There are a lot of GOP-controller legislatures in the USA pushing through so-called “child protection” laws, but there’s a toll in the form of impacting people’s rights and data privacy. Most of these bills involve requiring adults to upload a copy of their photo ID.
Considering these are Republican states, they’re just going to define Wikipedia articles about gender dysphoria as pornographic lol
Think carefully and double check before you ever agree with a Republican about anything.
This is literally the goal. They are using porn as a trojan horse because they know nobody is going to stand up and fight them on letting children see porn
Think carefully and double check before you ever agree with a
Republicanpolitician about anything.FTFY
I guess, but like, there’s only one party that wants me in a
concentrationconversion therapy camp for being trans.That doesn’t make the rest automatically trustworthy. Just not genocidal. Though I tend to agree with Progressives and Socialist Dems or Socialists more often than not. Regular, middle of the road Dems, not as much.
Not genocidal eh? Ask a Democrat how many people they think Earth can support long term, then subtract that from Earth’s current population. Your answer is how many people they, at some level, believe need to be gone.
Perhaps, but it was a bipartisan effort that led to requiring ID to buy music.
Sure, and I’m not saying both parties don’t want to surveil and control the population, but as you might be able to understand I’m a bit more focused on the Party that has all but made extermination of people like me the Party platform.
I’ve never heard anyone call for the extermination of queer communists (or whatever category you’re referring to).
I’m trans. If they simply take away my access to gender affirming care they’re as good as murdering me, because I won’t last long.
Furthermore, they believe being trans is a mental illness and that we’re all groomers and rapists. It’s not much of a logical leap for them to then declare that they’re “hospitalizing us” because we present a threat to ourselves and to public safety. They already call gender affirming care “self mutilation” and they actually believe that it’s contagious and making their children trans. You’re blind if you can’t see where that’s going.
Me being a communist just gives them a reason to shoot me when we start WW3 with China lol
@queermunist @intensely_human
Будет “третья мировая война” - нам всем не жить.
В любом случае, фашизм только набирает скорость.
И он везде - национальный или гендерный, уже всё равно.
Удачи, брат или сестра.
Requiring ID to buy music?? What is this?
All politiicans should be listened to with scepticism, but the Republicans have gone to full on lies, alternative truths, fraud, grifting and fascism. It’s not a both sides issue.
This attempt of bothsidesing has failed.
Most of these states banning pornography and asking for ID are Republican , conservatives States. It is very ironic that the government is now doing the job of the parents. Instead the government should give parents and students advice on the harm that excess that pornography causes and tools to protect kids from this content online , now the kids will learn to circumvent it because its “prohibited” just like the apple in the tree of Adam and Eve.
As an analogy, should governments allow children access to strip clubs and have parents handle it or should that be illegal and have kids banned from those physical spaces?
It’s interesting because I think banning kids from strip clubs is pretty popular, but the digital laws are not as popular. I don’t know of a way to enforce a ban in a digital space that doesn’t infringe on individual liberties though
The reason is a technical one. At a strip club, none of your information is being transmitted; it’s just the bouncer making sure you’re of age by looking at your ID.
Per the EFF:
Age verification systems are surveillance systems. Mandatory age verification, and with it, mandatory identity verification, is the wrong approach to protecting young people online. It would force websites to require visitors to prove their age by submitting information such as government-issued identification. This scheme would lead us further towards an internet where our private data is collected and sold by default. The tens of millions of Americans who do not have government-issued identification may lose access to much of the internet. And anonymous access to the web could cease to exist.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/age-verification-mandates-would-undermine-anonymity-online
Being forced to reveal identification before you’re allowed to view pornography is the equivalent of only being allowed to masturbate while your parents are in the room watching you.
I understand that completely, but if we’re saying kids shouldn’t see strippers, why should they be able to see far more graphic content?
I’m not saying I support these bills as written, basically for the reasons you’re saying. I do think watching extreme content online can damage children’s understanding of sex though. You have to go out of your way to find porn that looks like real sex.
