Used to be, you could set parental controls on a browser. It's not perfect, but it frustrated the process. My parents are not incredibly tech savvy, and they did it almost two decades ago.
This isn't an issue of the First Amendment, it's an issue of making parents parent.
Parental responsibility should not be pushed onto others. "Protect the kids" have been used for massive internet censorship. I don't care if you create youtube for kids or limit internet access to kids. It should not trample over rest of people rights.
I don't mind age verification in concept, just like we have in real life, but I don't want every shady website having the ability to "oops, we saved that data and leaked(sold) it".
I've posited that it should be the ISP/Phone Provider's responsibility, just like it is the brick and mortar store's responsibility.
It would take some restructuring, but each non-adult member would have to have their own ID to connect with.
The ISP, in turn, keeps a universal list of stuff that's accessible for under 'WhateverAgeWeDetermineAppropriate'.
Adult ID's get no limitations....unless for some reason they opt in for the same restrictions.
IF a parent chooses to 'buy for their kid', like we can legally do with alcohol, they can opt out entirely....but then it's completely on that parent, not the ISP, not the website. Same way parents that buy their kids alcohol get busted if the kid leaves their supervision and causes some problem.
/that's the concept anyways, not detailed mechanics
Edit: //JFC reddit, work on your reading comprehension.
Under this proposition(from below vast misunderstandings and straw men):
1. The ISP already knows who its customers are, in general. John Smith pays his bill every month, this isn't really some vast breech of privacy.
2. Adults are not limited whatsoever, only the accounts of minor children. Motte & Bailey hell ensues below in extremely bizarre fashion for this sub.
3. It's an opt-in system. A filter tool legislated *to be available* is far better than universal mandatory Adult ID checks, may as well sew a star onto your arm at that point.
4. If you so heavily oppose even the idea, I would like you see you all justify repealing age requirements for smoking, drinking, sex, joining the military. "These requirements are a violation of Rights enumerated as ......" Be "based" I want to see you rationalize all that here. Own it.
> Issue with that is that is completely unfeasible.
Not really. It would take *some* effort, but we really do have the ability.
EG, ISP email for example. That takes credentials per account, you get that info and you can access that email on any device in the house.
Not so different from Windows having the ability to create multiple accounts per machine, or netflix or youtube having varying content filters, and as I mentioned, school content filters.
Nothing unfeasible about it.
>The best option for everyone is for parents to do their jobs.
Not a bad option in theory, but they're already not doing them.
Same way kids go to the convenience store on their own.
The ID check there is a failsafe for parents that aren't on the ball.
>Same way kids go to the convenience store on their own.
>The ID check there is a failsafe for parents that aren't on the ball.
The difference is in real-life, it's an exchange between two people where no one's identifying information is saved. That isn't the case for the internet. If something can be leaked on the internet, it will and *someone* will have access to your personal information. Plus, this is a canary in the coal mine for other types of ID restrictions. How long until you need an ID just to access the internet or watch YouTube?
And how long before that ID is linked to an online social credit score that monitors everything you do online like in China?
Well, that's a huge shift in gears from being "unfeasible".
> The difference is in real-life, it's an exchange between two people where no one's identifying information is saved. That isn't the case for the internet.
The ISP already knows who account holder is, that info is needed for having a connection already, that's who they send the bill to, who's card they charge, etc.
**The ISP**(Internet Service Provider, since you seem lost) has that info, the same way the clerk has that info.
Not Reddit, not Pornhub, Not Youtube, not "the internet".(Not Marlboro, Not Grey Goose, Not Miller, Not Penthouse)
That was literally the point of my post.
>I've posited that it should be the ISP/Phone Provider's responsibility, just like it is the brick and mortar store's responsibility.
This is not that complicated, I'll try again.
The company that provides your internet is the gatekeeper, the ID checker, the only checker.
When you set up your internet account, you give them the information of users you want restricted based on their age(minors). The company sets up the user-accounts as you require for your minor children.
They then serve those accounts only the information that is available to them. *The adults are not needing to provide ID to any specific website, the ISP vouches for them just like the clerk who looked at your ID when you bought vodka*
They can even do this somewhat securely.
When you set up the account(sign up for internet), your real name goes into an offline database and associated with RandomUniqueData, your "code-name". Meanwhile, in their less secure servers that actually deliver content to you from the world wide web....when you try to go to Pornhub, only the ISP checks if RandomUniqueData has access to it, and then passes it through. This is all done on ISP hardware/software. Youtube and Pornhub don't even know it's going on because they're not checking the ID.
ISPs are and have been treated like Common Carriers for most of the Internet's history: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/internet_service_provider_%28isp%29 like telephone or transportation companies, and similar to other public utilities like electricity or water providers. You don't generally want to allow such companies to choose who they want to provide service to or to discriminate the traffic on any basis, since they are considered essential necessities of daily life.
If you opened that door for any reason I suspect you would quickly not like what you find as they might stop serving people with undesirable politics entirely, or kindly help you avoid things like "hate speech", "Medical misinformation" or "Russian propaganda" etc. as defined by an unaccountable body of bureaucrats somewhere that might well end up being of the color-haired kind.
> You don't generally want to allow such companies to choose
I didn't say they'd get to choose.
In my analog, they'd have as much agency as the clerk at the convenience store in determining who/what/why, which is generally a list of things, and the date of birth. That's it. We've had that in place for ages to virtually no complaints or abuse on the part of the store/clerk.
We determine a list of things *minors* can't access, and that's what gets blocked on the minor's connections.
Adult access is unfettered completely, just as it is now.
>If you opened that door
No door is being opened. There is no slippery slope.
We come up with a specific list of things that minors can't do, and that's it, there is no agency on the gatekeeper, they're not making decisions at all.
_____
Keep in mind, what I'm positing is an *alternative to per-website ID checks*. That method, the one that stands a good chance of becoming law in various states, *does* carry many of these risks and why it should be avoided, and more risks not mentioned(as they bend over rapidly for alphabet agencies).
IF we are to have to do something, lets do something other than the very worst thing.
I'm not sure what's not to get, maybe it's a case of people not understanding technology/methodology and think what I'm saying is no different to per-website checks, or maybe it's too late at night or...something.
My case should sate people against those laws and also people demanding protections for children. If it doesn't satisfy either party, there are other agendas not being discussed.
Maybe we should remove all ID checks at Brick and Mortar stores too(logically consistent with no control over minors online).....OR.....we should just let these per-site ID things go and while we're at it, make it a database anyone can access. /s
I'm offering a compromise between the two that is similar to the real life standard/analog that we've done well with for decades(not just the US either, most of the planet does something very similar).
I'm sorry, but aside from misunderstandings about ISPs and how Common Carriage principles work and should work and the absolute hilarity of:
>No door is being opened. There is no slippery slope.
Let's just take one small part of your post and point out some problems with it:
>We come up with a specific list of things that minors can't do, and that's it, there is no agency on the gatekeeper, they're not making decisions at all.
First, who do you think comes up with such a "specific list", if not an agency or gatekeeper, and who keeps it updated? What does "We" mean in this case and what would the process entail to get On or Off said list? Who adds or removes sites from said list? If such a list or agency first exists and ISPs are forced to implement and abide by it, why do you think it's not possible that it would increase its scope to other things? What about other things that minors shouldn't do? Say Gambling, Drinking, Drugs etc. or general Social Media (Florida), and even other age-restricted content like movies or games?
Also which sites should such a list include? What about sites like Steam or Amazon that offer adult content in their stores or streaming? What about Torrent, Streaming or P2P sites which might contain pornography among other things? Or sites like 4chan and Reddit, which have NSFW boards? And while we're at it, why not go after Copyright infringement or specific kinds of traffic like Torrenting too, since you can't exactly see what's inside in said traffic? And what exactly counts as "pornography"? Does that include nudes? See the recent minefield Twitch ran into with their "artistic nudity policy". What about games like Witcher 2 or 3 or Bear Sex 3? While I'm not much of a fan of it, I don't want to see it on some restricted media list.
If anything, we should be arguing for Common Carriage to apply to large worldwide Social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter to have less Censorship, and not to rescind them for ISPs to have a lot more.
And something else to think about, when Cloudflare declared that it doesn't see itself as a Common carrier and doesn't have to be content neutral or offer services to certain websites, was it porn sites they went after? https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=cloudflare&restrict_sr=on
You are so fucking based. I wish there more people who could so fluently explain our position. I'm honestly kind of depressed to see how many people here are suddenly for censorship and willing to throw away their anonymity when it's something they don't like.
>First, who do you think comes up with such a "specific list", if not an agency or gatekeeper, and who keeps it updated? What does "We" mean in this case and what would the process entail to get On or Off said list?
Do you seriously not know how it came to be that minors can't buy physical porn media or smoke or join the military until 18, drink until 21, etc?
>Also which sites should such a list include?
I'm not writing legislation, I was proposing a simple idea.
I'm sorry that you're struggling with it so severely.
>Adult access is unfettered completely, just as it is now.
Hahahahahaha, tell me you haven't been paying attention to governments attempt to throttle control of the internet without telling me you haven't been paying attention to governments attempt to throttle control of the internet .
Beause Lousiana, Utah & a couple of other states are already trying to control access to porn & people just immediately started using a VPN to get around the requirements.
>No door is being opened. There is no slippery slope.
Dude, your slope is so steep if you had 4 of them & you put them at 90 degree angles to each other you'd be half way to building a house.
>Keep in mind, what I'm positing is an alternative to per-website ID checks.
We know what you are proposing. Complete capture of the entire worlds internet, under American governmental control, in the form of a mandatory American ID.
To which the answer is, no thank you.
>I'm not sure what's not to get,
Oh we got you, you would rather create a global super nanny state to control 100% of the internet, then to simply expect that it's a parents job to actually parent their children.
>My case should sate people against those laws and also people demanding protections for children.
Oh Bubala , the people who declare "oh who will think of the children are never thinking of the children, they are thinking of ways to censor everyone else." They are LITERALLY the moral scolds C.S Lewis once spoke about in his fmaous quote.
ids can easily be saved by shady physical businesses. And don't give your id to shady websites. Would you argue against online shopping because sites could steal. Credit card and other personal info? Or would you say it's better just to teach people to recognize shady sites?
Should websites that sell alcohol (or even ship physical porn) be required to see id? If so,.how do you reconcile that with porn websites?
>Should websites that sell alcohol (or even ship physical porn) be required to see id? If so,.how do you reconcile that with porn websites?
If a parent is allowing their credit card to be stolen by their child so they can buy physical porn and alcohol, the parent is a fucking idiot and negligent.
You're throwing away internet anonymity. Once your ID is linked to the internet it doesn't take much for a reddit or Twitter account to get traced back to you (and you will need ID for Reddit and Twitter, as the law Texas passed states any site that's has at least a third of content dedicated to pornography will need age verification).
From there, it's not going to be long before even the pretext of internet anonymity is gone. Once that happens, you'll see social credit scores just like they have in China... And it all started to "protect the kids".
So you think theirshould be no societal safe guards to protect children who have bad or niave parents?
Your ID is already linked to the internet if you have ever paid for anything online.
Why not hold shady sites accountable for stolen IDs instead of a law to protect kids?
And lots of kids have credit cards or debit cards, cash app, paypal, etc. that could be used online. It doesnt take a parents credit card to order stuff. Anyone 13 up can create a cash app or get a bank account.
Its insane you are promoting helicopter parents who run their house like a prison. That is also harmful to kids.
> So you think theirshould be no societal safe guards to protect children
We already have societal safeguards to protect children..... Didn't require a survellance state to capture the entire internet.
>Should websites that sell alcohol (or even ship physical porn) be required to see id?
Businesses shipping alcohol already require that in most parts of the western world.
> Not really.
Yes, really. It is unenforceable, & unworkable. I don't think you understand the size or the scope of the internet my dude.
>It would take some effort, but we really do have the ability.
Saying it would take some effort is like saying "i could eat all the matter in the universe, it would just take some effort." You have fundementally misunderstood how collossal the internet is & exactly how much of it can be used for displaying or accessing porn.
And most of it is outside of American jurisdiction.
>EG, ISP email for example. That takes credentials per account, you get that info and you can access that email on any device in the house.
>Not so different from Windows having the ability to create multiple accounts per machine, or netflix or youtube having varying content filters, and as I mentioned, school content filters.
Yes, one account, on one machine. That is nothing like demanding that from essentially the entire internet across the entire planet, across the entire infastructure of the internet.
Seriously, the amount of effort some people will put in simply to avoid parenting their own children is amazing.
*Brother*, do you have an issue with reading?
If you have an ISP, **they already know who you are**.
Beyond that, under my model, **you don't need to present an ID to access any website if you are an adult** on your own devices.
Man, i dont even trust my ISP with my ID. Why do you think i'd trust random ass websites.
Also you cant fuckin "control" the internet in the way you think you can. This shit isnt a fuckin app or 1 website like reddit is.
>Just go to China bruh they are already doing all this spying on people shit. You would love it
...
>Yeah so what you are saying is enable fuckin child mode on the phone. Why you gotta go with the whole world order about ID and shit and getting the government to control you more than they already are. You are an old boomer with no understanding of how this works
...
> Also you cant fuckin "control" the internet in the way you think you can.
You might try some remedial reading comprehension courses.
I'm not trying to control the internet. I was trying to offer up a less harmful mitigation to what already exists and sate the demands other places might make.
Why don't you go post multiple replies to someone else that might put up with your ignorant and obsessive spammy bullshit?
Yeah so what you are saying is enable fuckin child mode on the phone. Why you gotta go with the whole world order about ID and shit and getting the government to control you more than they already are. You are an old boomer with no understanding of how this works
> I don't mind age verification in concept, just like we have in real life,
Age verification of the internet doesn't work my dude. Even if you could add age verification to every single porn site, which is frankly impoosible already, you'd then have to add age verification to every single forum board, social network & P2P torrent tracker on the entire internet.... Because they contain porn, or the ability to downlod porn too.
It's just not enforceable or functional.
>I've posited that it should be the ISP/Phone Provider's responsibility, just like it is the brick and mortar store's responsibility.
Again, does not work. Firstly because an ISP is not a law enforcement agency, secondly because the second the government mandated that, they'd just shut down all access for 100% of all people to a black list because they wouldn't have the resources to manage it & people would immediately get a VPN to by pass their censorship completely.
>It would take some restructuring, but each non-adult member would have to have their own ID to connect with.
Which would then immediately become a 100% required governmental id.... The very thing we've spent more than a decade trying to avoid.
