Even if the short term outcome is good (fuck PornHub, they're evil, it would be great if they left every state), this whole "internet ID" thing - regardless of context - is a terrible fucking idea. And something we've generally been against for over a decade. They just tacked "anti-porn" and "think of the children" onto it, and this time some people are buying the schtick.
There are two big points I like to bring out when this conversation comes up. One, to the people who say "well, if you're not a child, what's the big deal?"...yeah, adults have to prove they're not children. i.e. you, a legal adult, have to provide ID to access a website...because the government said so. "Slippery slope" doesn't even begin to describe it; what an utter disaster.
Two, if we're policing context that isn't suitable for a group, why not apply it to other things? "Limited scope" and "government control" generally don't go hand in hand. They've been trying to crack down on militia content, for example. They've been trying to raise the gun purchasing age to twenty-one. It's a short hop from ID to access porn to blocking legal adults (18-20) from accessing basic firearm sites with zero extremist content or link to extremism.
No matter how you feel about porn, or porn companies, the idea of the government requiring you to ask for permission to access information/content on the internet is the absolute death of any pro-freedom or anti-government movements.
"Won't someone PLEASE watch over the children?!?!!" they cry out. "Oh, but not the parents. We can't have mothers watching their own kids and raising them. That would be sexist and wrong. And assuming fathers are helping raise their own kids is white supremacy somehow. So specificially, won't someone PLEASE get the government to watch over the children?!?!?!!?!"
Literally the entire "think of the children!" argument boils down to rich narcissists not wanting to spend a couple minutes of their lives raising their own kids. And for some reason, the conservative crowd just gets on their knees and opens their mouths, ready to lap it up. Oh please daddy government, raise our kids in our place harder.
I'm casually listening to the radio and right now, I just heard a segment "can we protect children from 'harm' on the Internet". They're not just targeting pornography. Activists for online safety in the UK if they get their way would love the idea of locked down devices and a national Intranet where everything is licensed and deemed safe for children by Ofcom while the gateways to the Internet are monitored and regulated in the same way Border Force do with physical border crossings (not that it stops migrants getting in).
Sadly, these activists are the ones who are invited into Parliament and have the ear of the main party leaders while civil liberty campaigners are dismissed as threats to children.
I hate how some people are falling for this.
Even if the short term outcome is good (fuck PornHub, they're evil, it would be great if they left every state), this whole "internet ID" thing - regardless of context - is a terrible fucking idea. And something we've generally been against for over a decade. They just tacked "anti-porn" and "think of the children" onto it, and this time some people are buying the schtick.
There are two big points I like to bring out when this conversation comes up. One, to the people who say "well, if you're not a child, what's the big deal?"...yeah, adults have to prove they're not children. i.e. you, a legal adult, have to provide ID to access a website...because the government said so. "Slippery slope" doesn't even begin to describe it; what an utter disaster.
Two, if we're policing context that isn't suitable for a group, why not apply it to other things? "Limited scope" and "government control" generally don't go hand in hand. They've been trying to crack down on militia content, for example. They've been trying to raise the gun purchasing age to twenty-one. It's a short hop from ID to access porn to blocking legal adults (18-20) from accessing basic firearm sites with zero extremist content or link to extremism.
No matter how you feel about porn, or porn companies, the idea of the government requiring you to ask for permission to access information/content on the internet is the absolute death of any pro-freedom or anti-government movements.
"Won't someone PLEASE watch over the children?!?!!" they cry out. "Oh, but not the parents. We can't have mothers watching their own kids and raising them. That would be sexist and wrong. And assuming fathers are helping raise their own kids is white supremacy somehow. So specificially, won't someone PLEASE get the government to watch over the children?!?!?!!?!"
Literally the entire "think of the children!" argument boils down to rich narcissists not wanting to spend a couple minutes of their lives raising their own kids. And for some reason, the conservative crowd just gets on their knees and opens their mouths, ready to lap it up. Oh please daddy government, raise our kids in our place harder.
Why does “protect the children” work on this but not when addressing the LGBBQ and tranny communities?
Is this because the mainstream media is paid off to support internet ID?
"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."
Aka, it's good/bad until it's needed to be otherwise.
I'm casually listening to the radio and right now, I just heard a segment "can we protect children from 'harm' on the Internet". They're not just targeting pornography. Activists for online safety in the UK if they get their way would love the idea of locked down devices and a national Intranet where everything is licensed and deemed safe for children by Ofcom while the gateways to the Internet are monitored and regulated in the same way Border Force do with physical border crossings (not that it stops migrants getting in).
Sadly, these activists are the ones who are invited into Parliament and have the ear of the main party leaders while civil liberty campaigners are dismissed as threats to children.