I've said before, I think selective internet bans are a very slippery slope. No matter how you feel about porn, I think stopping this ID law is overall good for internet freedom. I don't like porn, and I think it can be monumentally harmful. I think the government being able to set requirements to visit websites is more harmful.
I also think it's kind of ironic everyone (rightly) rails against internet ID, and idiots who push that nonsense, but often have no problem with porn restrictions.
It's a parent's job to stop kids from watching porn, not the government's. And the government will almost never make the situation better, no matter how negligent the parent. We know this shit. We see it time and time again. Not sure why people are so keen on porn ID laws. In any other context, they go against everything most of us here believe in.
My only qualm is that it's nearly impossible to keep your kid from watching porn in 2023. You have to deny them a smartphone or tablet (which I do) but even then they're going to see it at friends' houses because of lazy garbage parents of other kids. Feels like the only way to keep their minds safe from that filth is to go live on a homestead or something.
All that said, you're right about the government not making it any better. I do understand why parents want something done though.
A sane anti-porn law would be that sources have to identify any porn, with a tag or a http header or something like that, or face a big fine.
Then adults don't need to be tracked with an ID and porn-blockers for children would work almost perfectly. Other countries could still have untagged porn, but 99% would go along with it since it's not intrusive and they don't want to be excluded from any US-aligned banking or payments system.
Like how many cookie warnings have you seen in the US just because they implemented it for EU and saving US users a minor annoyance is not worth the risk of a mistake? A US tagging law would totally work globally.
"Sources", or face "a big fine"... Not gonna work.
There's an entire genre on Youtube of women in lingerie playing musical instruments. It's very arguably softcore pornography. But is it "porn" porn? Does Youtube need to regulate its thots? How about Twitch? Instagram? X? Conversely, an educational video about sexual health... Is that porn? What about if that "sexual health" is under more scarequotes and italicized?
And what's the fine? How is it administrated? Will The Pirate Bay need to pay fines for hosting torrents of the stuff? How will it wind up being billed?
Of course it'll work. All those lingerie videos are going to default to adult only unless YouTube specifically vouches for them.
So it'll also be a much-needed weakening of 230 by making companies actually be in some way responsible for content. YouTube is not going to use AI to mark videos not-porn when they're actually responsible for mistakes, so kids will only get access to content an actual person looked at and said "yep, no way we're getting fined $100k per view for this".
A fine could be administered like do-not-call or broadcast TV swearing. That's easy. Collecting the fine from the 3rd world is hard, but also 3rd-worlders having to launder money and be at risk anytime they step into the West for vacation just to get what little money kids have is not really worth it.
I agree with the principal of the idea but would not characterize the reason someone wouldn't comply as being because they are part of some weird pedo/grooming business.
A sane anti-porn law would be that sources have to identify any porn, with a tag or a http header or something like that, or face a big fine.
There are systems for this. If and whether they are followed, I have no idea. I imagine porn sites would follow the law if it's not too inconvenient for them. But the other random sites that kids are going to be reduced to finding porn on are going to be harder to censor.
Um, anyways, that effectively makes the government the determiner of what is and is not porn, the evasion of which is kind of the point here. It's much better to have a web of voluntary systems. It will work better, and we're not going to disable the whole internet to keep kids off porn. Solutions have to be reasonable.
Kids are resourceful and can dedicate a lot of time to defying their parents if they want to.
That said:
even then they're going to see it at friends' houses because of lazy garbage parents of other kids.
Part of knowing who a kid's friends are is knowing who their friends parents are, and getting to know them, too. It's part of being in a community. I certainly got the "I don't want you hanging out with X" growing up, and I remember scoffing over it at the time (and doing what I can to circumvent it), but as I got older I only then was able to appreciate this and, looking back, yeah, X got me into a lot of evil stuff that started out as "only" schoolboy hijinks.
Feels like the only way to keep their minds safe from that filth is to go live on a homestead or something.
This makes as much sense as living in the middle of a desert to make sure your kid never drowns. Some day, your kid is going to turn into an adult. If the only way your kid knows how to deal with things is "just avoid them", your kid is going to have a pretty rough life.