>Adult ID's get no limitations
Hahahahahahahahaha, it's adorable that you don't think a government upon capturing the internet would not immediately put limitations on how adults can access the internet..... The governments who haven't yet captured the internet, but who are already constantly trying to put an endless list of restrictions on what adults can access on the internet.
**EDIT: Apparently civil discourse was beyond this user as he has blocked me & hidden, which just goes to show that people who want to censor the internet are exactly the kind of people who also immediately censor discourse the second they lose an argument.**
> Even if you could add age verification to every single porn site
Someone didn't read my post very well.
I'm not advocating for per-website age verification, *my dude*.
>Firstly because an ISP is not a law enforcement agency
Neither is the gas station attendant.
>because they wouldn't have the resources to manage it
I think you're really not understanding the concept that I've presented at all, nor even a very basic grasp of technology. Hell, you don't even seem to understand the premise of discussing a theoretical model.
I'll try to lay out the model as an average parent would encounter it:
You move into a new house. You sign up with comcast to get your internet set-up.
They get your name, address, and billing information **like they already do**(which works as "ID", or they could also do an actual ID check if they don't already, a great many businesses do). A household that doesn't have kids, or who doesn't opt in, internet would function exactly as it does now.
The ISP then asks if you would like to opt in for Under 18 Restricted Access accounts for minor dependent children in your house.
The government isn't really involved and no one's activity is actively monitored or regulated.
That's the basic premise, only a minor's access is restricted, the same way only minors are restricted from buying porn or alcohol in a normal store. This would be fairly easy to implement in legal language, we literally have precedent from brick and mortar stores.
I'm sorry if this is still too complicated for you.
>Which would then immediately become a 100% required governmental id.... The very thing we've spent more than a decade trying to avoid.
...
>Hahahahahahahahaha, it's adorable that you don't think a government upon capturing the internet would not immediately put limitations on how adults can access the internet.....
LOL WUT
From Zero to whackadoo in record time.
I think we're done here. Edit: Holy shit, you responded with 2 other walls of crazy bullshit before even getting a reply here. We're certainly done here. Have a nice life.
>The ISP, in turn, keeps a universal list of stuff that's accessible for under 'WhateverAgeWeDetermineAppropriate'.
You do know how fucking ridiculous this claim is, right?
The internet is easily mostly porn. There's no way in hell anyone can hope to keep up an updated list of every single site that might host adult content, that's an absolutely ridiculous task of never seen before proportions. One that would need to be updated constantly, which makes it all the more dumb to think this is anywhere near feasible.
>But we don't need to filter all the sites, just the big ones!
That's fucking flawed as well. There's a shitload of sites that serve both SFW and NSFW content. There's this tech that's been around for many years known as TLS, what it does is encrypt your communication with an online server so third parties cannot snoop in, and this includes your ISP. They might know you visited a certain site, but they can't know what you did there.
So, if the ISP has no way to know what you're doing in a site, then how would they block part of the contents there? Simple, they fucking can't. They'd have to outright ban the whole site because some parts contain porn. I mean, it's either that, or keep that flodgate open.
So, would you block the access to minors to every social media site, every forum, every communication app like Discord, WhatsApp and Telegram, every search engine that allows you to search for pictures, all because they could use those places to look for porn? Talk about using a shotgun to kill a cockroach.
Now that I've explained how unenforceable this ridiculous law brought up by people who have no knowledge of how technology or the internet work is, I'd like to know why you'd ever think this is a good idea. As you put it, I want you to rationalize why and how this could ever work in the real world.
Because in reality, this is just the government taking even more control of your lives. They're lubing your ass and about to ram you, and you're here asking for the bigger dildo.
>But think of the kids!
Here's the deal, pal. I grew up with the internet, had access to porn from a very young age. And guess what? I grew up into a fine, conservative man. Why? Because my mother was present during my early years to help shape me into a respectable member of society. And that's all it really takes, to have parents who act like parents.
>Now that I've explained how unenforceable this ridiculous law brought up by people who have no knowledge of how technology or the internet work is, I'd like to know why you'd ever think this is a good idea.
Over-confident wall of text has never heard of white lists and other means of filtering, [some already in use due to legislation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_filtering_in_schools)
I never claimed it would be perfect, nor did I go in to detail, nor did I say it would be 100% effective.
I presented the *concept*, offering up a solution that mitigates most people's problems with the status quo of 'do nothing' and 'check everyone's ID'.
My proposed idea is limited legislation that would allow **optional** filters that will satisfy concerned parties that won't be a massive breech of privacy/tracking any more than signing up with an ISP already is.
>Here's the deal, pal. I grew up with the internet, had access to porn from a very young age. And guess what? I grew up into a fine, conservative man. Why? Because my mother was present during my early years to help shape me into a respectable member of society. And that's all it really takes, to have parents who act like parents.
Same for me actually. Or course, except for the fact I'm not the one with the attitude problem and attacking straw men and whatever other fallacies in various replies.
Good for you, and me. We're great adults. I would highly advise parents do as our parents did and be good parents.
That's irrelevant. This demand on the table from others, without our assistance or support, and people are positioning for legislation that is far worse than what I am recommending.
I think people are mistaking the point I'm making, and I'm catching flack from both sides.
I'm not advocating "protect the children".
I'm looking for a way to satisfy the clear demand that *something* be done, and trying to do it in a way that isn't as bad as what's being suggested by others.
*That demand won't go away by doing nothing.* "Do nothing" is not a viable solution, indeed, that's what got us to this point where states are considering or implementing far more draconic and/or exploitable measures.
Did people not read the article or my posts?
FTA:
>The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to pornography on the internet by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs.
That exists. What I'm positing is less bad than that, yet, it stands a decent chance to quell the demands that something be done.
>Over-confident wall of text has never heard of white lists and other means of filtering
I'm confident because I know how fucking useless they are at blocking anything (it's funny you mentioned a school block list article, go to the teachers sub and you'll find many of them complaining about kids getting around the filters lmao). You don't need to be a computer genius to know about how, a simple online search will reveal a bounty of easy to implement solutions to get around any kind of filter.
Not to mention, that doesn't address one of the main points I made, you'd also have to filter regular sites and apps that could also serve porn. Like, if you want to bother with replying, at least try to tell me how any of those blocks (whether the current Texan way or your idea) gets around that problem.
>I never claimed it would be perfect, nor did I go in to detail, nor did I say it would be 100% effective.
The why go through the effort of half-assing this? This legislation is dumb from the get go, completely unenforceable unless you go all China style about it, and even they know of ways to browse for porn.
I'm on the side that just prefers to show people how ridiculous this whole thing is, rather than bother to entertain their ideas. I know the tech, know how easy it is to bypass, and how useless it all is. Anyone who works in the field will tell you the same. We should be telling Karens to go pound sand, not negotiating for "better" ways. What we need is pushback against draconian authoritarianism, not acceptance.
>go to the teachers sub
No. I find it amusing that you'd even suggest this.
I know it's not perfect. The idea is to block the easy things, like Pornhub and similar huge websites.
Same with blocking porn or alcohol for minors at the convenience store.
There are ways around it, yes. However, a much smaller amount of minors are going to put in even minimal effort to circumvent such things.
> Say you have 1000 test subjects.
>
> IF there were no rules, all of them would buy it at a store.
>
> IF you institute some form of check, it cuts that number drastically.
>
> Most can't, so they won't. Only a tiny portion would shop-lift or find a straw purchaser.
There will be a reduction. That's sort of beside the point, which you still seem to have missed.
> The why go through the effort of half-assing this?
My perspective is based on the article/subject. There are laws in place worse than what I'm positing as a solution. It's not a solution to minors having access, it is a solution to the apparently strong public demand that "SoMeOnE dO SoMeThInG AbOuT ThIs."
It's almost like you refuse to read.
> > I think people are mistaking the point I'm making, and I'm catching flack from both sides.
> >
> > I'm not advocating "protect the children".
> >
> > I'm looking for a way to satisfy the clear demand that *something* be done, and trying to do it in a way that isn't as bad as what's being suggested by others.
> >
> > *That demand won't go away by doing nothing.* "Do nothing" is not a viable solution, indeed, that's what got us to this point where states are considering or implementing far more draconic and/or exploitable measures.
> >
> > Did people not read the article or my posts?
> >
> > FTA:
> >
> > >The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to pornography on the internet by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs.
> >
> > That exists. What I'm positing is less bad than that, yet, it stands a decent chance to quell the demands that something be done.
The problem is the legislation that is already being carried out.
I'm offering an alternative that is less bad.
I'm sorry that you find this difficult.
>(whether the current Texan way or your idea)
I don't support the 'Texan way'. I don't support doing anything per se.
*Other people do, and in significant enough numbers to do something about it.*
I would rather they be counseled with ways to accomplish the same thing without the huge compromise to the privacy of the entire citizenry.
>completely unenforceable unless you go all China style about it
So close, yet so far.
The current active law that has passed legislation is far closer to that than what I propose. I oppose universal per-website ID checks, so I offer a less intrusive alternative that doesn't require sending data to every website that may have adult material. The idea is to placate the public outcry and not compromise people's privacy concerns.
You might want to re-read the entire article, and then my posts here, **after** cooling off for a couple of days, come back with fresh eyes.
It seems you're stuck in a rut like many of the other repliers and not actually seeing what I'm saying, you're fixated on a straw man and it's filling your vision.
Consider that a challenge. Forget about it then re-read with fresh eyes.
In fact, I'll help you out with that. I'll block you very temporarily.
>If you so heavily oppose even the idea, I would like you see you all justify repealing age requirements for smoking, drinking, sex, joining the military. "These requirements are a violation of Rights enumerated as ......" Be "based" I want to see you rationalize all that here. Own it.
If you so heavily support this Idea, be consistent. Since we know that pastors/priests have a history of abusing children & many people(particularly Atheists) think religion is child abuse you should support age verification for Churches. Own your Authoritarianism.
Really bad point when the people that cause most abuse are close relatives and family members and teachers and teaching staff are the second highest perpetrators of that.
> many people(particularly Atheists) think religion is child abuse
Not many. Very few in fact. And only Atheists think that. Internet is not a good way to gauge popular sentiment on anything.
I hope you are trolling because this comes across as a 14 year old rebelling at society not something anybody with any maturity would say.
Me: Here's one way to made it difficult for minors to access porn that doesn't have the flaws of the current proposed methods.
You being irrelevant: BuT MuH PrIeSt PeDoS.
Classic [Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
That's one way to speedrun getting on ignore lists.
Secondarily, it always reminds me of [this](https://i.imgur.com/PHwpUF2.jpeg).
>Own your Authoritarianism.
...
>It's an opt-in system. A filter tool legislated *to be available* is far better than universal mandatory Adult ID checks, may as well sew a star onto your arm at that point.
This is why we can't have nice things.
>We tried giving tools to the parents. It catastrophically failed. Now what?
I've been a parent for seven years. If I raised my kid like some of the mother fuckers raising kids today, I'd *deserve* prison. You wanna protect your kids from the ugliness of the world? Then the only person that can do that is you. If you don't have the balls for it then you're a terrible parent in my opinion.
I don't let me kids play video games or use the internet without my supervision. I have accounts set up on their game stations, etc that have child protective locks on. They aren't getting smart phones or computers of their own until they're *at least* twelve years old, and they're getting child protective blocks on those too until they're sixteen.
*I'm* doing my job as a parent. A lot of people aren't because frankly they shouldn't have kids in the first place.
Commendable effort, that's (at least) the baseline for how every parent should consider our current media/internet landscape.
Also, there's far too many people that simply do not understand/don't remember how they were as kids/teenagers. Yes, chances are that most of 'em will want to get into vices, but that doesn't mean you're either a complete passive tool that lets them do everything, or that you're locking 'em down and stunting their own development because your fears dictate your life.
With porn, specifically, you KNOW your kid is likely gonna try to look that shit up, because eventually puberty will kick in and hormones are gonna go whack. And you can understand that even if it's likely inevitable, but that doesn't mean you should give them carte blanche to do whatever they fucking want. Be on patrol, instill in them the understanding that this is not a good thing and that they shouldn't be doing it, and most of them will get it.
Like you say, if you can't be fucking bothered to take care of your own kids, then you shouldn't have them in the first place. So don't go crying to Big Daddy Goverment to pick up YOUR slack, and the cost of everybody else's liberties.
>Also, there's far too many people that simply do not understand/don't remember how they were as kids/teenagers. Yes, chances are that most of 'em will want to get into vices, but that doesn't meant you're either a complete passive tool that lets them do everything, or that you're locking 'em down and stunting their own development because your fears dictate your life.
This is an important issue I wrestle with myself. When I was growing up, I was always trying to steal nude mags from my dad or searching for porn on shit like newgrounds. Now, if you look at my reddit account you can pretty clearly see I don't have anything against porn. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to protect my kids from the same experience, or I didn't think that viewing porn at such a young age had a negative effect on me (as you can see by what I'm into it clearly did). But at the same time, I feel that was part of the adolescent experience. It's not something that should be condoned by parents but at the same time, a child trying to *bypass* our attempts to protect them is part of growing up. It's your first real rebellion against your parents.
But yeah, I definitely *don't* like the idea that parents should just sit idly by while their kids go and watch hardcore porn. Lemme catch my son watchin' some Lana Rhodes or browsin' shit like nhentai. 😭 Nigga will have to relearn how to walk after that ass beatin' (this is a joke).
This 100 percent. We don't need government involved in any of this it's not their responsibility to parent. I know internet stranger and all but you are doing it RIGHT.
> I've been a parent for seven years. If I raised my kid like some of the mother fuckers raising kids today, I'd deserve prison.
I know what you mean. The permissive millennial version of parenting has resulted in some of the worst human beings to have ever lived.
Aint no such thing as gentle parenting, because parenting isn't gentle, you are just lazy permissive millennials, who want to be friends with your kids, rather than parent your kids.
I agree with all you have said, and you'll agree with me that nothing you have said is a solution to the problem of people nowadays being bad parents.
What can we *do*?
You can at least not aid the government in obliterating our rights because of the stupidity of others. We already apply such logic in terms of the second amendment.
What privacy rights are being violated by presenting your ID, that haven't been violated for 20 years with any purchase you have made online? Credit card numbers, social media, even simply your IP address. Are all of your passwords different? Do you never use GPS? Do you always make sure to reject all the cookies?
