>>509222968That's not actually what the law does. It simply says that sites can be held liable by parents of minors that access porn if the site in question did not have ID verification following certain standards (that are specified in the law itself).
The law says it applies to any sites that
>knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material on an Internet website, including a social media platform, more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minorsIt would probably be open to interpretation by lawyers/judges/juries in court as to what "one-third" of stuff is. Would 4chan qualify? Is it the number of pics/videos? What if the site just plops a massive wall of text to outweigh the porn? Lots of wiggle room.
The law also lists no penalty like a fine for noncompliance; it only makes site owners explicitly able to be held liable for damages caused to a minor by the parents of said minor. So the parents would still need to make a claim in court and specify quantifiable damages (e.g., paying for therapy or something probably). The state of Texas itself wouldn't be involved.
If you log on in Texas and just go check a bunch of porn sites, it pretty quickly becomes apparent that most sites simply don't give a shit and won't care. Only sites like PornHub and its affiliates are doing anything with it, and they're mostly just outright blocking access to Texas IP addresses. For sites hosted outside the US, there's basically no recourse for a civil claim like the law specifies, so nothing changes for them.