I pretty much agree with your take. I'm not sure it's QUITE as different as you might make it out. I mean, yes, it's easier than at any time in history to access porn and highly perverted porn is certainly easier to access than at any time in history.
In highschool one of my friends managed to get a Playboy subscription. Another, through his older brother, got a couple of VHS tapes that got widely shared around, etc.
It's going to happen. I have a kid going into highschool. I don't want to think about this crap, but realistically, it's going to happen.
I think the government being able to set requirements to visit websites is more harmful
This. It's very likely many inside and out of the government behind this don't give the slightest fuck about porn but know it's a viable tip of the wedge to push wider control tools on the general public who will end up too incensed to think about the consequences correctly.
Sprinkle some pearl clutching and "for the kids" in the appropriate places and you'll have various groups of the public immediately marching in lockstep with others beside them doing so to not be harassed for questioning The Message and its latest Kafka trap.
The moment the infrastructure is in place to target and control the publics access to certain parts of the web the moment that follows will be a list of what parts to do next. Do note the wording I went with there. The list will quickly appear because it already exists and won't be afforded any debate time.
That's the goal. Not the window dressing surrounding any porn bans and anyone who thinks they won't find themselves affected by these tools in the future because they don't use porn, or have certain political alignments, or are of a certain race is woefully mistaken given various attempts on both sides of the Atlantic so far.
That's true any time someone goes on about the children. I feel like people that care about children are busy protecting their children. People that just "care about children" are more suspect.
Because people believe that restrictive ID laws which abolish anonymity which will stop people using the sites in fear of being hacked and doxxed (a la Ashley Madison). Plus making it impossible to function as a site and remain profitable, effectively banning them in all but name. While also abolishing every other aspect of sexual outlet outside of the bedroom with any act requiring more than one consenting adult without payment to be seen as legal will somehow end the demographic issues we have in society and return society to conservative monogamy, relationships for everyone and the two parent, two child household utopia. It won't. All it will do is drive everything to the dark web or create sexually frustrated single men with nothing to lose considering the current state of the dating market.
The people who should be doing the job are parents, I agree. The state should not be taking over the job of parent and treating us all like children.
Plus making it impossible to function as a site and remain profitable, effectively banning them in all but name
This is really all it ever is. Its them considering something a societal cancer, and then trying to make the government ban it.
You'd think they'd have read up how well Prohibition worked. Its even a nearly 1:1 comparison considering the damage alcohol does and still does daily to everyone, yet we realized banning it didn't accomplish anything.
Except this time their get out of jail card is to claim that the sites voluntarily shut down access in their state and it's not an actual ban. They won't mention the bureaucracy, red tape and impossible requirements they implemented that led to this situation.
Exactly, and then the whole time position themselves as "the good guys" because they said the word "CHILDREN" and that instantly makes them the morally superior.
Because when you say think of the children, you are always in the right everytime forever and anyone who opposes you wants children raped and groomed and ruined.
Because when you say think of the children, you are always in the right everytime forever and anyone who opposes you wants children raped and groomed and ruined.
Unless you're a right winger who actually opposes children getting groomed and raped. Then you're just a transphobe who needs to be cancelled.
Because I grew up in Moonshine country where people have actual storied histories barely a generation removed explaining how they got away with ignoring it or dodging it, and in turn spending more time in the presence of criminals to assist in those endeavors.
Nascar and stock racing alone got its start by an entire criminal industry forming in response to it, and that's just a single operation in one area of the country.
The people who were causing problems due to alcohol didn't and weren't going to stop just because of a law, all it accomplished was punishing innocent folks from having freedom. No different than "common sense" gun laws, which I'm sure you'll whine "bubububut that's different!"
Because people believe that restrictive ID laws which abolish anonymity which will stop people using the sites in fear of being hacked and doxxed (a la Ashley Madison). Plus making it impossible to function as a site and remain profitable, effectively banning them in all but name.
That's it. It's nothing to do with kids. It's the fucking tradcuck trash thinking they can pump up birth rates by taking away all other outlets.