One thing to note is that it is ALWAYS claimed that the issue is the Really Bad Stuff - the graphic content - but that it inevitably becomes anything that is socially offensive, and I’ll give you one queer guess as to what tends to get labeled “graphic content” right quick.
I actually don’t think it’s the more “extreme” content. For example, kink.com videos are pretty clear that consent has been obtained and actors are debriefed afterward.
I think the worst part of porn is the “regular” stuff that shows unrealistic expectations (grabbing a woman while she’s performing oral sex and forcing her to basically choke without consent is shockingly common, for example).
I don’t disagree that there’s a dark strain of the use and misuse of women in mainstream porn, but my point is that what is claimed as the basis for a porn ban and how far it will go and what it will target are two entirely different things.
It doesn’t really matter what the content is. Allowing the government to dictate what content can or cannot be accessed is not a good idea.
I agree with that statement for adults, but not for children. Even if you’re talking about something like drugs, protecting kids, who don’t make rational choices, is important.
I see what you’re asking, and I agree if we’re going to prevent physical access to strip clubs by minors, it makes logical sense to take steps to prevent minors from accessing prurient content online as well.
The question becomes the exact methodology used to achieve that. It’s the same basic premise of making encryption illegal: Are we willing to sacrifice our privacy in the name of “protecting the children”?
Come up with another way to restrict access that doesn’t further encroach on privacy. I don’t have the answer for what that is, and it may not need to involve the government, but allowing them to put bills like this in place sets dangerous precedent. Once we relinquish power to the government, it’s damn near impossible to get it back.
If they really wanted to block access to adult only material, and not be a surveillance state in the process, the correct solution would be that every home router and every cell phone plan would have a secondary password that had to be entered in order to access that data.
Then by default only the parents and the people deemed responsible enough to have access to that password would be able to view adult only content.
That is very secure, it would sweep the floor with a huge percentage of successes with a minimum amount of intervention into people’s daily life.
Sure, some kids will get the password one way or another and view adult only content, but at least they would know they had to go through the extra steps to do something they weren’t allowed to do.
While that technically may not be a surveillance state, it would be an authoritarian state which could decide worker’s rights or the history of slavery are “adult material” because what kid needs to know about them? Kids don’t work or own slaves, so it’s not suitable for them and they can’t access it.
This idea sounds absolutely unhinged to me.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
-Ben Franklin
I’m not of the opinion that we should just let kids see that stuff, though at the same time Im skeptical that it’s as bad as some people claim, but I just don’t see a way to actually stop them from seeing it that isn’t way worse than the status quo via restricting everyone else. If the cure is worse than the disease, then one isn’t advocating that the disease isn’t harmful by rejecting the cure, just stating that the trade-off is not worth it.
As far as giving kids a dangerously wrong idea of what sex is goes, I do think that the best solution to this is better sex-ed than trying to hide things from them though. The thing about porn is that it isn’t really possible to stop, without getting insanely draconian. You might be able to stop most kids from being able to access popular websites for it, sure, but given all the stories I’ve heard from before the internet was popular about people as kids finding relatives nsfw magazines and video tapes, that won’t stop a curious kid, just make it slightly more difficult. Consider for a second that pretty much everyone carries a device with photo and video recording capacity everywhere that could be used to make and share porn, that someone with basic art skills can draw it if you remove the camera from the equation somehow, and that if you include smut in all this that even just being literate is enough to make some. Ultimately, porn is a form of information, and in the modern age restricting information is very difficult, let alone trying to restrict information that literally anyone can independently create, from being seen by children who are naturally curious because they have been forbidden from seeing something but dont understand what or why.
which I think we all agree on. There are ways that we could enforce age verification (the best one so far is that the browser itself checks your age, then a website tells the browser that it must do an age check before loading, which then your ID is never transmitted or logged for these sites). But politicians don’t want to think about that, they love this because it plays into their surveillance state.
(the best one so far is that the browser itself checks your age
How? As a user I want to have total control over my browser and Internet is an open platform - any browser should be able to view any website even though google is trying to change that with their DRM.
