I'd imagine you'd need a browser that has developer tools, which is far less common on mobile. A simpler solution would be to use a separate app that just takes the page URL and downloads the video for you, such as this one: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.junkfood.seal/

Isn't this basically what TOR and I2P are for?

I wonder what it was that made Pornhub cooperate this time around. Iirc in texas and france they just "left" instead of implementing the age verification.

yt-dlp is also insanely good for this - just install it, point it at the URL and it'll usually figrue out how to grab the video without any fuss.

Ok, I have already been asked to enter a credit card to verify my age on yt a few times before. It was pretty annoying, really, given how much google already knows about me.

Maybe now they have a chance to demonstrate that these filters don't work.

I legitimately dont understand who supports this. Who are these parents that can't parent their kids properly? It's so incredibly easy these days.

So instead of handling shitty parenting we restrict adults and with surveillance. Make it make sense.

And you did this? I would just abandon the idea of seeing that video and move on with my life.

I...went around teehee (something like piped) I'll never give google access to any banking info, they already know too much.

Who supports it? Fascists. It’s about controlling access to information and robbing the populace of privacy at the same time. An oppressive, authoritarian police state needs tools to maintain control. These are the tools.

Somehow I'm pretty sure Google already had that information. You've never used Google Wallet to pay on the go? No? How about your Android keyboard to fill in some banking form?

"No android no banking."

Maybe Britons are depraved porn fiends and spend so much that Pornhub can't afford to lose this market!

It's not "support", it's already been done in practice.

What they are finishing right now is the convenient way. To surveil 97% instead of 94%. And to make it official to reduce expenses.

And sorry, but "moderate leftists" are those who made it happen, first dreaming how on big centrally moderated platforms the "bad" speech and people will be censored (how irritating it was that in the free Web those people could write whatever they wanted) and theirs won't be, and propaganda won't flourish, and after that dreaming how they can demand loudly enough that the platforms would work for them and not for themselves.

I perfectly remember how people loving Steinbeck and expressing anarchist views would look at me like at an enemy for saying that Facebook, Twitter etc are bad and a trap, and such hierarchical systems can't be good. That arrogant obnoxious "see, in the real society we collectively press for our rights and the rules are made and obeyed", yes, I've met fools who told me things like that. Where's your society now, bitch.

Kiwi Browser has developer tools

I would also bet that when the landscape decentralizes there will be a lot more cp, revenge and peep-videos and other illegal shit in the mix that will get through through the cracks since massive established sites had to actually fear shutdown and losing all revenue unless they had robust gatekeeping mechanisms.

There are technical solutions for p2p sharing with moderation. Not to prevent bad people from sharing their stuff, but to keep spaces clean for those who don't want to see it.

This is also true for communication, which is why Fediverse is not good enough. Hosted servers should be an optional part of the infrastructure, and the data (users, communities, posts ...) shouldn't be connected to them. Like with torrents you can host a torrent tracker, and you can host a BTDHT node, and you can automatically download and seed rare torrents, and none of this is connected to whatever people hosting major trackers decide.

NOSTR gets that part right, but the user experience its authors imagine is not for me.

EDIT: Forgot my main point - my main point is that you might find yourself in a whitelisted Internet where such decentralized solutions won't be available. They'll be detected, they'll be illegal and punishable by fines.

Of course there is no public evidence. It's just a very probable speculation that governments want to control the internet.

Back in the days of newspapers/radio/tv, governments had control as they could easily go after news outlets.

However, with internet, they lost this power. They have been trying hard to regain the power of controlling information. The latest success was masking moderation as child protection.

That's fine. The actual internet will still be here.

That's just not true. People (including competent enough) are well willing to make the society worse for everyone if they are going to be gentry. That's been this way for all of human history, thinking otherwise is that new thing of the 90s, when American exceptionalism has been expanded into "post-Cold-War globalist" world exceptionalism, similarly to how Judaism expanded into Christianity.

It's the parents that wont face the fact that it's them paying for their kids internet access.

Parents intentionally and deliberately pay for their kids to access this shit. But none of them want to accept that when it can all be someone elses fault.