I don't know where else to ask this but should we be worried about the GOP going through with their porn ban threat?

In an attempt to answer this question sincerely, my observation is that while it's not out of the question, the more likely scenario is that many more things that normal people would not consider pornographic will be classified as such.

I feel like they'll definitely try and break things in the process.

Context for everyone else: If I recall correctly, Hypnohub's servers are based in Baltimore, Maryland, and as such are subject to US law.

This is a worry because the upcoming Trump administration has a lot of people associated with Project 2025, which (broadly speaking) wants to criminalize porn, and by extension, this site.

Hopefully, the courts will strike down any porn bans as a violation of the 1st amendment. However, the US Supreme Court currently has a conservative supermajority (which has already overturned past precedent, i.e. Roe v. Wade), so there is fear that other things may be overturned as well.

While it is something to be aware of, I'm not sure how likely it actually is. Yes, Trump and the GOP are going to go wild on a lot of things, but I don't know how realistic a ban on pornography is. Alcohol was once banned and that didn't work out so well. Banning porn would be a million times harder as well as a deeply unpopular policy. I also don't think SCOTUS would uphold a ban.

I think it's extremely improbable, because, as much as they say they would do it, porn is so ingrained into the lives of so many individuals, banning would:

1- Enrage a massive (and I mean MASSIVE) amount of people, and these people could very well take concrete action (not in terms of political action, but more like "Let's go and burn this thing down"). Heck, I'm doing NNN, as every year, and I can tell ya: some people are so on edge for not having an orgasm that they would tear everything that moves wrong to shreads, so much tense they are. Let's not forget we have a mass epidemic of male loneliness, and while I do not think pornography is a cure for that (it probably worsens the phenomenon), at least it keeps people "satiated" for a while. The previous administration was for female rights, no? Didn't people use to say that porn "objectifies women"? Did that stop porn? Heck, with OF rise, I might even take a wild guess and say it made the exact opposite of reducing Pornographic content production.
Remember that quote from the Simpsons:

"You're the Internet's number-one non-porno site. Which makes you ten trillionth overall"

2- Take a hit to an industry with a considerable net in the economy: I doubt the most prominent investors will stay and watch their profit plummet.

3—Do nothing for most of us, since it is pretty easy to move your server to a non-ban country (the Netherlands is probably the best example), and it's virtually impossible to ban the entirety of a thing from the Internet (heck, they tried here in the EU so many times with serious stuff like CP, and yet they keep failing—and not because they are bad at their job, but because the Internet has its ways to avoid this... alongside the concept of the glitch finding in games: you can have 500 fine minds to beta test everything, but you are against a potential 1.000.000 minds to find stuff you've missed: the same goes for bans).

At least, if everything goes really apeshit (I mean, I was highly wrong at the time thinking Putin would not start a war against Ukraine), my only consolation is that I have SD to give me my Kinky images and videos xD But again, I think banning porn would be too much risk for the Trump administration's for too little reward.

The goal is a conservative 'christian' ethnostate at all costs.
There are practically no real obstacles to achieving this at the moment. They do not care about appearances any more.

The court has removed limits on the executive branch and people will be made examples of. This is the worst case scenario, and should be acted on as such.

Maybe move the server out of country, etc.

To add context: the people i grew up with are very very happy right now, and see the election itself as permission. there is no chain of authority here. just the trust that what they do is okay because of who is in office.
At every level, they will do what is in their immediate power to bring their kingdom of heaven down to earth, and it's gonna suck.

i feel like we're thinking too highly of this site, while i yes i am VERY confident that the porn ban WILL happen, i don't think this site is really gonna be affected at all, why?, because it's the united states we're talking about not china, the u.s doesn't have that big of an online state infrastructure that the republicans could just blanket ban any mention of pornography on every single website, what i'm 90% sure will happen that the they will just ban pornhub and the MAJOR porn websites not the small abyssal fish like us

tl;dr we should move beyond idealism in our debates and start making material analysis of reality, cause the real world does not function in the realm of ideas but rather in material conditions, if you don't have means to do something you WON'T do that something no matter how well you plan it and much you DO want it to happen

For concerns about this site in particular, I feel like having a sense of scale matters. Hypnohub evades hotel blacklists, so is likely not going to be the focus of any direct action against "porn sites". AFAIK, this site does not allow you to make or receive payments, so that avenue to apply pressure isn't really there. (I know the site host/payment processors have restricted some content from this site, but it sounds like people were mostly in favor of that)

In other words, there are more prominent things for the new regime to take aim at, so this place should be okay in the short-term.