It's unfortunate this idea is being downvoted because there is a push by both sides of the political spectrum to shut down all avenues of sexual outlets for single men and restrict the act to be defined as two (or more) individuals without payment in a private dwelling. Whether feminist or conservative. The "won't somebody think of the children" aspect of it has always been a tried and true argument from emotion to get something banned. It's happening now with vapes because children could get access (despite age restrictions and ID requirements already in place) and the same will happen to pornography and every other sexual outlet.
Like I say, what happens with all the frustrated men who can't compete in the dating market and have nothing to lose? Will they all be sent into the meat grinder of war?
Feminist women (why do I have to self-censor when the stormfaggots are rampant) have a plan, it's called cut them off from banks and make them starve to death.
i can agree with this, its how the slimeballs operate they target a palatable victom in this case porn and then try to ram thru the most draconian shit they think they can get away with while people are charged with emotional rhetoric and thus not thinking too far ahead as to how the legislation will be used... or further leverage it will create.
I tend to agree. I just don't want the government having hands in things. I think porn and degeneracy is a huge problem. Bad parenting is even more of a problem, but we can't legislate it into place.
I don't like any requirements to show papers to access media content (adult in nature for this but still media content)
I don't like governments having more ways to track you online
I don't like giving governments more authority over an issue that can be solved by parents using parental controls on their devices.
That's really it, I don't have a 'but in this case', parents get off your ass and use parental controls since you still got schools trying to teach your kids to take it up the butt. The only solution to stop corruption of kids is less government interaction, more parental action, not the other way around.
parents get off your ass and use parental controls
The irony being that parental controls and monitoring for online stuff is easier than its ever been. Like, less than 10 minutes of setup and an electronic device is limited forever. They make tablets and cell phones that are hard wired to never be crackable into stuff you might find undesirable.
All these parenting failings are them not even crossing the pitifully low bar of asking "what'd you learn in school today" and then buying them expensive electronics without ever even looking at it again.
Even before the internet, it wasn't that hard to find a Playboy or something just in your house, or even stashed in the wild somewhere. Shit boys would just see an episode of mainstream TV like Friends with nipple pokeys and jerk off to it for weeks, without even getting into the Sears catalogues.
The only difference is just how weird the porn you can find now is, which I'd agree its a real problem kids can walk into sissy hypno or furry porn as easy as simple boobies.
It sucks how hard it is for parents to prevent their kids from seeing porn online, but I don't support ID requirements for viewing porn and I never will.
Ironic one of the supposed freer/lax states in the country trying to put the camel's nose under the tent that would lead to monitoring what grown adults are doing online. (Texas is still red, but there has been talk of it turning purple for years now. Not sure it will happen)
For a long time been tired of argumento ad liberi.
I get the argument that porn is protected free speech & I mostly agree with it (I also understand the counterargument that makes some valid points), but we've had porn requiring proof of age since forever. If age requirements/background checks don't violate the 2nd amendment, how does it for the 1st? Does social media like X having a min age of 13 violating the free speech rights of 12 yr olds??
Perhaps the most absurd thing about this is that back when they used to sell physical porn magazines at the gas station or whatever, they would check IDs. Nobody ever complained that their First Amendment rights were violated.
If age requirements/background checks don't violate the 2nd amendment, how does it for the 1st?
They do violate the 2nd amendment, it's just most people don't care.
That said, I personally feel the main issue with the porn bill is:
“People will be particularly concerned about accessing controversial speech when the state government can log and track that access,” Ezra wrote. “By verifying information through government identification, the law will allow the government to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives.”
Yes, this already exists with gun laws. And, I do not think they should exist with gun laws. But, there's a big difference between having to flash a driver's license to some bored store clerk to the government keeping logs of who is visiting particular websites, when and for how long. Especially because governments are already locking people up for saying naughty things online - how long until they start locking people up for reading naughty things online?
how long until they start locking people up for reading naughty things online?
They already are, just not as directly as they will try to in the future. Past internet history is being used to stack addition charges on people, or simply smear their character to push a sentence, even if it has nothing to do with the alleged crime.