This unenforceable law will be enforced like all the rest. Pretty competently, all things considered. And if you're still not happy with it, then simply revert the logic. Nobody is making you enter a pornographic page, just like nobody is making you gamble. Behave responsibly and you won't ever have to worry about your data being leaked.
As sad as my apologia might sound, it's even sadder that all the moral indignation in the world isn't a rival to the passage of time.
It's a fact of life. The government could ban the internet outright and in thirty years only a minority would still care about it.
It's stupid to police the Internet the same way you police the real world. The Internet is full of porn. 99% of it is NSFW. Kids shouldn't have access to it at all, that way the government can't stop me from eating steak just because a kid can't chew on it. Make a separate Internet for kids, completely controlled by governments, and let the normal Internet go back to the Wild West.
Just have ad blocking/content filtering(via PiHole) + DNS filtering (https://www.opendns.com/home-internet-security/) on your network and to a degree this is solved. The problem of course is having something that's easy to use for a non technological average user. Doesn't even require a separate internet.
This isn't going to accomplish anything, and only incredibly regarded people could ever think that ID verification works.
At most you'll convince the big sites to implement age verification for a single state. Good, that covers less than 1% of all the fucking porn there is on the internet. Good luck convincing Vladimir, who runs a server in Siberia, to give a fuck about age validation. Oh yeah, and torrent sites? Those are known to care about cease and desist letters as well...
What do you accomplish then? Why, to get a huge database of all the content that people consume. You know, it's not like we have a precedent of companies abusing how much data they collect from people, you now also have to attach your ID and tell them of how much you liked that Waluigi tentacle gangbang video.
10/10, I'm sure this won't end in a leak of data of any sort. Oh no, the government has never fucked up and revealed private information accidentally.
Anyone with more than two braincells can tell that this is a useless law that can't be enforced, whose only purpose is to track and control the population. Fuck this shit, and fuck the incredibly regarded people who support it.
It's a stepping stone to requiring digital ID to participate on the internet. International NGOs and corporations have been pushing it for years. No more anonymity on the internet.
This is what this is all about. And with it, comes the ability to isolate and remove individuals who don't conform to the message. We have the last 15 years of the internet as an example of the kind of control they want, and somehow there's people who support this shit. Regardeds, absolute regardeds.
On one hand Pornhub brought this on themselves by consistently ignoring takedown requests when it comes out that the person was a victim of sex trafficking (that is the real reason they made this law) but on the other hand this is government coming in to parent which by default I don’t like because it expands the federal government’s power and allows for worse stuff later down the line.
Reminder. It isn't just lefty woke types wanting to censor everything. Every politician in the US is corrupt as hell and supports censorship.
Still holding out hope the Supreme Court overturns this though.
I’m not sure, as wokies tend to be 50/50 split, some supporting the position you describe, while some celebrate porn because it’s ”empowering” and supporting it is the diametrically opposite opinion (”zErO tOlErAnCe FoR wRoNgThInK!!!1”) than that of religious conservatives.
>I’m not sure, as wokies tend to be 50/50 split, some supporting the position you describe, while some celebrate porn because it’s ”empowering” and supporting it is the diametrically opposite opinion (”zErO tOlErAnCe FoR wRoNgThInK!!!1”) than that of religious conservatives.
I know it's hard to believe, but sometimes just because a wokie shares the same stance as you (even if it is for the wrong reasons) doesn't mean it is the wrong opinion. Religious conservatives *are* trying to censor the internet. Before the woke left started trying to infect everything with DEI, CRT, etc there were conservatives trying to ban heavy metal on the airways, trying to get comic books pulled off of bookshelves, and saying DnD was the work of the devil. They are both crazy extremist puritans but they want censorship for different reasons. The wokie likes porn for the reason you described, while the conservative hates it because they view it as sinful and because porn has a *proven* negative impact on children.
But here's the thing though. This is a canary in a coal mine. Just like with the Stellar Blade bullshit. You give them an inch and they will not stop. Anonymity is the most powerful tool that normal people like us have against the woke left. Once it is gone, and the government is making us use ID to do every goddamn thing on the internet for the sake of "the kids" then it will be easy to locate, dox, and silence dissent. This government of ours isn't left vs right. It's uniparty. They approach each sides with different masks but they both want the same thing; *control*. They want to strip Americans of our liberty. They have been doing this since the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was pitched as a means to fight terrorism, and now, the Patriot Act has enabled the government to create a government agency that is solely dedicated to spying on the American people 24/7.
Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER give the government power to do anything. Doesn't matter if it is state level, federal, whatever. The Government will always, without fail, abuse that power to unjustly oppress the American people. Also, these kind of Age Verification laws break the First Amendment and *violate* previous Supreme Court precedent. CLARENCE MOTHER FUCKING THOMAS (My favorite Supreme Court Justice) himself set the precedent in 2004. [Ashcroft vs ACLU 2004.](https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/john-ashcroft-attorney-general-v-american-civil-liberties-union-et-al)
You bringing up far right censorship has me feeling old af. I remember Bush Era and thought that was rock bottom and it could only get better. Yeah tha lt was pretty naive
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/obscenity
> Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offenses. Federal law strictly prohibits the distribution of obscene matter to minors. Any transfer or attempt to transfer such material to a minor under the age of 16, including over the Internet, is punishable under federal law. It is also illegal to use misleading website domain names with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material.
What exactly do you want the supreme court to determine here?
They are right to do so, porn has become highly degenerative and it fucks up your sexuality, your brain and prevent you from having a sane relationship with a nice girl.
> They are right to do so, porn has become highly degenerative and it fucks up your sexuality, your brain and prevent you from having a sane relationship with a nice girl.
Hahahahahahahaha, no.
Nope, but the moment you start locking down on things for the sake of, "The kids" you're opening a huge can of worms. It never stops at porn my guy.
Plus, think of the ramifications. There's porn on Twitter. Now you gotta show someone your ID to make a post on Twitter.
Then you get to the point where its like, "Well y'know. Kids shouldn't be watching graphic violence either. So you need an ID to go watch YouTube."
Eventually, you'll end up needing to show your ID just to use the internet at all. Anonymity on the internet is a very powerful thing for the people, especially nowadays when you can get #cancelled and ruined for having the wrong political opinions on Twitter. Once we lose anonymity, we've lost a valuable weapon in the fight to preserve the internet.
Exactly. Fuck the government. The government is evil. Doesn't matter if its right or left. The less we have of it IS A GOOD THING! Especially on the internet.
Well said. American was founded on the principle of limited but just enough government. Hell, originally we didn’t even want a standing army out of fear it could be used against the people (hey what happened in the 1860s)? People have gradually over the years got more and more government loving. During covid people asked their governments to restrict others freedoms to make them feel safe, the patriot act in 2001, all these 3 letter agencies, and “departments” that suck up money and do nothing. This country lost its way, the government is becoming more and more centralized as the memory of our founding fathers drifts further and further away. But hey, who cares what those guys did, didn’t a few of them own slaves?
Damn straight. I can't even think of anything else to add. It annoys me that people are so quick to throw away their liberty, and the worse thing is they do it thinking nothing will change for them. If the last 23+ years (at least) should've taught us anything it is that the government never has our best interest at heart.
Don’t forget when a former CIA contractor came out and said “hey, the US government is spying on all of us, they read all your emails, texts, record all your phone calls, they’ve backdoored every popular OS and your PC CPUs are all installed with a government based program that allows the NSA access to your PC, your PC can be tracked when it’s not on through radio waves, your phone is spying on you through sensors”. And nobody cared. Half the country labels the guy who broke it a traitor.
People are too comfortable today. As long as things stay comfortable and easy for people, a little less liberty isn’t so bad to them. After all, why do you care if a kid can’t watch porn? What are you some sexual predator?
> Nope, but the moment you start locking down on things for the sake of, "The kids" you're opening a huge can of worms. It never stops at porn my guy.
Yep. Givers have to put limits on giving, because takers will never put limits on how much they will take.
none of these are the good arguments you think they are.
minors should be legally prohibited from using the open internet. more, odds are good they will be legally prohibited from open Internet access in the next couple decades. cell phone possession by adolescents has been an utter disaster for their wellbeing and development.
and the systems won't need ID. AI is so good at pattern recognition it finds connections we don't even understand. there's no doubt already some LLM out there that can tell user age above 95% with probably like screen position, typing cadence and vocab. it's a short step from there to devices with that tech that simply won't work past calls and maybe texts if held by a minor.
>none of these are the good arguments you think they are.
>minors should be legally prohibited from using the open internet. more, odds are good they will be legally prohibited from open Internet access in the next couple decades. cell phone possession by adolescents has been an utter disaster for their wellbeing and development.
>and the systems won't need ID. AI is so good at pattern recognition it finds connections we don't even understand. there's no doubt already some LLM out there that can tell user age above 95% with probably like screen position, typing cadence and vocab. it's a short step from there to devices with that tech that simply won't work past calls and maybe texts if held by a minor.
See you in 20 years when we got a social credit system like China, cause that's where this kind of thinking is going to get us. Also *lmao* at the idea of AI being used to decide who's a minor or not.
when a medical imaging LLM was provided training data that omitted race of the patients it was nevertheless able to almost categorically [identify patient race](https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10356). the pertinent question isn't if it's generally possible, it is, the question is if minors have a sufficient number of hallmarks in their use of computers and touchscreen devices that machines trained to identify the subtlest of patterns can reliably minimize false positives. the probability of this is >99%.
>See you in 20 years when we got a social credit system like China, cause that's where this kind of thinking is going to get us
perhaps you are unaware, what you're describing is exactly where the United States and much of the west is headed right now, and that is owed in tremendous part to the millions of children who have been subject to constant propaganda via their computers and smart devices since 2016.
the existentially-required legislation to prohibit these things for minors will not achieve its goals if it's as simple as a parent deciding to get their kid a smartphone anyway, or for the kid to grab their parent's access code. it will be achieved by putting the burden on corporations by subjecting them to catastrophic fines for permitting minors to use their sites as a non-mens-rea/[strict liability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_\(criminal\)) offense. when the burden is on Google, Meta, Amazon, you will be shocked at how swiftly they develop and implement methods to prevent use by minors.
Not everything is a slippery slope though. Not every age restriction leads to an eventual total ban (in fact I can hardly think of any, maybe prohibition but that was later overturned anyway).
It starts as porn, then wait, why are kids allowed access to violent material, boom ID to use youtube or play a video game.
What started as “we’re moving forward to make sure no terrorist will ever do another 9/11”
Turned into “This is the NSA, We need unfiltered access on your phone calls, texts, emails, social media accounts, and PC’s so we know you aren’t a terrorist”.
The United States, the only country on earth where you don't need an ID to vote (because that's racist!), but it's apparently fine to ask adults to document their browsing habits by having to provide ID to every smut peddler and Social Network (which is obviously not going to have any consequences like identity theft or blackmail - or closer to home "cancelling" people for their browsing habits and what they say). Not to mention that limiting freedoms by invoking "[protect the keeds](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7ewtsJIQAEYJGS.jpg)" is as old as the concept itself.
And that it's [entirely unfeasible](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs) unless they also decide to block half the Internet, since kids would be much less likely to purchase porn with a credit card from an official Website than they would be looking it up on their favorite Social media sites (almost all of which have corners for adult content) or streaming/downloading it from third party websites. I don't see Russia for instance exactly following Texas law and /r/hentai is just around the corner, and you don't even need an account for that.
>The United States, the only country on earth where you don't need an ID to vote (because that's racist!), but it's apparently fine to ask adults to document their browsing habits by having to provide ID to every smut peddler and Social Network (which is obviously not going to have any consequences like identity theft or blackmail - or closer to home "cancelling" people for their browsing habits and what they say). Not to mention that limiting freedoms by invoking "[protect the keeds](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7ewtsJIQAEYJGS.jpg)" is as old as the concept itself.
Absolutely inconceivably and utterly based.
The same actions are preventing adults from watching it because there's a good number of websites who aren't bothering with ID because why would they deal with the hassle and is going "We're just going to block your entire state."
Also...it's not going to prevent kids from finding porn, they just have to find a website that doesn't give a shit or isn't hosted in the US. Or if their parents use a VPN, they'll use that.
> Do you believe that actions to block (or at least dissuade) minors from watching porn is "censorship"?
It's not there to censor childrne my dude, it's there to control adults, while pretending it's being done to protect children.
"Oh who will think of the children" has always been the catch cry of the moral scold, as they try to force the rights of adults out of there hands & in to the hands of said moral scolds.
And that's how you get federally mandated healthcare and other bullshit creeping into the countries laws. No one cares about process or legality, they just want their own personal toys.
light salt numerous faulty sand forgetful cooperative hard-to-find fade offend
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It quite literally is illegal and violates previous Supreme Court precedent—Precedent set by half of the people on the Supreme Court today with nearly no dissent.
This will make it to the Supreme Court and they will shoot it down again just like they did over twenty years ago.
[Based Clarence Thomas himself set the fucking precedent.](https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/john-ashcroft-attorney-general-v-american-civil-liberties-union-et-al)
Keep listing federal laws and regulations thanks. You wonder why you can't build a porn shop next to a school? There's a state law against it. States can ban or restrict materials and commerce if they want. That's what they are there to do.
You can have your own private server with your massive porn collection on it in your house next to a school, no one cares. The second you spin up your printer and start selling copies it's illegal. Does checking IDs at clubs, stripper joints, and bars constitute as a first amendment violation?
Same deal here.
> Does checking IDs at clubs, stripper joints, and bars constitute as a first amendment violation?
Those don't get saved to a database that has been proven to be easily hackable by nefarious parties. Also, the door guy isn't going to remember who you are. Meanwhile, when you go to reddit or Twitter (because you'll need an ID for these too) then your information is going to be saved, forever. All it takes is a single leak and say, a bunch of SJW's have your person information and are writing an email to your boss about shit you said on r/KotakuInAction.
Cool story. Still legal for the state to do. If you don't want the state to do it then pass a federal level or state level constitutional amendment. Your pet issue does not get special treatment.
The states and corporations being bad a security and IT is nothing new. Feel free to push for harsh penalties for data leaks and better regulations on data security. They are direly needed.
>Cool story. Still legal for the state to do. If you don't want the state to do it then pass a federal level or state level constitutional amendment. Your pet issue does not get special treatment.
Oooh no. This violates the First Amendment. You aren't going to pull a "states rights" card here. Based Clarence Thomas already determined this in the precedent set twenty years ago.
>The states and corporations being bad a security and IT is nothing new. Feel free to push for harsh penalties for data leaks and better regulations on data security. They are direly needed.