I don’t know exactly but the two big things I’ve seen, and again I’m not the engineer of it or anything, but
- Your browser would have to implement some sort of 3rd party ID checker that the results could then be stored in a non-adaptable way (specifically parental controls I think would need to be set up), then when a site is loaded it reports to the browser the minimum age limit and the browser decides if you can see it or
- You could register your ID on a third party ID checker site that does not log data, only verifies that you are of age. Then on load websites could then check against this third party service to verify the user is 18+.
Know that yes this is a limitation of a browser, and that’s why it’s viewed as a compromise, a word that a lot of people have forgotten. None of us really want to have to prove it, but if there is a need to prevent children from accessing content (and tbh there is a need), then I’d rather have it be done in a privacy focused way.
So it’s not your browser that checks your age but a third party. This raises a few questions:
- What kind of IDs are accepted? Say I have one issued by Singapore…
- How often should it check that a person that uses my browser is still me?
the browser decides if you can see it or
Yea, no. I decide, not the browser.
Banning children from strip clubs in no way impacts the rights of other adults to enjoy strip clubs.
And, again, I am against the laws as written. But I’m asking more broadly about children accessing porn. I would never support a law that requires people to upload their ID, but there has to be some safe way to pull this off.
I don’t know how technical you are but its impossible to block kids from watching pornography online without implementing a draconian system in which we all loose our privacy . First there are millions and millions of websites with different domains that have thousands of pornographic videos and photos. Plenty of companies offer adult block content but there is always a way around. If they ask for ID , then a market for fake IDs will show up. This is like scams from India , Nigeria , and all those countries that are calling to scammed you. Its impossible to stop it and the only way is to create awareness and educate people on how to prevent it. So the same with porn , block it as a parent and try to explain why you are doing it and the consequences of excessing watching it.
Oh well that’s even easier then. I don’t care what other people’s children do, in general.
The government has way too much influence over children already. Governments could do so much for children that would actually benefit them (better education, free lunch at school, better public libraries, ensure no kids are starving because of poor parents, no wars in foreign countries, whatever) but instead they use children to increase their control over people.
I think it has nothing to do with children. It is about requiring ID registration for online services so that identities can be tracked. Every time authoritarians want to push another mechanism of control it’s always “about the children”.
Ultimately, I agree with you and that’s why I’m against these laws, but I really do wish there was a good way to do it anonymously. Porn is not good for kids and it’s pretty much impossible to keep them away from it without drastic measures that are more harmful than porn.
Not sure if it’s actually possible given how far outside out evolutionary context internet porn is, but the correct solution here would be to train your kids to deal with the temptation of dopaminergic reinforcement buttons.
As a population, that isn’t a realistic course of action. It won’t work for even most parents that care to try.
What if the block is more harmful than just letting curious kids sneak a peek at porn sites? If all the legitimate places to get porn block anyone without ID then a lot of those prove will seek out unregulated places - they’re going to see far worse things and be in communication with potentially very dangerous people.
And of course the next step would be to totally limit any access to the internet to stamp out any unregulated communication and file sharing thus giving the corporations a total monopoly on the internet… It’s not about protecting kids it’s about controlling all of us.
If I didn’t want my kids looking at porn online, I already have plenty of things to prevent them from doing so.
Not giving them access to a device without supervision. Using firewall filters. Child-mode browser/OS settings.
We don’t need more regulation for this. Parents just need to get off their ass and do their own parenting. But these bills aren’t actually designed to protect children. They’re designed to gain access to adults’ personal info and will be used more for oppression than safety.
And from the party of “Small Government”, too!
I’m a conservative but I’d never be caught dead calling myself a Republican.
Republicans are corrupt, despicable, and stupid. Democrats are corrupt, naive, and arrogant.
I really wish we had runoff voting, so that the American ecosystem could move away from two party balanced dominance.
Ranked choice voting!! Let’s see how long the two party system lasts when it’s not “you have to vote for the lesser evil”.
Only when it’s convenient
Oh, it’s fine. They make sure it’s always convenient to rile up their base with lies, hatred, and culture-war nonsense…
Most effective way to prevent kids from looking at porn is to encase them in spray foam insulation with feeding tubes and catheters.
This also prevents that pesky physical growth which turns them into military-able adults.