It's the way they are trying to enforce the law. I 100% agree that children and teens should not be viewing pornographic material, but by requiring ID they're essentially creating a back door for digital ID. first it will just be the vices like porn and video games, but eventually they will tie your internet history to your ID and give you a social credit score. that's what they are really trying to do with these laws.
there is already a network level flag that allows adult content sites to mark themselves as adult content. What should be happening is routers and Internet devices should be blocking this traffic by default, requiring an admin to go in and disable the filter in order to view the content. this creates adult internet access points and safe internet access points, thus eliminating the need to personally identify oneself and allowing anonymous browsing to continue. this also allows laws to be created that penalize knowingly giving a child access to an adult internet access point.
It's technically quite feasible to issue someone an anonymous "I am over 18" validation method that isn't connected to other ID aspects (name, address, etc).
we've had porn requiring proof of age since forever. If age requirements/background checks don't violate the 2nd amendment, how does it for the 1st?
One thing is scope. There's tons of limits on what the government can ask for, or how they can store it. In context of the 2nd, it's been found unconstitutional to build a database of gun owners, even though each individual store is required to store data on their customers.
I'd argue it's kind of the same for porn and the 1st: You can say 'you're not allowed to view this unless you're eighteen,' but it's gets much more intrusive and dangerous if you're required to provide ID. So some things could be found constitutional, but pushing it too far could in theory be unconstitutional, at least according to the courts. I'd argue we already have a shit ton of unconstitutional laws that are deemed just fine, but that's a different conversation.
There is nothing stopping the government from building that porn user database the same way how the ATF is not supposed to use 4473 forms to build a database, but they did it anyway.
Sure there is, since you can currently mostly-anonymously access porn. If they put ID laws in place that would change. And we certainly shouldn't make it easier and set precedent in such a direction, just because they could currently use workarounds to achieve the same end.
i agree this SHOULD be the case, the INTERnet is a vast worldwide comunication and entertainment network no one goverment should have juristiction over the net.
I have to agree that allowing the government to slap a checkpoint on content is a slippery slope we don't want to entertain.
But also, everyone who thinks we can just throw it to "parental responsibility" is smoking crack. We are just now seeing a generation that grew up with porn available 24/7 in the palm of their hand (one hand) and it ain't good. There's a reason that groomers expose kids to explicit material. It destroys sexual boundaries.
I've said before, I think selective internet bans are a very slippery slope. No matter how you feel about porn, I think stopping this ID law is overall good for internet freedom. I don't like porn, and I think it can be monumentally harmful. I think the government being able to set requirements to visit websites is more harmful.
I also think it's kind of ironic everyone (rightly) rails against internet ID, and idiots who push that nonsense, but often have no problem with porn restrictions.
It's a parent's job to stop kids from watching porn, not the government's. And the government will almost never make the situation better, no matter how negligent the parent. We know this shit. We see it time and time again. Not sure why people are so keen on porn ID laws. In any other context, they go against everything most of us here believe in.
I think you have pretty much the right take.
My only qualm is that it's nearly impossible to keep your kid from watching porn in 2023. You have to deny them a smartphone or tablet (which I do) but even then they're going to see it at friends' houses because of lazy garbage parents of other kids. Feels like the only way to keep their minds safe from that filth is to go live on a homestead or something.
All that said, you're right about the government not making it any better. I do understand why parents want something done though.
A sane anti-porn law would be that sources have to identify any porn, with a tag or a http header or something like that, or face a big fine.
Then adults don't need to be tracked with an ID and porn-blockers for children would work almost perfectly. Other countries could still have untagged porn, but 99% would go along with it since it's not intrusive and they don't want to be excluded from any US-aligned banking or payments system.
Like how many cookie warnings have you seen in the US just because they implemented it for EU and saving US users a minor annoyance is not worth the risk of a mistake? A US tagging law would totally work globally.
"Sources", or face "a big fine"... Not gonna work.
There's an entire genre on Youtube of women in lingerie playing musical instruments. It's very arguably softcore pornography. But is it "porn" porn? Does Youtube need to regulate its thots? How about Twitch? Instagram? X? Conversely, an educational video about sexual health... Is that porn? What about if that "sexual health" is under more scarequotes and italicized?