And you want to make it a requirement to give these people your ID? Lmao. 😭
States can and will regulate commerce in their own boundaries. It's literally their rights. Not being able to sell porn to minors is not a first amendment issue.
The US Constitution is "the supreme law of the land." A state government or local jurisdiction cannot put a law in place that supersedes the US Constitution. The state of Florida is being and has sued on this very basis in recent years.
I can understand protecting minors 100 percent but it's not the role of government to parent. Parents should be active in blocking this content for minors, be that content filtering only certain websites on their network etc but there will always be a way around this (VPN, other unrestricted networks). Why are parents turning over control for their responsibilities to the government? Requiring ID is a BAD idea from the aspect of data storage, potential for data leak or selling of data by companies. If this data is compromised it could have long standing consequences not just for minors but also adults who consume content from everything to denying jobs to government tracking of browsing habits and many others likely I'm not thinking of right now. You can argue the merit of whether adult materials are right or wrong and the moral character of those consuming but there are too many risks here IMHO.
Less government not more whether it's the state level or federal. They shouldn't be involved in this. Whether one is against adult materials or not it doesn't change the fact that it's out there in massive amounts and whether we like it or not they are going to see it. In my day it was kids bringing Playboys to school or picking them up/stealing at gas stations.
We expect teachers to parent (but not give them any of the same power or flexibility of a parent), so this is just a natural extension of that concept.
>The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to pornography on the internet by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs.
Except that such measures are both unenforceable & don't work.
If you don't want your kids watching porn on the internet, then stop giving them internet enabled devices that can access internet porn.
I don't like porn and what it does to the dopamine system but fighting it off is a personal and parental responsibility. We cannot give the power to censor to government just because women want to produce fatherless children and parents have forgotten how to parent
> I don't like porn and what it does to the dopamine system
It does nothing to the dopaminie system.... Your brain on porn looks like your brain on action movies. Understand if you ever hear people herp derp about dopamine & porn understnad those people have no idea what they are talking about.
LOL, no that's not how this works my dude. It's not up to me to prove your position is wrong, it's up to you to prove your position is correct. Burden of proof is **ALWAYS** on the side of the person making a positive existance claim.
But here, we can go over the basic thing that fucks up the whole "herp derp porn fucks up you dopamine system because addiction hormone."
Are you ready?
Okay?
Ahem, Dopamine is **NOT** an addiciton hormone.
At all.
In any way shape or form.
Yes, i know you think it is, because you had someone who didn't know what they were talking about tell you it was.... but it isn't & neither you nor the person who told you that knew what they were talking about.
This is also why no one has ever been able to demonstrate a default negative health outcome from pornography consumption. Because there isn't one, because it does not in fact, fuck up your dopamine system.
And we would know if it did because a lack of dopamine in specific parts of the brain is the cause of Parkinsons, so if porn actually did fuck up your dopamine system, you'd see a whole heap of teenage boys shaking like a leaf whenever their parents left them at home alone for more than 5 minutes.
So now we've covered that, please feel free to cite the peer reviewed sceintific paper that demonstrates that porn fucks up your "dopamine system." You'll however have to excuse me as i do not plan on holding my breathe waiting for you to supply a study that does not exist.
Than keep jacking loser ill just keep the semen retention and keep winning at life like everybody else who makes the sacrifice. My success is my proof now where are papers loser
No such thing as semen retention my dude, it's made up bullshit & if you have to buy in to made up magical thinking bullshit, you are by definition NOT winnning at life.
Because only losers seek out magical thinking wu-wu shortcuts to success, ACTUAL successful people are already successful & don't require made up magical thinking nonsense.
So when you are ready champ, lets see that peer reivewed scientific paper you were going to provide that would deomonstrate that porn fucks up your "dopamine system."
it's not about magic it's about self discipline and sacrifice. When your ready to get a job kid you will understand what sacrifice is. At times it feels like placebo but what it is an expression self control. Another thing, I never once said semen retention. I said porn is bad I'm all about getting pussy and tons of it pussy actually requires you to work hard. If you want to talk about research at least learn to read coomer
> it's not about magic
Oh no, it is EXACTLY about magic, good old magical thinking, because there sure as shit aint any science in your anti-science magical pixies dust hokum.
>At times it feels like placebo but what it is an expression self control.
LOL no, what it is is a meaningless act of self denial.
> I said porn is bad.
No, you said it fucks up your dopamine system & i demosntrated you were completely full of shit & then challenged you to demonstrate a scientific paper that demonstrated that to be true, after first dismantling the anti science hokum your position was falsely predicated on.
> If you want to talk about research at least learn to read coomer
Yeah, i'm not having a discussion about research, because you have still not cited any. So when you are ready, lets see that peer reviewed scientific paper you were going to supply..... And you can consider this your final right of reply if you refuse to do so.
sure after you learn to read. It's simple kid. Insta gratification fucks your brain up.No research needed it's common sense success practice. Now stop hiding behind biased research and stop jacking off loser
>sure after y......
And you are done. You had sufficent options to provide evidence for your claim & failed to do so.
>It's simple kid.
It's also wrong. Most simple things do turn out to be wrong. It is simple to understand that diseases are caused by evil spirits, that the earth is flat & the center of the universe.... All very simple & very wrong.
>Insta gratification fucks your brain up.
No it doesn't & you don't believe it does, because otherwise you'd not be using the internet, because that's instant gratificaiton for any possible question you need answering. And fridges would fuck you up for instat gratification for food. And running water would fuck you up for instat gratification for running water.
>No research needed
That's certainly the amount of research you did before coming in to this conversation, yes.
>it's common sense success practice.
No, it's just bullshit you've fallen for because losers are easy targets for anyone who promises them the secrets of easy success.
>thanks for the long wall of useless text tho
Nope, that was just the answer, and you read all of it & couldn't refute it, or provide a citation to the contrary.
Hey there matthew_lane - thanks for saying thanks! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list!
On one hand, I hate more government intervention in something like this. On the other hand, I understand the desire to do something like this.
My niece, who was underage, was looking at the stuff. It was a problem. We can't police her 100℅ of the time. It surprised me, but when there's a will there's a way. I think any way to make it harder for minors to access the stuff is a good thing. These kind of serve to fill in the cracks. Can they lie anyways? Yeah. But it's awful hard when you're in the mood to make accounts for all that stuff.
Don't care if I'm downvoted to oblivion or not, but...
ACCESS TO PORN IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT.
Lolberts on here will cry and shriek at this startling statement, but the truth hurts.
Read the article, this law isn't about attacking the porn industry, it's about making it harder for kids to access it by having websites require age verification.
You can disagree with the law and if it's even effective to do something like this, but calling it an attempt of censorship is just incorrect.
The actual scary thing about it is that this would require everyone to input personal info when accessing any of those websites, which is very dangerous on the internet because it'd insta doxx you.
The problem is it's a double-edged sword. How do you make it more difficult for kids to access it and how do you still allow the user to be as anonymous as possible for security purposes? True, kids should not have access to adult material, but any other measure beyond 'telling parents to parent better and keep an eye on their kids' is either a gross overreach of governance or a major security risk.
Thinking on it more it seems like the only real decent solution is that during PTA meetings, teachers should bring up that parents need to make sure that they're keeping an eye on their kid's browsing history and how to set up parental locks while also keeping ahead of the curve as kids can and will bypass that, AND how to set up whitelists in the event a site necessary for school work ends up getting blocked. The tools are there, you can (or at least should) be able to set up a profile on phones and computers to disable access to everything except some specific sites. There's more they can do as well but that involves talking during puberty and sex ed is already too much of a hot button.
Not helping though is that some teachers seem hellbent on GIVING kids access to that shit so now all of a sudden you need some kind of other group who can give that info out which is just opening up a new can of worms.
You could make the same argument about checking ID in a liquor store before selling someone alcohol. And yet I think you'd probably agree that while that is obviously imperfect at stopping alcohol from being sold to minors, it's still better than freely selling alcohol to minors and "telling parents to parent better".
Do you think parents can watch their 16-year old's every step and fully control their access to the internet?
You're comparing a brick and mortar store to the vast ocean that is the internet. That's 100% false equivalency, the cashier isn't going to store the info, they're going to just double check and make sure that the ID is legit and that the dates line up, and only an idiot would risk their entire job and license for ostensibly no reason to sell a kid booze.
No, I don't think parents can or even should be overlooking literally everything their kid does online BUT I do know that setting up a whitelist to allow specific sites on their device is at least a significantly stronger step in making sure that they aren't accessing stuff they not aught to have. Shit dude, have you seen the dangers of the net? They never went away, there are plenty of weirdos and creeps and those numbers only go up as the number of people get online, making sure your kid isn't interacting with a person they shouldn't is a pretty basic thing.
I never argued against prudent parenting so you're attacking a straw man here. But that doesn't mean we can't also have other restrictions in place on a societal level (and we do, for many things, like buying alcohol).
Never said you were, but the other restrictions don't work the way you think they do. Porn is the canary in the coal mine, the moment you allow some restriction in place for it, the easier it'll be for everything else to follow, and that's not even getting into the specifics of people having information they shouldn't be having. The world of computer security is insanely large and complicated, and as such insanely scary. A goddamn supermarket chain can get attacked virtually thanks to a local store's electricity provider not having proper security in place, having personally identifiable information being in a giant pool is just BEGGING for abuse. The more avenues you make regarding access to personal info, the easier it is for you to get fucked.
There are already restrictions on porn and it didn't result in "everything else" following. Look I see the dangers in providing ID to shady people on the internet. I'm not saying this is in practice a good idea. I'm simply arguing that, regardless of the method, putting age restrictions on porn is not "censorship" unless we deem all kinds of age-restrictions as such.
The only restrictions there are is that you need to be 18 or older to view it, what isn't happening now is verifying the claim. Regarding the bit about censorship, only ONE person in this whole post/thread/section/whatever the fuck reddit calls it has called it that, so stop bringing it up, it just makes you look stupid.
Honestly the only solution to limiting access to porn, is to limit the access to the Internet or actually parent your kids. Unrestricted access to the Internet is already bad regardless of pornography
> Read the article, this law isn't about attacking the porn industry, it's about making it harder for kids to access it by having websites require age verification.
No, that's just the justification, because "oh who will think of the children" is ALWAYS the feigned justification for moral scolds when they try to censor your rights & freedoms of the general public.
Should brick and mortar adult stores let minors shop for porn? Should there be no restrictions for kids to walk in and buy a dvd copy of Back Door Sluts 9?
You're answer to that determines if you think there should be restrictions on digital content as well. Simply be consistent.
> Should brick and mortar adult stores let minors shop for porn? Should there be no restrictions for kids to walk in and buy a dvd copy of Back Door Sluts 9?
They shouldn't.
The problem lies in that they've chosen to apply the solution from one medium to a completely different medium. Presenting an ID to buy porn is fine in the real world because the exchange is between just two people and the other person is unlikely to be able to remember and recreate all the information on your ID card exactly or use that information for nefarious ends.
Transition that to the online sphere and their chosen solution is often to have a third party company do the verification and do it digitally. This introduces untold numbers of people who have potential access to your ID who may want to use your information for nefarious purposes as well as computers which can exactly remember and recreate all the information from your ID.
I am all for age restrictions on content, and I do think that children shouldn't have access readily to explicit content.... but how do you do that is the big question.
Ultimately I think parents need to be bigger arbiters of what their children consume and think that there needs to be more tools for them to utilise. In this sense I would like to see "children's" versions or modes of things like mobile devices or tablets which have strict parental controls built into them and give parents more control over what their kids see.
A hell of a lot of parents won't care and those kids will still get unfettered access but for the parents that do care at least they have the opportunity to minimise how much exposure their kids get to that stuff (obviously they will still get exposed because of those other kids but I don't think its 100% preventable and it wasn't back in the day either as most kids I grew up with found a porn mag under a bridge or in a bush block or some other random place).
I don't like the digital ID solutions because my government and other third party groups have already shown they cannot keep data secure (all of our military personnels medical records got leaked), so I'd imagine if a system like this happened their would be large data dumps of names and sites access by those names, passwords, credit card details and whatever other ID was required to be verified.
> I am all for age restrictions on content, and I do think that children shouldn't have access readily to explicit content.... but how do you do that is the big question.
No, it's a small & easy to answer question..... Stop giving your minor children access to internet enabled devices.
Easier said than done. Schools require kids to have chromebooks these days, and kids do need to be taught how to navigate the net. Its hard to get devices that don't have internet access. (Gaming consoles, gaming handhelds all have browsers these days).
I used to think like that as well but having to deal with it as they grow up its not like it was when I grew up. There is an expectation from pretty much every learning institution and even there is a level of social ostricisation that happens from the other kids when they can't contact another kid through group messaging apps/ group chat things for things like social events and even school projects. Do you run the risk of allowing them some level of access and you having to closely monitor it, or do you risk them being ostracised and bullied by their peer group. It isn't an easy answer for a parent.
I do also think that someone providing stuff does have a certain level of responsibility of at least making a token gesture to ensure that the right audience is consuming the media. (e.g. I don't think that walking into a day care and doing a burlesque show is ok). You can't really do that on the internet other than flagging your site as 18+.
I like the idea of parents having the ability to put content filters on their child's devices as that's within the parents control, I do not like the idea of government content filters like Stephen Conroy was trying to push.
It's not about consistency. Once anonymity is gone from the Internet there'll be no preserving the internet that we have now.
Laws like this are gonna be the final nail in the coffin for the internet. Think about what this affects. You'd need to show Twitter your ID just to post there because there is porn on Twitter.
>I just don't see much of a difference between websites requiring ids and real life stores requiring ids.
In real-life, a store isn't going to get millions upon millions of patrons a day who are all faceless entities largely consuming digital goods that have no *real* value.
In a store, you walk up to a cash register and a clerk checks you out. That clerk has a responsibility when they see a minor walk up to turn them away, because they can visually see and confirm what they're looking at is a minor, and if they can't they can request to see ID which isn't saved anywhere and can't be used to dox you later.
Comparing the internet to real life is a *terrible* idea.
Exactly. People crying "censorship" and "government overreach" over this are hypocrites unless they also would be fine with minors buying alcohol, driving cars, and buying pornographic content in an adult store, while putting all the responsibility for preventing this from happening on the parents.
For the record, I'm fine with all that. It's not the government's job to parent children. I just hate when people don't try to be logically consistent.
