out of line, but we do have sin taxes in the US. Look at what used to be the online-tobacco industry doing about 4B a year... got wiped out by visa... pressures from states that were losing revenue due to no ability to tax on an internet order, caused very large and measureable losses of state income.
states like NY and CA (large populations) could see that taxing porn is an easy well to dip into, since they already tax strip clubs, adult video/books, etc. If more people are enjoying online porn over the brick-and-morter porn, then loss of revenue can also be felt by the states.
making the credit card companies collect at point of purchase is an easy way to do it, since companies like ccbill and paycom handle "high risk" accounts (ie. porn), that it would be fairly safe to assume that anyone that processes through these "adult" processors were of adult content.
So the irony here is that government and groups may feel porn is deviant, but yet, they derive revenue from its existance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cains
Again, from what I have been told, the Bush administration has no stance for or against .XXX, they simply wish to check safety procedures.
|
who have you been talking to?
Fight the taxation on pornification!