In my experience, "they have more important things to worry about" is something that's said shortly before someone immediately gets taken down.

No. There will not be porn ban. The First Amendment simply does not allow it. It is just as impossible to ban porn in the US as it is to walk through walls.

The Left Wing has filled you with irrational fears that are just as impossible as being eaten by a werewolf. None of the things you fear about content bans have any basis in reality.

The overturning of Roe V Wade is not applicable. Roe was not based on any actual Constitutional provision. Even RGB herself said trying to base it on the 14th Amendment was legal nonsense.

But the 1st Amendment is quite clear that you cannot ban content. Not porn. Not so-called hate speech. Not things that fill you with fear and rage. Freedom of Speech is absolute, despite Biden's claims to the contrary.





These are some pretty interesting fears you have stated.  What exactly is an "ethnostate", and who do you think wants to set one up?  And why?  Has Trump ever said anything that makes you think he wants to set up some sort of "ethnostate" (whatever that is)?  And if so, what, exactly, did he say that makes you think that?


Before you cite the infamous "Project 2025", can you quote the actual provisions of this proposed agenda that would try to create an "ethnostate" of any kind, much less a Christian one?


Wanting to make sure those who immigrate into the US do so legally has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, so nothing about immigration enforcement has anything at all to do with any sort of an "ethnostate".


Also, Christianity isn't an ethnicity.  How would you even have a "Christian Ethnostate"?  That's a "smell of the color nine" phrase.  The words simply don't go together.


You've quite simply heard propaganda and repeated it.  What you think they want to do is not a real thing.  It's like saying they want change the smell of the color nine.  The concept itself is a contradiction in terms.  No one can do it.


As to "no real obstacles" to what?  A Christian Ethnostate?  No.  No real obstacles.  Except for ... I don't know ... the laws of physics?!?!


Now if you mean no real obstacles to a content ban, then yes.  Yes there is.  The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  That's all the obstacle you need.


The court removed no limits on the executive branch.  That is not what the SOCTUS did in "Trump v United States".  All the SCOTUS did was say you can't prosecute him if you don't like the way he did his job.  That's all.  It does not give him one bit of power he did not already have.


If he tries to do something that violates his authority, any orders he issues will just be ignored.  This has always been the case.  It has also always been the case that no one will prosecute him for trying.  Impeach?  Maybe.  Prosecute?  No.


If he tries to ban something, it simply won't be banned because the president can't ban things.  A US President saying, "This type of website is now banned," has no more effect than you or I saying, "This type of website is now banned."  The president can't be prosecuted for saying it.  You can't be prosecuted for saying it.  But it won't be banned.


Congress cannot ban content either.  Again ... First Amendment.


If the president issues unlawful orders they can and will simply be ignored, as they always have.  Nothing SCOTUS did in "Trump v United States" removed any obstacles or gave him any new authority whatsoever.


If you don't believe me just read the actual decision at www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf . It is actually much more interesting reading than you might think.  But it will also show you just how much the Left Wing lied to you about what it says.  It is not the kind of "legalese" many court decisions are.  You should have no trouble understanding it.

For anyone concerned they might miss something insightful in the wall of text just above me if they don't carefully read the whole thing: Don't be.

I did it so you wouldn't have to. Yes, including the 120 pages of a court document he gave as homework. It was considerably less annoying than the post itself.

The idea that amendments magically prevent changes to the law(that's what Amendment means. Jesus Christ.) and the facetious pretense the word 'ethnostate' has no clear, agreed upon definition when it's one of the most intuitive political concepts on the planet, and justice Jackson expressing the exact same concerns this dingus says are nothing to worry about in the document that's meant to prove they are nothing to worry about, are just a few highlights. It felt like my ears were bleeding several times.

It's considered impolite for lefties to point out when the other side vomits poison bile into the conversation, so let my right wing ass do it in your stead. He said nothing of value. You can skip it and talk to the nice people.

"The Left Wing has filled you with irrational fears that are just as impossible as being eaten by a werewolf"

see this is where i stopped reading, cause anytime you see something even remotely similar to this phrase you just know that not a single coherent argument (let alone a good one) is going to come out of it