You can cut down on porn and terrorism in one go!
Its not the governments job to make up for absent parenting.
If you dont want your kids seeing things or doing shit online, its your job to monitor them and talk to them about it.
Stop throwing your kids a tablet and expecting that to be the fuckin parent.
Some principles and things to note:
- Adults’ expression to one another must not be restrained to only what is suitable for children.
- Sexuality is a normal thing that most people are interested in. It is not inherently illegitimate, deviant, or corrupting.
- Children and adolescents who are kept in ignorance and fear of sexuality are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse by adults.
- Anonymous and pseudonymous speech are necessary to the freedom of a free society.
- The chief threat of sexual abuse to children does not come from anonymous or pseudonymous speakers on the Internet, but from family members and acquaintances — especially those with authority over the child. As such, if the question is “Who should be subject to greater scrutiny, to prevent child sexual abuse?” the answer will be “parents, guardians, teachers, youth pastors, etc.” at a much higher priority than “anonymous and pseudonymous Internet users”.
- Identification requirements for speakers or audiences are a necessary step to violent and unlawful censorship, and are not necessary for legitimate purposes.
Given these principles and observations, I conclude that the expected effect of such regulations would be to increase sexual abuse of children, while also strongly harming the ability of a free society to discuss and educate about sexuality.
Very excellent points. While I agree kids shouldn’t be looking at porn, forcibly trying to keep all knowledge of sex and porn from them until they hit a magic age where now they can do anything they want isn’t the answer.
Children need to be educated so they can make wise decisions when the time comes. No matter how much people try to stop it, the time will often come before they reach the magic age set by laws, and unfortunately it’s sometimes through sexual assault or their naivety being taking advantage of.
This nails it right here, #1 and #2 especially.
Sex is fun, sex is awkward, sex is weird and messy and life-changing. Sex is mundane, sex is cathartic, sex is funny and sex is cardio. Also, sex makes people, oh and it feels good. All that is pretty fucking magical if you ask me.
What is done in private between consenting adults is none of your goddamn business, including porn. Don’t use kids as an excuse to control adults’ behavior.
I would combat that by saying I think most pornography is nowhere close to what sex is like. Anecdotally, I hear more stories about men who try to fuck someone like they’re in a porn film, which can result in physical pain to their partner.
I think teaching kids about sex and giving them access to porn that often displays non-consensual acts as normal are two totally different things.
But yes, I think 4 is a very strong point, which is why most of the bills that are being proposed are not being executed well.
Oh sure. Generally speaking, most porn is a terrible sex educator.
However, it’s also a wrong target for concerns about child sexual abuse.
And crackdowns on “porn” tend to end up being crackdowns on sexuality-related speech and sweep in a lot of other speech too.
I like the idea of having a cleaner internet for under 12s but I hate the idea of giving the government more control of the internet. Ultimately I side with freedom. I grew up on the wildwest internet and turned out fine. These kids will also be fine.
deleted by creator
Yup. If the government was concerned, they could educate and empower parents to do this kind of stuff.
You didn’t turn out fine! You grew into a Freedomist, which puts you at odds with our beloved Safetyism.
Usually when politicians says “to protect children”, it’s not about children.
When politicians talk about protecting children they’re really talking about dismantling the nuclear family.
There’s no way for a government to do it that wouldn’t interfere with adults’ privacy.
There technically is, but it’s going to be a while until the government is ok with it. It’s called zero knowledge cryptography, where a user could prove they have an identification that is government issued, and that they are of age, without revealing any other information.
There’s a vanishingly small chance that the government wouldn’t fuck that up. Here is what would happen:
- bill gets signed
- no bid contract is assigned to a technology firm with a history of incompetence at everything other than lobbying for billions of dollars
- 3-letter agencies secretly inject back door stipulations into the system so that they can keep spying on everyone
- years late and at double the budget, it releases
- two months later, someone shows off the secret backdoor keys at DEFCON, along with instructions on how to dump the access database
- years of extortion material for spy agencies and organized crime around the world
- zero children protected: they learn an ancient technology called “torrenting”
- new calls for even more draconian control of information to save the children from sexy terrorists
Internet companies that are forced to take people’s personal information could do it at their cost
If the government really wanted to, it could provide citizens with a portal that would do oauth (or something similar) to authorize the porn access.