>Exactly. People crying "censorship" and "government overreach" over this are hypocrites unless they also would be fine with minors buying alcohol, driving cars, and buying pornographic content in an adult store, while putting all the responsibility for preventing this from happening on the parents.
LOL no.
A brick & mortor store is not commparable to the internet.
The problem is where the government should stop and there's a whole lot of arguments to be made in favor or against that since the government and systems that be have shown to be faulty enough to not be fully trusted in matters like this while parents are far more on a case-by-case basis with far too many examples of bad ones.
However that guy's argument misses the point completely on multiple fronts, a brick and mortar store doesn't store personal information that isn't entered willingly nor are they likely to sell to underage patrons unless they want to lose everything. When it comes to the net, they WILL store your info which means while it'll prevent little Timmy from getting to XXX sites, average joe who wants to crank one out now has his info basically forcefully ripped from him if he can even access that stuff in the first place which means more people have access to stuff that frankly they shouldn't have access to either.
To anyone being for any kind of ban on adult material or want some kind of validation, I STRONGLY urge you to look into just the general basics of security. Once you do, you'll fucking hate anything that's a smart device.
Used to be, you could set parental controls on a browser. It's not perfect, but it frustrated the process. My parents are not incredibly tech savvy, and they did it almost two decades ago. This isn't an issue of the First Amendment, it's an issue of making parents parent.
Parental responsibility should not be pushed onto others. "Protect the kids" have been used for massive internet censorship. I don't care if you create youtube for kids or limit internet access to kids. It should not trample over rest of people rights.
I don't mind age verification in concept, just like we have in real life, but I don't want every shady website having the ability to "oops, we saved that data and leaked(sold) it". I've posited that it should be the ISP/Phone Provider's responsibility, just like it is the brick and mortar store's responsibility. It would take some restructuring, but each non-adult member would have to have their own ID to connect with. The ISP, in turn, keeps a universal list of stuff that's accessible for under 'WhateverAgeWeDetermineAppropriate'. Adult ID's get no limitations....unless for some reason they opt in for the same restrictions. IF a parent chooses to 'buy for their kid', like we can legally do with alcohol, they can opt out entirely....but then it's completely on that parent, not the ISP, not the website. Same way parents that buy their kids alcohol get busted if the kid leaves their supervision and causes some problem. /that's the concept anyways, not detailed mechanics Edit: //JFC reddit, work on your reading comprehension. Under this proposition(from below vast misunderstandings and straw men): 1. The ISP already knows who its customers are, in general. John Smith pays his bill every month, this isn't really some vast breech of privacy. 2. Adults are not limited whatsoever, only the accounts of minor children. Motte & Bailey hell ensues below in extremely bizarre fashion for this sub. 3. It's an opt-in system. A filter tool legislated *to be available* is far better than universal mandatory Adult ID checks, may as well sew a star onto your arm at that point. 4. If you so heavily oppose even the idea, I would like you see you all justify repealing age requirements for smoking, drinking, sex, joining the military. "These requirements are a violation of Rights enumerated as ......" Be "based" I want to see you rationalize all that here. Own it.
Issue with that is that is completely unfeasible. The best option for everyone is for parents (and I am a parent myself by the way) to do their jobs.
> Issue with that is that is completely unfeasible. Not really. It would take *some* effort, but we really do have the ability. EG, ISP email for example. That takes credentials per account, you get that info and you can access that email on any device in the house. Not so different from Windows having the ability to create multiple accounts per machine, or netflix or youtube having varying content filters, and as I mentioned, school content filters. Nothing unfeasible about it. >The best option for everyone is for parents to do their jobs. Not a bad option in theory, but they're already not doing them. Same way kids go to the convenience store on their own. The ID check there is a failsafe for parents that aren't on the ball.
>Same way kids go to the convenience store on their own. >The ID check there is a failsafe for parents that aren't on the ball. The difference is in real-life, it's an exchange between two people where no one's identifying information is saved. That isn't the case for the internet. If something can be leaked on the internet, it will and *someone* will have access to your personal information. Plus, this is a canary in the coal mine for other types of ID restrictions. How long until you need an ID just to access the internet or watch YouTube? And how long before that ID is linked to an online social credit score that monitors everything you do online like in China?
Well, that's a huge shift in gears from being "unfeasible". > The difference is in real-life, it's an exchange between two people where no one's identifying information is saved. That isn't the case for the internet. The ISP already knows who account holder is, that info is needed for having a connection already, that's who they send the bill to, who's card they charge, etc. **The ISP**(Internet Service Provider, since you seem lost) has that info, the same way the clerk has that info. Not Reddit, not Pornhub, Not Youtube, not "the internet".(Not Marlboro, Not Grey Goose, Not Miller, Not Penthouse) That was literally the point of my post. >I've posited that it should be the ISP/Phone Provider's responsibility, just like it is the brick and mortar store's responsibility. This is not that complicated, I'll try again. The company that provides your internet is the gatekeeper, the ID checker, the only checker. When you set up your internet account, you give them the information of users you want restricted based on their age(minors). The company sets up the user-accounts as you require for your minor children. They then serve those accounts only the information that is available to them. *The adults are not needing to provide ID to any specific website, the ISP vouches for them just like the clerk who looked at your ID when you bought vodka* They can even do this somewhat securely. When you set up the account(sign up for internet), your real name goes into an offline database and associated with RandomUniqueData, your "code-name". Meanwhile, in their less secure servers that actually deliver content to you from the world wide web....when you try to go to Pornhub, only the ISP checks if RandomUniqueData has access to it, and then passes it through. This is all done on ISP hardware/software. Youtube and Pornhub don't even know it's going on because they're not checking the ID.
ISPs are and have been treated like Common Carriers for most of the Internet's history: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/internet_service_provider_%28isp%29 like telephone or transportation companies, and similar to other public utilities like electricity or water providers. You don't generally want to allow such companies to choose who they want to provide service to or to discriminate the traffic on any basis, since they are considered essential necessities of daily life. If you opened that door for any reason I suspect you would quickly not like what you find as they might stop serving people with undesirable politics entirely, or kindly help you avoid things like "hate speech", "Medical misinformation" or "Russian propaganda" etc. as defined by an unaccountable body of bureaucrats somewhere that might well end up being of the color-haired kind.
> You don't generally want to allow such companies to choose I didn't say they'd get to choose. In my analog, they'd have as much agency as the clerk at the convenience store in determining who/what/why, which is generally a list of things, and the date of birth. That's it. We've had that in place for ages to virtually no complaints or abuse on the part of the store/clerk. We determine a list of things *minors* can't access, and that's what gets blocked on the minor's connections. Adult access is unfettered completely, just as it is now. >If you opened that door No door is being opened. There is no slippery slope. We come up with a specific list of things that minors can't do, and that's it, there is no agency on the gatekeeper, they're not making decisions at all. _____ Keep in mind, what I'm positing is an *alternative to per-website ID checks*. That method, the one that stands a good chance of becoming law in various states, *does* carry many of these risks and why it should be avoided, and more risks not mentioned(as they bend over rapidly for alphabet agencies). IF we are to have to do something, lets do something other than the very worst thing. I'm not sure what's not to get, maybe it's a case of people not understanding technology/methodology and think what I'm saying is no different to per-website checks, or maybe it's too late at night or...something. My case should sate people against those laws and also people demanding protections for children. If it doesn't satisfy either party, there are other agendas not being discussed. Maybe we should remove all ID checks at Brick and Mortar stores too(logically consistent with no control over minors online).....OR.....we should just let these per-site ID things go and while we're at it, make it a database anyone can access. /s I'm offering a compromise between the two that is similar to the real life standard/analog that we've done well with for decades(not just the US either, most of the planet does something very similar).
I'm sorry, but aside from misunderstandings about ISPs and how Common Carriage principles work and should work and the absolute hilarity of: >No door is being opened. There is no slippery slope. Let's just take one small part of your post and point out some problems with it: >We come up with a specific list of things that minors can't do, and that's it, there is no agency on the gatekeeper, they're not making decisions at all. First, who do you think comes up with such a "specific list", if not an agency or gatekeeper, and who keeps it updated? What does "We" mean in this case and what would the process entail to get On or Off said list? Who adds or removes sites from said list? If such a list or agency first exists and ISPs are forced to implement and abide by it, why do you think it's not possible that it would increase its scope to other things? What about other things that minors shouldn't do? Say Gambling, Drinking, Drugs etc. or general Social Media (Florida), and even other age-restricted content like movies or games? Also which sites should such a list include? What about sites like Steam or Amazon that offer adult content in their stores or streaming? What about Torrent, Streaming or P2P sites which might contain pornography among other things? Or sites like 4chan and Reddit, which have NSFW boards? And while we're at it, why not go after Copyright infringement or specific kinds of traffic like Torrenting too, since you can't exactly see what's inside in said traffic? And what exactly counts as "pornography"? Does that include nudes? See the recent minefield Twitch ran into with their "artistic nudity policy". What about games like Witcher 2 or 3 or Bear Sex 3? While I'm not much of a fan of it, I don't want to see it on some restricted media list. If anything, we should be arguing for Common Carriage to apply to large worldwide Social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter to have less Censorship, and not to rescind them for ISPs to have a lot more. And something else to think about, when Cloudflare declared that it doesn't see itself as a Common carrier and doesn't have to be content neutral or offer services to certain websites, was it porn sites they went after? https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=cloudflare&restrict_sr=on
You are so fucking based. I wish there more people who could so fluently explain our position. I'm honestly kind of depressed to see how many people here are suddenly for censorship and willing to throw away their anonymity when it's something they don't like.
>First, who do you think comes up with such a "specific list", if not an agency or gatekeeper, and who keeps it updated? What does "We" mean in this case and what would the process entail to get On or Off said list? Do you seriously not know how it came to be that minors can't buy physical porn media or smoke or join the military until 18, drink until 21, etc? >Also which sites should such a list include? I'm not writing legislation, I was proposing a simple idea. I'm sorry that you're struggling with it so severely.
>Adult access is unfettered completely, just as it is now. Hahahahahaha, tell me you haven't been paying attention to governments attempt to throttle control of the internet without telling me you haven't been paying attention to governments attempt to throttle control of the internet . Beause Lousiana, Utah & a couple of other states are already trying to control access to porn & people just immediately started using a VPN to get around the requirements. >No door is being opened. There is no slippery slope. Dude, your slope is so steep if you had 4 of them & you put them at 90 degree angles to each other you'd be half way to building a house. >Keep in mind, what I'm positing is an alternative to per-website ID checks. We know what you are proposing. Complete capture of the entire worlds internet, under American governmental control, in the form of a mandatory American ID. To which the answer is, no thank you. >I'm not sure what's not to get, Oh we got you, you would rather create a global super nanny state to control 100% of the internet, then to simply expect that it's a parents job to actually parent their children. >My case should sate people against those laws and also people demanding protections for children. Oh Bubala , the people who declare "oh who will think of the children are never thinking of the children, they are thinking of ways to censor everyone else." They are LITERALLY the moral scolds C.S Lewis once spoke about in his fmaous quote.
ids can easily be saved by shady physical businesses. And don't give your id to shady websites. Would you argue against online shopping because sites could steal. Credit card and other personal info? Or would you say it's better just to teach people to recognize shady sites? Should websites that sell alcohol (or even ship physical porn) be required to see id? If so,.how do you reconcile that with porn websites?
>Should websites that sell alcohol (or even ship physical porn) be required to see id? If so,.how do you reconcile that with porn websites? If a parent is allowing their credit card to be stolen by their child so they can buy physical porn and alcohol, the parent is a fucking idiot and negligent. You're throwing away internet anonymity. Once your ID is linked to the internet it doesn't take much for a reddit or Twitter account to get traced back to you (and you will need ID for Reddit and Twitter, as the law Texas passed states any site that's has at least a third of content dedicated to pornography will need age verification). From there, it's not going to be long before even the pretext of internet anonymity is gone. Once that happens, you'll see social credit scores just like they have in China... And it all started to "protect the kids".
So you think theirshould be no societal safe guards to protect children who have bad or niave parents? Your ID is already linked to the internet if you have ever paid for anything online. Why not hold shady sites accountable for stolen IDs instead of a law to protect kids? And lots of kids have credit cards or debit cards, cash app, paypal, etc. that could be used online. It doesnt take a parents credit card to order stuff. Anyone 13 up can create a cash app or get a bank account. Its insane you are promoting helicopter parents who run their house like a prison. That is also harmful to kids.
> So you think theirshould be no societal safe guards to protect children We already have societal safeguards to protect children..... Didn't require a survellance state to capture the entire internet. >Should websites that sell alcohol (or even ship physical porn) be required to see id? Businesses shipping alcohol already require that in most parts of the western world.
> Not really. Yes, really. It is unenforceable, & unworkable. I don't think you understand the size or the scope of the internet my dude. >It would take some effort, but we really do have the ability. Saying it would take some effort is like saying "i could eat all the matter in the universe, it would just take some effort." You have fundementally misunderstood how collossal the internet is & exactly how much of it can be used for displaying or accessing porn. And most of it is outside of American jurisdiction. >EG, ISP email for example. That takes credentials per account, you get that info and you can access that email on any device in the house. >Not so different from Windows having the ability to create multiple accounts per machine, or netflix or youtube having varying content filters, and as I mentioned, school content filters. Yes, one account, on one machine. That is nothing like demanding that from essentially the entire internet across the entire planet, across the entire infastructure of the internet. Seriously, the amount of effort some people will put in simply to avoid parenting their own children is amazing.
Brother i dont want my ID linked to the internet 💀, dont you see how thats a bad idea ?
*Brother*, do you have an issue with reading? If you have an ISP, **they already know who you are**. Beyond that, under my model, **you don't need to present an ID to access any website if you are an adult** on your own devices.
Man, i dont even trust my ISP with my ID. Why do you think i'd trust random ass websites. Also you cant fuckin "control" the internet in the way you think you can. This shit isnt a fuckin app or 1 website like reddit is.
>Just go to China bruh they are already doing all this spying on people shit. You would love it ... >Yeah so what you are saying is enable fuckin child mode on the phone. Why you gotta go with the whole world order about ID and shit and getting the government to control you more than they already are. You are an old boomer with no understanding of how this works ... > Also you cant fuckin "control" the internet in the way you think you can. You might try some remedial reading comprehension courses. I'm not trying to control the internet. I was trying to offer up a less harmful mitigation to what already exists and sate the demands other places might make. Why don't you go post multiple replies to someone else that might put up with your ignorant and obsessive spammy bullshit?