And what's the fine? How is it administrated? Will The Pirate Bay need to pay fines for hosting torrents of the stuff? How will it wind up being billed?
Of course it'll work. All those lingerie videos are going to default to adult only unless YouTube specifically vouches for them.
So it'll also be a much-needed weakening of 230 by making companies actually be in some way responsible for content. YouTube is not going to use AI to mark videos not-porn when they're actually responsible for mistakes, so kids will only get access to content an actual person looked at and said "yep, no way we're getting fined $100k per view for this".
A fine could be administered like do-not-call or broadcast TV swearing. That's easy. Collecting the fine from the 3rd world is hard, but also 3rd-worlders having to launder money and be at risk anytime they step into the West for vacation just to get what little money kids have is not really worth it.
I agree with the principal of the idea but would not characterize the reason someone wouldn't comply as being because they are part of some weird pedo/grooming business.
You would have various levels of content tags. I'm sure YT is already doing it behind the scenes.
There are systems for this. If and whether they are followed, I have no idea. I imagine porn sites would follow the law if it's not too inconvenient for them. But the other random sites that kids are going to be reduced to finding porn on are going to be harder to censor.
Um, anyways, that effectively makes the government the determiner of what is and is not porn, the evasion of which is kind of the point here. It's much better to have a web of voluntary systems. It will work better, and we're not going to disable the whole internet to keep kids off porn. Solutions have to be reasonable.
Kids are resourceful and can dedicate a lot of time to defying their parents if they want to.
That said:
Part of knowing who a kid's friends are is knowing who their friends parents are, and getting to know them, too. It's part of being in a community. I certainly got the "I don't want you hanging out with X" growing up, and I remember scoffing over it at the time (and doing what I can to circumvent it), but as I got older I only then was able to appreciate this and, looking back, yeah, X got me into a lot of evil stuff that started out as "only" schoolboy hijinks.
This makes as much sense as living in the middle of a desert to make sure your kid never drowns. Some day, your kid is going to turn into an adult. If the only way your kid knows how to deal with things is "just avoid them", your kid is going to have a pretty rough life.
I pretty much agree with your take. I'm not sure it's QUITE as different as you might make it out. I mean, yes, it's easier than at any time in history to access porn and highly perverted porn is certainly easier to access than at any time in history.
In highschool one of my friends managed to get a Playboy subscription. Another, through his older brother, got a couple of VHS tapes that got widely shared around, etc.
It's going to happen. I have a kid going into highschool. I don't want to think about this crap, but realistically, it's going to happen.
Playboy is kindergarten porn compared to what you can find with google
This. It's very likely many inside and out of the government behind this don't give the slightest fuck about porn but know it's a viable tip of the wedge to push wider control tools on the general public who will end up too incensed to think about the consequences correctly.
Sprinkle some pearl clutching and "for the kids" in the appropriate places and you'll have various groups of the public immediately marching in lockstep with others beside them doing so to not be harassed for questioning The Message and its latest Kafka trap.
The moment the infrastructure is in place to target and control the publics access to certain parts of the web the moment that follows will be a list of what parts to do next. Do note the wording I went with there. The list will quickly appear because it already exists and won't be afforded any debate time.
That's the goal. Not the window dressing surrounding any porn bans and anyone who thinks they won't find themselves affected by these tools in the future because they don't use porn, or have certain political alignments, or are of a certain race is woefully mistaken given various attempts on both sides of the Atlantic so far.
That's true any time someone goes on about the children. I feel like people that care about children are busy protecting their children. People that just "care about children" are more suspect.
Because people believe that restrictive ID laws which abolish anonymity which will stop people using the sites in fear of being hacked and doxxed (a la Ashley Madison). Plus making it impossible to function as a site and remain profitable, effectively banning them in all but name. While also abolishing every other aspect of sexual outlet outside of the bedroom with any act requiring more than one consenting adult without payment to be seen as legal will somehow end the demographic issues we have in society and return society to conservative monogamy, relationships for everyone and the two parent, two child household utopia. It won't. All it will do is drive everything to the dark web or create sexually frustrated single men with nothing to lose considering the current state of the dating market.
