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.
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.