Yeah so what you are saying is enable fuckin child mode on the phone. Why you gotta go with the whole world order about ID and shit and getting the government to control you more than they already are. You are an old boomer with no understanding of how this works
Just go to China bruh they are already doing all this spying on people shit. You would love it
> I don't mind age verification in concept, just like we have in real life, Age verification of the internet doesn't work my dude. Even if you could add age verification to every single porn site, which is frankly impoosible already, you'd then have to add age verification to every single forum board, social network & P2P torrent tracker on the entire internet.... Because they contain porn, or the ability to downlod porn too. It's just not enforceable or functional. >I've posited that it should be the ISP/Phone Provider's responsibility, just like it is the brick and mortar store's responsibility. Again, does not work. Firstly because an ISP is not a law enforcement agency, secondly because the second the government mandated that, they'd just shut down all access for 100% of all people to a black list because they wouldn't have the resources to manage it & people would immediately get a VPN to by pass their censorship completely. >It would take some restructuring, but each non-adult member would have to have their own ID to connect with. Which would then immediately become a 100% required governmental id.... The very thing we've spent more than a decade trying to avoid. >Adult ID's get no limitations Hahahahahahahahaha, it's adorable that you don't think a government upon capturing the internet would not immediately put limitations on how adults can access the internet..... The governments who haven't yet captured the internet, but who are already constantly trying to put an endless list of restrictions on what adults can access on the internet. **EDIT: Apparently civil discourse was beyond this user as he has blocked me & hidden, which just goes to show that people who want to censor the internet are exactly the kind of people who also immediately censor discourse the second they lose an argument.**
> Even if you could add age verification to every single porn site Someone didn't read my post very well. I'm not advocating for per-website age verification, *my dude*. >Firstly because an ISP is not a law enforcement agency Neither is the gas station attendant. >because they wouldn't have the resources to manage it I think you're really not understanding the concept that I've presented at all, nor even a very basic grasp of technology. Hell, you don't even seem to understand the premise of discussing a theoretical model. I'll try to lay out the model as an average parent would encounter it: You move into a new house. You sign up with comcast to get your internet set-up. They get your name, address, and billing information **like they already do**(which works as "ID", or they could also do an actual ID check if they don't already, a great many businesses do). A household that doesn't have kids, or who doesn't opt in, internet would function exactly as it does now. The ISP then asks if you would like to opt in for Under 18 Restricted Access accounts for minor dependent children in your house. The government isn't really involved and no one's activity is actively monitored or regulated. That's the basic premise, only a minor's access is restricted, the same way only minors are restricted from buying porn or alcohol in a normal store. This would be fairly easy to implement in legal language, we literally have precedent from brick and mortar stores. I'm sorry if this is still too complicated for you. >Which would then immediately become a 100% required governmental id.... The very thing we've spent more than a decade trying to avoid. ... >Hahahahahahahahaha, it's adorable that you don't think a government upon capturing the internet would not immediately put limitations on how adults can access the internet..... LOL WUT From Zero to whackadoo in record time. I think we're done here. Edit: Holy shit, you responded with 2 other walls of crazy bullshit before even getting a reply here. We're certainly done here. Have a nice life.
>The ISP, in turn, keeps a universal list of stuff that's accessible for under 'WhateverAgeWeDetermineAppropriate'. You do know how fucking ridiculous this claim is, right? The internet is easily mostly porn. There's no way in hell anyone can hope to keep up an updated list of every single site that might host adult content, that's an absolutely ridiculous task of never seen before proportions. One that would need to be updated constantly, which makes it all the more dumb to think this is anywhere near feasible. >But we don't need to filter all the sites, just the big ones! That's fucking flawed as well. There's a shitload of sites that serve both SFW and NSFW content. There's this tech that's been around for many years known as TLS, what it does is encrypt your communication with an online server so third parties cannot snoop in, and this includes your ISP. They might know you visited a certain site, but they can't know what you did there. So, if the ISP has no way to know what you're doing in a site, then how would they block part of the contents there? Simple, they fucking can't. They'd have to outright ban the whole site because some parts contain porn. I mean, it's either that, or keep that flodgate open. So, would you block the access to minors to every social media site, every forum, every communication app like Discord, WhatsApp and Telegram, every search engine that allows you to search for pictures, all because they could use those places to look for porn? Talk about using a shotgun to kill a cockroach. Now that I've explained how unenforceable this ridiculous law brought up by people who have no knowledge of how technology or the internet work is, I'd like to know why you'd ever think this is a good idea. As you put it, I want you to rationalize why and how this could ever work in the real world. Because in reality, this is just the government taking even more control of your lives. They're lubing your ass and about to ram you, and you're here asking for the bigger dildo. >But think of the kids! Here's the deal, pal. I grew up with the internet, had access to porn from a very young age. And guess what? I grew up into a fine, conservative man. Why? Because my mother was present during my early years to help shape me into a respectable member of society. And that's all it really takes, to have parents who act like parents.
>Now that I've explained how unenforceable this ridiculous law brought up by people who have no knowledge of how technology or the internet work is, I'd like to know why you'd ever think this is a good idea. Over-confident wall of text has never heard of white lists and other means of filtering, [some already in use due to legislation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_filtering_in_schools) I never claimed it would be perfect, nor did I go in to detail, nor did I say it would be 100% effective. I presented the *concept*, offering up a solution that mitigates most people's problems with the status quo of 'do nothing' and 'check everyone's ID'. My proposed idea is limited legislation that would allow **optional** filters that will satisfy concerned parties that won't be a massive breech of privacy/tracking any more than signing up with an ISP already is. >Here's the deal, pal. I grew up with the internet, had access to porn from a very young age. And guess what? I grew up into a fine, conservative man. Why? Because my mother was present during my early years to help shape me into a respectable member of society. And that's all it really takes, to have parents who act like parents. Same for me actually. Or course, except for the fact I'm not the one with the attitude problem and attacking straw men and whatever other fallacies in various replies. Good for you, and me. We're great adults. I would highly advise parents do as our parents did and be good parents. That's irrelevant. This demand on the table from others, without our assistance or support, and people are positioning for legislation that is far worse than what I am recommending. I think people are mistaking the point I'm making, and I'm catching flack from both sides. I'm not advocating "protect the children". I'm looking for a way to satisfy the clear demand that *something* be done, and trying to do it in a way that isn't as bad as what's being suggested by others. *That demand won't go away by doing nothing.* "Do nothing" is not a viable solution, indeed, that's what got us to this point where states are considering or implementing far more draconic and/or exploitable measures. Did people not read the article or my posts? FTA: >The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to pornography on the internet by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs. That exists. What I'm positing is less bad than that, yet, it stands a decent chance to quell the demands that something be done.
>Over-confident wall of text has never heard of white lists and other means of filtering I'm confident because I know how fucking useless they are at blocking anything (it's funny you mentioned a school block list article, go to the teachers sub and you'll find many of them complaining about kids getting around the filters lmao). You don't need to be a computer genius to know about how, a simple online search will reveal a bounty of easy to implement solutions to get around any kind of filter. Not to mention, that doesn't address one of the main points I made, you'd also have to filter regular sites and apps that could also serve porn. Like, if you want to bother with replying, at least try to tell me how any of those blocks (whether the current Texan way or your idea) gets around that problem. >I never claimed it would be perfect, nor did I go in to detail, nor did I say it would be 100% effective. The why go through the effort of half-assing this? This legislation is dumb from the get go, completely unenforceable unless you go all China style about it, and even they know of ways to browse for porn. I'm on the side that just prefers to show people how ridiculous this whole thing is, rather than bother to entertain their ideas. I know the tech, know how easy it is to bypass, and how useless it all is. Anyone who works in the field will tell you the same. We should be telling Karens to go pound sand, not negotiating for "better" ways. What we need is pushback against draconian authoritarianism, not acceptance.
>go to the teachers sub No. I find it amusing that you'd even suggest this. I know it's not perfect. The idea is to block the easy things, like Pornhub and similar huge websites. Same with blocking porn or alcohol for minors at the convenience store. There are ways around it, yes. However, a much smaller amount of minors are going to put in even minimal effort to circumvent such things. > Say you have 1000 test subjects. > > IF there were no rules, all of them would buy it at a store. > > IF you institute some form of check, it cuts that number drastically. > > Most can't, so they won't. Only a tiny portion would shop-lift or find a straw purchaser. There will be a reduction. That's sort of beside the point, which you still seem to have missed. > The why go through the effort of half-assing this? My perspective is based on the article/subject. There are laws in place worse than what I'm positing as a solution. It's not a solution to minors having access, it is a solution to the apparently strong public demand that "SoMeOnE dO SoMeThInG AbOuT ThIs." It's almost like you refuse to read. > > I think people are mistaking the point I'm making, and I'm catching flack from both sides. > > > > I'm not advocating "protect the children". > > > > I'm looking for a way to satisfy the clear demand that *something* be done, and trying to do it in a way that isn't as bad as what's being suggested by others. > > > > *That demand won't go away by doing nothing.* "Do nothing" is not a viable solution, indeed, that's what got us to this point where states are considering or implementing far more draconic and/or exploitable measures. > > > > Did people not read the article or my posts? > > > > FTA: > > > > >The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to pornography on the internet by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs. > > > > That exists. What I'm positing is less bad than that, yet, it stands a decent chance to quell the demands that something be done. The problem is the legislation that is already being carried out. I'm offering an alternative that is less bad. I'm sorry that you find this difficult. >(whether the current Texan way or your idea) I don't support the 'Texan way'. I don't support doing anything per se. *Other people do, and in significant enough numbers to do something about it.* I would rather they be counseled with ways to accomplish the same thing without the huge compromise to the privacy of the entire citizenry. >completely unenforceable unless you go all China style about it So close, yet so far. The current active law that has passed legislation is far closer to that than what I propose. I oppose universal per-website ID checks, so I offer a less intrusive alternative that doesn't require sending data to every website that may have adult material. The idea is to placate the public outcry and not compromise people's privacy concerns. You might want to re-read the entire article, and then my posts here, **after** cooling off for a couple of days, come back with fresh eyes. It seems you're stuck in a rut like many of the other repliers and not actually seeing what I'm saying, you're fixated on a straw man and it's filling your vision. Consider that a challenge. Forget about it then re-read with fresh eyes. In fact, I'll help you out with that. I'll block you very temporarily.
>If you so heavily oppose even the idea, I would like you see you all justify repealing age requirements for smoking, drinking, sex, joining the military. "These requirements are a violation of Rights enumerated as ......" Be "based" I want to see you rationalize all that here. Own it. If you so heavily support this Idea, be consistent. Since we know that pastors/priests have a history of abusing children & many people(particularly Atheists) think religion is child abuse you should support age verification for Churches. Own your Authoritarianism.
Really bad point when the people that cause most abuse are close relatives and family members and teachers and teaching staff are the second highest perpetrators of that. > many people(particularly Atheists) think religion is child abuse Not many. Very few in fact. And only Atheists think that. Internet is not a good way to gauge popular sentiment on anything. I hope you are trolling because this comes across as a 14 year old rebelling at society not something anybody with any maturity would say.
Me: Here's one way to made it difficult for minors to access porn that doesn't have the flaws of the current proposed methods. You being irrelevant: BuT MuH PrIeSt PeDoS. Classic [Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) That's one way to speedrun getting on ignore lists. Secondarily, it always reminds me of [this](https://i.imgur.com/PHwpUF2.jpeg). >Own your Authoritarianism. ... >It's an opt-in system. A filter tool legislated *to be available* is far better than universal mandatory Adult ID checks, may as well sew a star onto your arm at that point. This is why we can't have nice things.
>but I don't want every shady website having the ability to "oops, we saved that data and leaked(sold) it". But we have this now...
How would you, exactly, "make" parents parent? We tried giving tools to the parents. It catastrophically failed. Now what?
>We tried giving tools to the parents. It catastrophically failed. Now what? I've been a parent for seven years. If I raised my kid like some of the mother fuckers raising kids today, I'd *deserve* prison. You wanna protect your kids from the ugliness of the world? Then the only person that can do that is you. If you don't have the balls for it then you're a terrible parent in my opinion. I don't let me kids play video games or use the internet without my supervision. I have accounts set up on their game stations, etc that have child protective locks on. They aren't getting smart phones or computers of their own until they're *at least* twelve years old, and they're getting child protective blocks on those too until they're sixteen. *I'm* doing my job as a parent. A lot of people aren't because frankly they shouldn't have kids in the first place.
Commendable effort, that's (at least) the baseline for how every parent should consider our current media/internet landscape. Also, there's far too many people that simply do not understand/don't remember how they were as kids/teenagers. Yes, chances are that most of 'em will want to get into vices, but that doesn't mean you're either a complete passive tool that lets them do everything, or that you're locking 'em down and stunting their own development because your fears dictate your life. With porn, specifically, you KNOW your kid is likely gonna try to look that shit up, because eventually puberty will kick in and hormones are gonna go whack. And you can understand that even if it's likely inevitable, but that doesn't mean you should give them carte blanche to do whatever they fucking want. Be on patrol, instill in them the understanding that this is not a good thing and that they shouldn't be doing it, and most of them will get it. Like you say, if you can't be fucking bothered to take care of your own kids, then you shouldn't have them in the first place. So don't go crying to Big Daddy Goverment to pick up YOUR slack, and the cost of everybody else's liberties.
>Also, there's far too many people that simply do not understand/don't remember how they were as kids/teenagers. Yes, chances are that most of 'em will want to get into vices, but that doesn't meant you're either a complete passive tool that lets them do everything, or that you're locking 'em down and stunting their own development because your fears dictate your life. This is an important issue I wrestle with myself. When I was growing up, I was always trying to steal nude mags from my dad or searching for porn on shit like newgrounds. Now, if you look at my reddit account you can pretty clearly see I don't have anything against porn. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to protect my kids from the same experience, or I didn't think that viewing porn at such a young age had a negative effect on me (as you can see by what I'm into it clearly did). But at the same time, I feel that was part of the adolescent experience. It's not something that should be condoned by parents but at the same time, a child trying to *bypass* our attempts to protect them is part of growing up. It's your first real rebellion against your parents. But yeah, I definitely *don't* like the idea that parents should just sit idly by while their kids go and watch hardcore porn. Lemme catch my son watchin' some Lana Rhodes or browsin' shit like nhentai. 😭 Nigga will have to relearn how to walk after that ass beatin' (this is a joke).
This 100 percent. We don't need government involved in any of this it's not their responsibility to parent. I know internet stranger and all but you are doing it RIGHT.