They could do some crypto crap to avoid storing anything about the citizen, so, unless the system is subborned, it doesn’t store anything about users.
EDIT: the point is that this kind of system can be implemented in a privacy-preserving manner. I’m ambivalent about the idea, but it has been enacted by a democratically elected government, so they should go about it in the most responsible manner possible.
No. Absofuckinglutely not.
Your original post said the last can’t be implemented in a privacy preserving manner. It can.
It absolutely cannot.
If the service is open source, I could actually see this working.
No. Open Source does not make violations of freedom somehow okay.
I thought it was obvious, but I guess I’m gonna go step-by-step. So, what’s needed to verify if you’re 18? Exactly one thing - a flag telling the other system yes/no! Very privacy friendly, porn site doesn’t know anything else about you. And obviously the auth system shouldn’t log that you verified for a porn site. That’s why it should be open source, so you can trust it.
The auth system knows you verified for something. The only way to actually preserve privacy is total anonymity to everyone.
Nope, it doesn’t. Did you read what I wrote or did you just have a knee-jerk reaction?
If it’s private and secure and isn’t linked to your identity, we will share it and it will be useless because everyone who shares the same login is the same over-18 person.
If it is in any way linked to your identity, the data is online and a target for breach which will expose said identity.
There is no realistic way to implement this which both actually does anything at all, AND does not require adding attack surface for breaches.Please reread what I wrote. And regarding attack surface, everything you use adds attack surface.
Yeah. It’s possible, but I’m guessing there isn’t a will or an understanding of available tools.
I disagree. I could literally put some porn in this very comment. So the fediverse needs a porn barrier, and every file hoster, we can’t allow TOR, there is porn, and illegal porn as well. So please show us your id before entering TOR, pls.
It is an authoritarian move. It is undermining privacy. It is censoring the web.
It is parents and maybe schools responsabilty to teach kids how to interact with media, that porn exists and is not an actual representation of sex, and to restrict their access to pornography or media in general.
Furthermore, on planet earth, there are no perfect democracies, and the democratic system of the USA is flawed to a degree where it is at least questionable if your leaders are elected democratically.
I’m against heavy handed regulation because it pushes people into more dangerous spaces, if you’re a teenager or unID’d adult who can’t access real porn sites do you decide not to look at boobs or do you seek out unregulated communities on places like discord?
Would you like your kid seeing generic regulated porn or seeing the kinds of things people can’t post on regulated porn sites? Plus not only is there the fact that the content on underground sites is by their nature the stuff not allowed on regulated sites but also do you want your kid taking to the creeps that hang out in porn sharing groups on discord?
None of these politcians who push for all those “protect the children” laws actually gives a shit about child safety. The only thing that such laws mange to do is restrict freedom of speech and expression for everyone including children.
If you are a careless parent, then no law is going prevent your kids from watching porn.
It’s the parents job to do that, not the government’s. I have kids, when they were at the age I didn’t want them seeing porn I made sure it was blocked, and I educated them on safe internet browsing. I don’t need the government’s help with that.
The GOP is also the party of the chronically ill and the criminally insane. They just don’t want to admit that they want China’s great firewall style world wide web after wasting millions of dollars going after TikTok.
It’s almost like porn has been available, to varying degrees, to youth, for decades if not centuries. Even discounting all the good arguments like “small government” and “think of the kids is a dumb excuse to curtail privacy”… You have to ask, what’s the goal?
Keeping kids away from porn? Why is that an important goal for the government? Is it one the government is even capable of doing? At what age is porn OK? 16? 18? 21? Never? Did you ever look at porn when you were in high school? Do you regret it?
Is there any real research that porn is corrosive to a 16 year old? I mean we can’t even pass simple, popular gun legislation because the NRA swears up and down we don’t know “for sure” if it will save more than a couple lives. We can’t even have an EPA that enforces laws, while millions of people suffer from asthma and other stuff that kills them.