The people who should be doing the job are parents, I agree. The state should not be taking over the job of parent and treating us all like children.
This is really all it ever is. Its them considering something a societal cancer, and then trying to make the government ban it.
You'd think they'd have read up how well Prohibition worked. Its even a nearly 1:1 comparison considering the damage alcohol does and still does daily to everyone, yet we realized banning it didn't accomplish anything.
Except this time their get out of jail card is to claim that the sites voluntarily shut down access in their state and it's not an actual ban. They won't mention the bureaucracy, red tape and impossible requirements they implemented that led to this situation.
Exactly, and then the whole time position themselves as "the good guys" because they said the word "CHILDREN" and that instantly makes them the morally superior.
Because when you say think of the children, you are always in the right everytime forever and anyone who opposes you wants children raped and groomed and ruined.
Unless you're a right winger who actually opposes children getting groomed and raped. Then you're just a transphobe who needs to be cancelled.
But prohibition did reduce crime, reduce deaths from alcohol & associated illnesses.
Why do you feel that banning it "didn't accomplish anything"? Is that based on data?
Because I grew up in Moonshine country where people have actual storied histories barely a generation removed explaining how they got away with ignoring it or dodging it, and in turn spending more time in the presence of criminals to assist in those endeavors.
Nascar and stock racing alone got its start by an entire criminal industry forming in response to it, and that's just a single operation in one area of the country.
The people who were causing problems due to alcohol didn't and weren't going to stop just because of a law, all it accomplished was punishing innocent folks from having freedom. No different than "common sense" gun laws, which I'm sure you'll whine "bubububut that's different!"
That's it. It's nothing to do with kids. It's the fucking tradcuck trash thinking they can pump up birth rates by taking away all other outlets.
It's unfortunate this idea is being downvoted because there is a push by both sides of the political spectrum to shut down all avenues of sexual outlets for single men and restrict the act to be defined as two (or more) individuals without payment in a private dwelling. Whether feminist or conservative. The "won't somebody think of the children" aspect of it has always been a tried and true argument from emotion to get something banned. It's happening now with vapes because children could get access (despite age restrictions and ID requirements already in place) and the same will happen to pornography and every other sexual outlet.
Like I say, what happens with all the frustrated men who can't compete in the dating market and have nothing to lose? Will they all be sent into the meat grinder of war?
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17r9DkqVUL/x/c/4Txi8mV7PCj
Feminist women (why do I have to self-censor when the stormfaggots are rampant) have a plan, it's called cut them off from banks and make them starve to death.
i can agree with this, its how the slimeballs operate they target a palatable victom in this case porn and then try to ram thru the most draconian shit they think they can get away with while people are charged with emotional rhetoric and thus not thinking too far ahead as to how the legislation will be used... or further leverage it will create.
I tend to agree. I just don't want the government having hands in things. I think porn and degeneracy is a huge problem. Bad parenting is even more of a problem, but we can't legislate it into place.
In fact, government getting involved tends to make things even worse, not better.
I don't like any requirements to show papers to access media content (adult in nature for this but still media content)
I don't like governments having more ways to track you online
I don't like giving governments more authority over an issue that can be solved by parents using parental controls on their devices.
That's really it, I don't have a 'but in this case', parents get off your ass and use parental controls since you still got schools trying to teach your kids to take it up the butt. The only solution to stop corruption of kids is less government interaction, more parental action, not the other way around.
Exactly, well said.
The irony being that parental controls and monitoring for online stuff is easier than its ever been. Like, less than 10 minutes of setup and an electronic device is limited forever. They make tablets and cell phones that are hard wired to never be crackable into stuff you might find undesirable.
All these parenting failings are them not even crossing the pitifully low bar of asking "what'd you learn in school today" and then buying them expensive electronics without ever even looking at it again.
Even before the internet, it wasn't that hard to find a Playboy or something just in your house, or even stashed in the wild somewhere. Shit boys would just see an episode of mainstream TV like Friends with nipple pokeys and jerk off to it for weeks, without even getting into the Sears catalogues.
