Let me repeat that I don't support the policy, I think that it's purely detrimental.

I'd understand if you found it tedious, but I was objecting to BeamBrain's specific characterization of the nature of support for the policy (however misguided and incorrect, which you can glean that I believe from my not supporting the policy). Their phrasing made it sound like the stated target of the bill was 20-something porn addicts and the like, which to my understanding was not the case. However:

his has been observed in the past year with over 20 US states requiring porn websites to verify IDs of every visitor and then the states do not provide the websites with the tools needed to verify the ID of each visitor. Then the websites block traffic from the states, so that they don't get sued. The intention of these laws is to outlaw porn websites and the promoters of these laws blatantly say so.

(Emphasis mine) I forgot about this part if I ever knew it, so that's my bad. I don't think that it represents the majority of the support, but I must admit that it is some of it.