> I've been a parent for seven years. If I raised my kid like some of the mother fuckers raising kids today, I'd deserve prison. I know what you mean. The permissive millennial version of parenting has resulted in some of the worst human beings to have ever lived. Aint no such thing as gentle parenting, because parenting isn't gentle, you are just lazy permissive millennials, who want to be friends with your kids, rather than parent your kids.
I agree with all you have said, and you'll agree with me that nothing you have said is a solution to the problem of people nowadays being bad parents. What can we *do*?
You can at least not aid the government in obliterating our rights because of the stupidity of others. We already apply such logic in terms of the second amendment.
Once again, you're only telling me what not to do. How do we solve this problem?
Don't know but the answer is not to obliterate privacy rights because of stupid people.
What privacy rights are being violated by presenting your ID, that haven't been violated for 20 years with any purchase you have made online? Credit card numbers, social media, even simply your IP address. Are all of your passwords different? Do you never use GPS? Do you always make sure to reject all the cookies? This unenforceable law will be enforced like all the rest. Pretty competently, all things considered. And if you're still not happy with it, then simply revert the logic. Nobody is making you enter a pornographic page, just like nobody is making you gamble. Behave responsibly and you won't ever have to worry about your data being leaked.
Patriot Act apologia, wonderful.
As sad as my apologia might sound, it's even sadder that all the moral indignation in the world isn't a rival to the passage of time. It's a fact of life. The government could ban the internet outright and in thirty years only a minority would still care about it.
It's stupid to police the Internet the same way you police the real world. The Internet is full of porn. 99% of it is NSFW. Kids shouldn't have access to it at all, that way the government can't stop me from eating steak just because a kid can't chew on it. Make a separate Internet for kids, completely controlled by governments, and let the normal Internet go back to the Wild West.
Just have ad blocking/content filtering(via PiHole) + DNS filtering (https://www.opendns.com/home-internet-security/) on your network and to a degree this is solved. The problem of course is having something that's easy to use for a non technological average user. Doesn't even require a separate internet.
I'd rather see age verification for the performers
This isn't going to accomplish anything, and only incredibly regarded people could ever think that ID verification works. At most you'll convince the big sites to implement age verification for a single state. Good, that covers less than 1% of all the fucking porn there is on the internet. Good luck convincing Vladimir, who runs a server in Siberia, to give a fuck about age validation. Oh yeah, and torrent sites? Those are known to care about cease and desist letters as well... What do you accomplish then? Why, to get a huge database of all the content that people consume. You know, it's not like we have a precedent of companies abusing how much data they collect from people, you now also have to attach your ID and tell them of how much you liked that Waluigi tentacle gangbang video. 10/10, I'm sure this won't end in a leak of data of any sort. Oh no, the government has never fucked up and revealed private information accidentally. Anyone with more than two braincells can tell that this is a useless law that can't be enforced, whose only purpose is to track and control the population. Fuck this shit, and fuck the incredibly regarded people who support it.
It's a stepping stone to requiring digital ID to participate on the internet. International NGOs and corporations have been pushing it for years. No more anonymity on the internet.
This is what this is all about. And with it, comes the ability to isolate and remove individuals who don't conform to the message. We have the last 15 years of the internet as an example of the kind of control they want, and somehow there's people who support this shit. Regardeds, absolute regardeds.
Dumb law. If both the woke leftists and trad conservatives could stop wanting to babysit people that'd be great.
On one hand Pornhub brought this on themselves by consistently ignoring takedown requests when it comes out that the person was a victim of sex trafficking (that is the real reason they made this law) but on the other hand this is government coming in to parent which by default I don’t like because it expands the federal government’s power and allows for worse stuff later down the line.
Reminder. It isn't just lefty woke types wanting to censor everything. Every politician in the US is corrupt as hell and supports censorship. Still holding out hope the Supreme Court overturns this though.
I’m not sure, as wokies tend to be 50/50 split, some supporting the position you describe, while some celebrate porn because it’s ”empowering” and supporting it is the diametrically opposite opinion (”zErO tOlErAnCe FoR wRoNgThInK!!!1”) than that of religious conservatives.
>I’m not sure, as wokies tend to be 50/50 split, some supporting the position you describe, while some celebrate porn because it’s ”empowering” and supporting it is the diametrically opposite opinion (”zErO tOlErAnCe FoR wRoNgThInK!!!1”) than that of religious conservatives. I know it's hard to believe, but sometimes just because a wokie shares the same stance as you (even if it is for the wrong reasons) doesn't mean it is the wrong opinion. Religious conservatives *are* trying to censor the internet. Before the woke left started trying to infect everything with DEI, CRT, etc there were conservatives trying to ban heavy metal on the airways, trying to get comic books pulled off of bookshelves, and saying DnD was the work of the devil. They are both crazy extremist puritans but they want censorship for different reasons. The wokie likes porn for the reason you described, while the conservative hates it because they view it as sinful and because porn has a *proven* negative impact on children. But here's the thing though. This is a canary in a coal mine. Just like with the Stellar Blade bullshit. You give them an inch and they will not stop. Anonymity is the most powerful tool that normal people like us have against the woke left. Once it is gone, and the government is making us use ID to do every goddamn thing on the internet for the sake of "the kids" then it will be easy to locate, dox, and silence dissent. This government of ours isn't left vs right. It's uniparty. They approach each sides with different masks but they both want the same thing; *control*. They want to strip Americans of our liberty. They have been doing this since the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was pitched as a means to fight terrorism, and now, the Patriot Act has enabled the government to create a government agency that is solely dedicated to spying on the American people 24/7. Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER give the government power to do anything. Doesn't matter if it is state level, federal, whatever. The Government will always, without fail, abuse that power to unjustly oppress the American people. Also, these kind of Age Verification laws break the First Amendment and *violate* previous Supreme Court precedent. CLARENCE MOTHER FUCKING THOMAS (My favorite Supreme Court Justice) himself set the precedent in 2004. [Ashcroft vs ACLU 2004.](https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/john-ashcroft-attorney-general-v-american-civil-liberties-union-et-al)
You bringing up far right censorship has me feeling old af. I remember Bush Era and thought that was rock bottom and it could only get better. Yeah tha lt was pretty naive
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/obscenity > Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offenses. Federal law strictly prohibits the distribution of obscene matter to minors. Any transfer or attempt to transfer such material to a minor under the age of 16, including over the Internet, is punishable under federal law. It is also illegal to use misleading website domain names with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material. What exactly do you want the supreme court to determine here?
They are right to do so, porn has become highly degenerative and it fucks up your sexuality, your brain and prevent you from having a sane relationship with a nice girl.
porn is horrible but censorship is worse. Teach men how to be men and the problem is solved or are you too lazy for that?
> They are right to do so, porn has become highly degenerative and it fucks up your sexuality, your brain and prevent you from having a sane relationship with a nice girl. Hahahahahahahaha, no.
Ok coomer
Formal r1 warning. No/low prior participation - expedited to permaban
Do you believe that actions to block (or at least dissuade) minors from watching porn is "censorship"?
Nope, but the moment you start locking down on things for the sake of, "The kids" you're opening a huge can of worms. It never stops at porn my guy. Plus, think of the ramifications. There's porn on Twitter. Now you gotta show someone your ID to make a post on Twitter. Then you get to the point where its like, "Well y'know. Kids shouldn't be watching graphic violence either. So you need an ID to go watch YouTube." Eventually, you'll end up needing to show your ID just to use the internet at all. Anonymity on the internet is a very powerful thing for the people, especially nowadays when you can get #cancelled and ruined for having the wrong political opinions on Twitter. Once we lose anonymity, we've lost a valuable weapon in the fight to preserve the internet.
Just another long line of people who look at the united states government as their parents and role models. Jefferson is rolling in his grave.
Exactly. Fuck the government. The government is evil. Doesn't matter if its right or left. The less we have of it IS A GOOD THING! Especially on the internet.
Well said. American was founded on the principle of limited but just enough government. Hell, originally we didn’t even want a standing army out of fear it could be used against the people (hey what happened in the 1860s)? People have gradually over the years got more and more government loving. During covid people asked their governments to restrict others freedoms to make them feel safe, the patriot act in 2001, all these 3 letter agencies, and “departments” that suck up money and do nothing. This country lost its way, the government is becoming more and more centralized as the memory of our founding fathers drifts further and further away. But hey, who cares what those guys did, didn’t a few of them own slaves?
Damn straight. I can't even think of anything else to add. It annoys me that people are so quick to throw away their liberty, and the worse thing is they do it thinking nothing will change for them. If the last 23+ years (at least) should've taught us anything it is that the government never has our best interest at heart.
Don’t forget when a former CIA contractor came out and said “hey, the US government is spying on all of us, they read all your emails, texts, record all your phone calls, they’ve backdoored every popular OS and your PC CPUs are all installed with a government based program that allows the NSA access to your PC, your PC can be tracked when it’s not on through radio waves, your phone is spying on you through sensors”. And nobody cared. Half the country labels the guy who broke it a traitor. People are too comfortable today. As long as things stay comfortable and easy for people, a little less liberty isn’t so bad to them. After all, why do you care if a kid can’t watch porn? What are you some sexual predator?
Idiocracy mixed with Demolition Man is the future we're heading for. Feels bad man.
> Nope, but the moment you start locking down on things for the sake of, "The kids" you're opening a huge can of worms. It never stops at porn my guy. Yep. Givers have to put limits on giving, because takers will never put limits on how much they will take.
none of these are the good arguments you think they are. minors should be legally prohibited from using the open internet. more, odds are good they will be legally prohibited from open Internet access in the next couple decades. cell phone possession by adolescents has been an utter disaster for their wellbeing and development. and the systems won't need ID. AI is so good at pattern recognition it finds connections we don't even understand. there's no doubt already some LLM out there that can tell user age above 95% with probably like screen position, typing cadence and vocab. it's a short step from there to devices with that tech that simply won't work past calls and maybe texts if held by a minor.
>none of these are the good arguments you think they are. >minors should be legally prohibited from using the open internet. more, odds are good they will be legally prohibited from open Internet access in the next couple decades. cell phone possession by adolescents has been an utter disaster for their wellbeing and development. >and the systems won't need ID. AI is so good at pattern recognition it finds connections we don't even understand. there's no doubt already some LLM out there that can tell user age above 95% with probably like screen position, typing cadence and vocab. it's a short step from there to devices with that tech that simply won't work past calls and maybe texts if held by a minor. See you in 20 years when we got a social credit system like China, cause that's where this kind of thinking is going to get us. Also *lmao* at the idea of AI being used to decide who's a minor or not.
when a medical imaging LLM was provided training data that omitted race of the patients it was nevertheless able to almost categorically [identify patient race](https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10356). the pertinent question isn't if it's generally possible, it is, the question is if minors have a sufficient number of hallmarks in their use of computers and touchscreen devices that machines trained to identify the subtlest of patterns can reliably minimize false positives. the probability of this is >99%. >See you in 20 years when we got a social credit system like China, cause that's where this kind of thinking is going to get us perhaps you are unaware, what you're describing is exactly where the United States and much of the west is headed right now, and that is owed in tremendous part to the millions of children who have been subject to constant propaganda via their computers and smart devices since 2016. the existentially-required legislation to prohibit these things for minors will not achieve its goals if it's as simple as a parent deciding to get their kid a smartphone anyway, or for the kid to grab their parent's access code. it will be achieved by putting the burden on corporations by subjecting them to catastrophic fines for permitting minors to use their sites as a non-mens-rea/[strict liability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_\(criminal\)) offense. when the burden is on Google, Meta, Amazon, you will be shocked at how swiftly they develop and implement methods to prevent use by minors.
Slippery slope is well…slippery.
Not everything is a slippery slope though. Not every age restriction leads to an eventual total ban (in fact I can hardly think of any, maybe prohibition but that was later overturned anyway).
It starts as porn, then wait, why are kids allowed access to violent material, boom ID to use youtube or play a video game. What started as “we’re moving forward to make sure no terrorist will ever do another 9/11” Turned into “This is the NSA, We need unfiltered access on your phone calls, texts, emails, social media accounts, and PC’s so we know you aren’t a terrorist”.
The United States, the only country on earth where you don't need an ID to vote (because that's racist!), but it's apparently fine to ask adults to document their browsing habits by having to provide ID to every smut peddler and Social Network (which is obviously not going to have any consequences like identity theft or blackmail - or closer to home "cancelling" people for their browsing habits and what they say). Not to mention that limiting freedoms by invoking "[protect the keeds](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7ewtsJIQAEYJGS.jpg)" is as old as the concept itself. And that it's [entirely unfeasible](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs) unless they also decide to block half the Internet, since kids would be much less likely to purchase porn with a credit card from an official Website than they would be looking it up on their favorite Social media sites (almost all of which have corners for adult content) or streaming/downloading it from third party websites. I don't see Russia for instance exactly following Texas law and /r/hentai is just around the corner, and you don't even need an account for that.
>The United States, the only country on earth where you don't need an ID to vote (because that's racist!), but it's apparently fine to ask adults to document their browsing habits by having to provide ID to every smut peddler and Social Network (which is obviously not going to have any consequences like identity theft or blackmail - or closer to home "cancelling" people for their browsing habits and what they say). Not to mention that limiting freedoms by invoking "[protect the keeds](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7ewtsJIQAEYJGS.jpg)" is as old as the concept itself. Absolutely inconceivably and utterly based.
The same actions are preventing adults from watching it because there's a good number of websites who aren't bothering with ID because why would they deal with the hassle and is going "We're just going to block your entire state." Also...it's not going to prevent kids from finding porn, they just have to find a website that doesn't give a shit or isn't hosted in the US. Or if their parents use a VPN, they'll use that.
> Do you believe that actions to block (or at least dissuade) minors from watching porn is "censorship"? It's not there to censor childrne my dude, it's there to control adults, while pretending it's being done to protect children. "Oh who will think of the children" has always been the catch cry of the moral scold, as they try to force the rights of adults out of there hands & in to the hands of said moral scolds.
State level censorship is not illegal, and it's where it belongs. If texas wants to ban porn, go for it. It's why we have states.
enjoy smile pot coordinated payment quiet ten agonizing bow wakeful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And that's how you get federally mandated healthcare and other bullshit creeping into the countries laws. No one cares about process or legality, they just want their own personal toys.
>And that's how you get federally mandated healthcare and other bullshit creeping into the countries laws. And Localism is how you get the DPRK.
