I didn't say they have integrity. Please don't put words in my mouth. I trust porn companies to do what's in their own self-interest, like all other companies. That's what corporations do, and the blowback from intentionally pushing porn on kids would be tremendous and swift.
As I said in another article on the subject, writing about the recent spate of laws that are quietly LGBTQ bans under the guise of being "porn bans," you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in their right minds who wants small children accessing hardcore pornography.
The "porn bans" don't actually mention the words "porn" or "pornography" once. They talk about content that's "harmful to minors" which is a broad definition and, under Kansas law, includes "homosexual acts" and "sexual excitement" which are must vaster than straight-up pornography.
https://medium.com/sexography/whats-wrong-with-porn-id-verification-laws-8ffcb5322c0d
I'll quote from that article in full because the background here is pertinent:
"Now, let me just say, if you’re thinking, “I don’t want porn to be easily accessible to small children,” I strongly agree with you (I think nearly everyone in their right mind does). You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who wants to hand hardcore pornography to children. The issue is, these laws are often Trojan horses (metaphorically, not the malware kind) that do much more than force porn companies to ID people to prevent children’s access.
Let’s take the Kansas version of the bill, which has passed the House and the Senate, and now it awaits the signature of Governor Laura Kelly. The Kansas bill allows the prosecution of companies that fail to ID web visitors if their sites contain content that is “harmful to minors.” But, under existing Kansas law, “harmful to minors” is broadly defined, a definition that includes “homosexual acts” and “sexual excitement.” Both are extremely vague, encompassing much more than just Internet porn.
The concern here is obvious, and it’s something we’ve seen countless times before: the legislation of morality will be used to target LGBTQ people. Honestly, I’m instantly skeptical whenever someone evokes children’s safety as a reason for more state control to police morality. Anita Bryant’s innocuous-sounding Save Our Children Inc. is one example among many reasons why. This was a foundation established in the 1970s to prevent the equal hiring of LGBTQ people. History rhymes again.
Kansas law also casts a wide net regarding nudity. What most of us today consider pornography shows penetrative sex with visible genitals (softcore porn shows neither). But Kansas law also bans any display of breasts and buttocks, which means countless Netflix series would suddenly be criminal (and forget about HBO).
The Kentucky and Nebraska versions of the bill also explicitly state that “homosexual acts” are harmful to minors and are thus included. So, does this mean two gay men or lesbian women can no longer kiss each other? By the letter of the law, yes it does.
Like we’re seeing with the IVF disaster now that states have passed strict anti-abortion laws, these laws risk similarly unintended consequences. Hospitals in Alabama are now stopping IVF treatment because broad legal language has made it too risky to continue the practice that’s helped parents conceive for decades.
These are just three examples of the spate of laws, some that have already passed, that are similarly broad and imprecise. This is not an area we can afford imprecision. Remember, anti-sodomy laws are still on the books in twelve states, including Texas. If the Supreme Court overruled Lawrence V. Texas, we can expect these laws will be used again."
