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.
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 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'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.
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.
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.