The only difference is just how weird the porn you can find now is, which I'd agree its a real problem kids can walk into sissy hypno or furry porn as easy as simple boobies.
Liberals are evil.
"15 is more than old enough to cut your dick off or watch porn, but you should be at least 21 to buy a gun."
Makes sense
It sucks how hard it is for parents to prevent their kids from seeing porn online, but I don't support ID requirements for viewing porn and I never will.
Ironic one of the supposed freer/lax states in the country trying to put the camel's nose under the tent that would lead to monitoring what grown adults are doing online. (Texas is still red, but there has been talk of it turning purple for years now. Not sure it will happen)
For a long time been tired of argumento ad liberi.
Okay, where's the parents with a 12 year old who're going to sue to let their kid buy cigs and booze under this precedent?
I get the argument that porn is protected free speech & I mostly agree with it (I also understand the counterargument that makes some valid points), but we've had porn requiring proof of age since forever. If age requirements/background checks don't violate the 2nd amendment, how does it for the 1st? Does social media like X having a min age of 13 violating the free speech rights of 12 yr olds??
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1697601596094603418
They do violate the 2nd amendment, it's just most people don't care.
That said, I personally feel the main issue with the porn bill is:
Yes, this already exists with gun laws. And, I do not think they should exist with gun laws. But, there's a big difference between having to flash a driver's license to some bored store clerk to the government keeping logs of who is visiting particular websites, when and for how long. Especially because governments are already locking people up for saying naughty things online - how long until they start locking people up for reading naughty things online?
They already are, just not as directly as they will try to in the future. Past internet history is being used to stack addition charges on people, or simply smear their character to push a sentence, even if it has nothing to do with the alleged crime.
It's the way they are trying to enforce the law. I 100% agree that children and teens should not be viewing pornographic material, but by requiring ID they're essentially creating a back door for digital ID. first it will just be the vices like porn and video games, but eventually they will tie your internet history to your ID and give you a social credit score. that's what they are really trying to do with these laws.
there is already a network level flag that allows adult content sites to mark themselves as adult content. What should be happening is routers and Internet devices should be blocking this traffic by default, requiring an admin to go in and disable the filter in order to view the content. this creates adult internet access points and safe internet access points, thus eliminating the need to personally identify oneself and allowing anonymous browsing to continue. this also allows laws to be created that penalize knowingly giving a child access to an adult internet access point.
It's technically quite feasible to issue someone an anonymous "I am over 18" validation method that isn't connected to other ID aspects (name, address, etc).
One thing is scope. There's tons of limits on what the government can ask for, or how they can store it. In context of the 2nd, it's been found unconstitutional to build a database of gun owners, even though each individual store is required to store data on their customers.
I'd argue it's kind of the same for porn and the 1st: You can say 'you're not allowed to view this unless you're eighteen,' but it's gets much more intrusive and dangerous if you're required to provide ID. So some things could be found constitutional, but pushing it too far could in theory be unconstitutional, at least according to the courts. I'd argue we already have a shit ton of unconstitutional laws that are deemed just fine, but that's a different conversation.
There is nothing stopping the government from building that porn user database the same way how the ATF is not supposed to use 4473 forms to build a database, but they did it anyway.
Sure there is, since you can currently mostly-anonymously access porn. If they put ID laws in place that would change. And we certainly shouldn't make it easier and set precedent in such a direction, just because they could currently use workarounds to achieve the same end.
VPNs are probably funded by / run by the govt.
government has no jurisdiction over the internet.
i agree this SHOULD be the case, the INTERnet is a vast worldwide comunication and entertainment network no one goverment should have juristiction over the net.
I have to agree that allowing the government to slap a checkpoint on content is a slippery slope we don't want to entertain.
But also, everyone who thinks we can just throw it to "parental responsibility" is smoking crack. We are just now seeing a generation that grew up with porn available 24/7 in the palm of their hand (one hand) and it ain't good. There's a reason that groomers expose kids to explicit material. It destroys sexual boundaries.
Women and their neutered tradcuck shills on suicide watch.