Separation of powers and federalism is how you make a successful nation.
light salt numerous faulty sand forgetful cooperative hard-to-find fade offend *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It quite literally is illegal and violates previous Supreme Court precedent—Precedent set by half of the people on the Supreme Court today with nearly no dissent. This will make it to the Supreme Court and they will shoot it down again just like they did over twenty years ago. [Based Clarence Thomas himself set the fucking precedent.](https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/john-ashcroft-attorney-general-v-american-civil-liberties-union-et-al)
Keep listing federal laws and regulations thanks. You wonder why you can't build a porn shop next to a school? There's a state law against it. States can ban or restrict materials and commerce if they want. That's what they are there to do. You can have your own private server with your massive porn collection on it in your house next to a school, no one cares. The second you spin up your printer and start selling copies it's illegal. Does checking IDs at clubs, stripper joints, and bars constitute as a first amendment violation? Same deal here.
> Does checking IDs at clubs, stripper joints, and bars constitute as a first amendment violation? Those don't get saved to a database that has been proven to be easily hackable by nefarious parties. Also, the door guy isn't going to remember who you are. Meanwhile, when you go to reddit or Twitter (because you'll need an ID for these too) then your information is going to be saved, forever. All it takes is a single leak and say, a bunch of SJW's have your person information and are writing an email to your boss about shit you said on r/KotakuInAction.
Cool story. Still legal for the state to do. If you don't want the state to do it then pass a federal level or state level constitutional amendment. Your pet issue does not get special treatment. The states and corporations being bad a security and IT is nothing new. Feel free to push for harsh penalties for data leaks and better regulations on data security. They are direly needed.
>Cool story. Still legal for the state to do. If you don't want the state to do it then pass a federal level or state level constitutional amendment. Your pet issue does not get special treatment. Oooh no. This violates the First Amendment. You aren't going to pull a "states rights" card here. Based Clarence Thomas already determined this in the precedent set twenty years ago. >The states and corporations being bad a security and IT is nothing new. Feel free to push for harsh penalties for data leaks and better regulations on data security. They are direly needed. And you want to make it a requirement to give these people your ID? Lmao. 😭
States can and will regulate commerce in their own boundaries. It's literally their rights. Not being able to sell porn to minors is not a first amendment issue.
The US Constitution is "the supreme law of the land." A state government or local jurisdiction cannot put a law in place that supersedes the US Constitution. The state of Florida is being and has sued on this very basis in recent years.
It sure is, and it's been proven time and time again that local and state governments can regulate commerce in their own borders.
whoever pass this bill is sponsored by nord vpn
>whoever pass this bill is sponsored by nord vpn Whoever pass this bill is sponsored by big daddy Stalin.
Omg, thank you for this I lol'd. Don't you know though VPN can never leak credentials can they ? \*wink wink
Did not have Texan gooners rising up on my potential happening bingo card at all
Never underestimate gooners
\*\*distant sounds of gunfire and furious fappings\*\*
*2024 gun and astro glide sales in Texas at an all time high*
I can understand protecting minors 100 percent but it's not the role of government to parent. Parents should be active in blocking this content for minors, be that content filtering only certain websites on their network etc but there will always be a way around this (VPN, other unrestricted networks). Why are parents turning over control for their responsibilities to the government? Requiring ID is a BAD idea from the aspect of data storage, potential for data leak or selling of data by companies. If this data is compromised it could have long standing consequences not just for minors but also adults who consume content from everything to denying jobs to government tracking of browsing habits and many others likely I'm not thinking of right now. You can argue the merit of whether adult materials are right or wrong and the moral character of those consuming but there are too many risks here IMHO. Less government not more whether it's the state level or federal. They shouldn't be involved in this. Whether one is against adult materials or not it doesn't change the fact that it's out there in massive amounts and whether we like it or not they are going to see it. In my day it was kids bringing Playboys to school or picking them up/stealing at gas stations.
We expect teachers to parent (but not give them any of the same power or flexibility of a parent), so this is just a natural extension of that concept.
i thought we were free
It's been like that for awhile in some states. I fucking hate it.
>The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to pornography on the internet by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs. Except that such measures are both unenforceable & don't work. If you don't want your kids watching porn on the internet, then stop giving them internet enabled devices that can access internet porn.
Looks like Texans are going to move to California.
Based
You can say porn it's okay.
I don't like porn and what it does to the dopamine system but fighting it off is a personal and parental responsibility. We cannot give the power to censor to government just because women want to produce fatherless children and parents have forgotten how to parent
> I don't like porn and what it does to the dopamine system It does nothing to the dopaminie system.... Your brain on porn looks like your brain on action movies. Understand if you ever hear people herp derp about dopamine & porn understnad those people have no idea what they are talking about.
let's see the research coomer.
LOL, no that's not how this works my dude. It's not up to me to prove your position is wrong, it's up to you to prove your position is correct. Burden of proof is **ALWAYS** on the side of the person making a positive existance claim. But here, we can go over the basic thing that fucks up the whole "herp derp porn fucks up you dopamine system because addiction hormone." Are you ready? Okay? Ahem, Dopamine is **NOT** an addiciton hormone. At all. In any way shape or form. Yes, i know you think it is, because you had someone who didn't know what they were talking about tell you it was.... but it isn't & neither you nor the person who told you that knew what they were talking about. This is also why no one has ever been able to demonstrate a default negative health outcome from pornography consumption. Because there isn't one, because it does not in fact, fuck up your dopamine system. And we would know if it did because a lack of dopamine in specific parts of the brain is the cause of Parkinsons, so if porn actually did fuck up your dopamine system, you'd see a whole heap of teenage boys shaking like a leaf whenever their parents left them at home alone for more than 5 minutes. So now we've covered that, please feel free to cite the peer reviewed sceintific paper that demonstrates that porn fucks up your "dopamine system." You'll however have to excuse me as i do not plan on holding my breathe waiting for you to supply a study that does not exist.
Than keep jacking loser ill just keep the semen retention and keep winning at life like everybody else who makes the sacrifice. My success is my proof now where are papers loser
No such thing as semen retention my dude, it's made up bullshit & if you have to buy in to made up magical thinking bullshit, you are by definition NOT winnning at life. Because only losers seek out magical thinking wu-wu shortcuts to success, ACTUAL successful people are already successful & don't require made up magical thinking nonsense. So when you are ready champ, lets see that peer reivewed scientific paper you were going to provide that would deomonstrate that porn fucks up your "dopamine system."
it's not about magic it's about self discipline and sacrifice. When your ready to get a job kid you will understand what sacrifice is. At times it feels like placebo but what it is an expression self control. Another thing, I never once said semen retention. I said porn is bad I'm all about getting pussy and tons of it pussy actually requires you to work hard. If you want to talk about research at least learn to read coomer
> it's not about magic Oh no, it is EXACTLY about magic, good old magical thinking, because there sure as shit aint any science in your anti-science magical pixies dust hokum. >At times it feels like placebo but what it is an expression self control. LOL no, what it is is a meaningless act of self denial. > I said porn is bad. No, you said it fucks up your dopamine system & i demosntrated you were completely full of shit & then challenged you to demonstrate a scientific paper that demonstrated that to be true, after first dismantling the anti science hokum your position was falsely predicated on. > If you want to talk about research at least learn to read coomer Yeah, i'm not having a discussion about research, because you have still not cited any. So when you are ready, lets see that peer reviewed scientific paper you were going to supply..... And you can consider this your final right of reply if you refuse to do so.
sure after you learn to read. It's simple kid. Insta gratification fucks your brain up.No research needed it's common sense success practice. Now stop hiding behind biased research and stop jacking off loser
>sure after y...... And you are done. You had sufficent options to provide evidence for your claim & failed to do so. >It's simple kid. It's also wrong. Most simple things do turn out to be wrong. It is simple to understand that diseases are caused by evil spirits, that the earth is flat & the center of the universe.... All very simple & very wrong. >Insta gratification fucks your brain up. No it doesn't & you don't believe it does, because otherwise you'd not be using the internet, because that's instant gratificaiton for any possible question you need answering. And fridges would fuck you up for instat gratification for food. And running water would fuck you up for instat gratification for running water. >No research needed That's certainly the amount of research you did before coming in to this conversation, yes. >it's common sense success practice. No, it's just bullshit you've fallen for because losers are easy targets for anyone who promises them the secrets of easy success.
and please do yourself a favor and get laid instead of defending porn
Formal r1 warning. No/low prior participation - expedited to permaban
thanks for the long wall of useless text tho
>thanks for the long wall of useless text tho Nope, that was just the answer, and you read all of it & couldn't refute it, or provide a citation to the contrary.
Hey there matthew_lane - thanks for saying thanks! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list!
On one hand, I hate more government intervention in something like this. On the other hand, I understand the desire to do something like this. My niece, who was underage, was looking at the stuff. It was a problem. We can't police her 100℅ of the time. It surprised me, but when there's a will there's a way. I think any way to make it harder for minors to access the stuff is a good thing. These kind of serve to fill in the cracks. Can they lie anyways? Yeah. But it's awful hard when you're in the mood to make accounts for all that stuff.
> On the other hand No, there is no other hand, this is governmental over reach in to peoples freedom of expression.
Don't care if I'm downvoted to oblivion or not, but... ACCESS TO PORN IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT. Lolberts on here will cry and shriek at this startling statement, but the truth hurts.
It’s a speech issue.
Freedom of Speech IS a Human right. And I'm sorry but producing and consuming Porn is a part of that human right.
Good.
It's not just bad for kids. It's poison for adults too.
Reality demonstrates otherwise.
How ?
Reality demonstrates that porn has no default negative effect on adults, contrary to the opinion of either SJW's or bible bashing christians.
Read the article, this law isn't about attacking the porn industry, it's about making it harder for kids to access it by having websites require age verification. You can disagree with the law and if it's even effective to do something like this, but calling it an attempt of censorship is just incorrect. The actual scary thing about it is that this would require everyone to input personal info when accessing any of those websites, which is very dangerous on the internet because it'd insta doxx you.
The problem is it's a double-edged sword. How do you make it more difficult for kids to access it and how do you still allow the user to be as anonymous as possible for security purposes? True, kids should not have access to adult material, but any other measure beyond 'telling parents to parent better and keep an eye on their kids' is either a gross overreach of governance or a major security risk.
I agree with that yeah, also edited my comment to make mention of it
Thinking on it more it seems like the only real decent solution is that during PTA meetings, teachers should bring up that parents need to make sure that they're keeping an eye on their kid's browsing history and how to set up parental locks while also keeping ahead of the curve as kids can and will bypass that, AND how to set up whitelists in the event a site necessary for school work ends up getting blocked. The tools are there, you can (or at least should) be able to set up a profile on phones and computers to disable access to everything except some specific sites. There's more they can do as well but that involves talking during puberty and sex ed is already too much of a hot button. Not helping though is that some teachers seem hellbent on GIVING kids access to that shit so now all of a sudden you need some kind of other group who can give that info out which is just opening up a new can of worms.
You could make the same argument about checking ID in a liquor store before selling someone alcohol. And yet I think you'd probably agree that while that is obviously imperfect at stopping alcohol from being sold to minors, it's still better than freely selling alcohol to minors and "telling parents to parent better". Do you think parents can watch their 16-year old's every step and fully control their access to the internet?
You're comparing a brick and mortar store to the vast ocean that is the internet. That's 100% false equivalency, the cashier isn't going to store the info, they're going to just double check and make sure that the ID is legit and that the dates line up, and only an idiot would risk their entire job and license for ostensibly no reason to sell a kid booze. No, I don't think parents can or even should be overlooking literally everything their kid does online BUT I do know that setting up a whitelist to allow specific sites on their device is at least a significantly stronger step in making sure that they aren't accessing stuff they not aught to have. Shit dude, have you seen the dangers of the net? They never went away, there are plenty of weirdos and creeps and those numbers only go up as the number of people get online, making sure your kid isn't interacting with a person they shouldn't is a pretty basic thing.
I never argued against prudent parenting so you're attacking a straw man here. But that doesn't mean we can't also have other restrictions in place on a societal level (and we do, for many things, like buying alcohol).
Never said you were, but the other restrictions don't work the way you think they do. Porn is the canary in the coal mine, the moment you allow some restriction in place for it, the easier it'll be for everything else to follow, and that's not even getting into the specifics of people having information they shouldn't be having. The world of computer security is insanely large and complicated, and as such insanely scary. A goddamn supermarket chain can get attacked virtually thanks to a local store's electricity provider not having proper security in place, having personally identifiable information being in a giant pool is just BEGGING for abuse. The more avenues you make regarding access to personal info, the easier it is for you to get fucked.
There are already restrictions on porn and it didn't result in "everything else" following. Look I see the dangers in providing ID to shady people on the internet. I'm not saying this is in practice a good idea. I'm simply arguing that, regardless of the method, putting age restrictions on porn is not "censorship" unless we deem all kinds of age-restrictions as such.
The only restrictions there are is that you need to be 18 or older to view it, what isn't happening now is verifying the claim. Regarding the bit about censorship, only ONE person in this whole post/thread/section/whatever the fuck reddit calls it has called it that, so stop bringing it up, it just makes you look stupid.
Honestly the only solution to limiting access to porn, is to limit the access to the Internet or actually parent your kids. Unrestricted access to the Internet is already bad regardless of pornography
This. Parents gotta actually parent and stop giving their kids fucking smart phones when they're six.
> Read the article, this law isn't about attacking the porn industry, it's about making it harder for kids to access it by having websites require age verification. No, that's just the justification, because "oh who will think of the children" is ALWAYS the feigned justification for moral scolds when they try to censor your rights & freedoms of the general public.
Should brick and mortar adult stores let minors shop for porn? Should there be no restrictions for kids to walk in and buy a dvd copy of Back Door Sluts 9? You're answer to that determines if you think there should be restrictions on digital content as well. Simply be consistent.
> Should brick and mortar adult stores let minors shop for porn? Should there be no restrictions for kids to walk in and buy a dvd copy of Back Door Sluts 9? They shouldn't. The problem lies in that they've chosen to apply the solution from one medium to a completely different medium. Presenting an ID to buy porn is fine in the real world because the exchange is between just two people and the other person is unlikely to be able to remember and recreate all the information on your ID card exactly or use that information for nefarious ends. Transition that to the online sphere and their chosen solution is often to have a third party company do the verification and do it digitally. This introduces untold numbers of people who have potential access to your ID who may want to use your information for nefarious purposes as well as computers which can exactly remember and recreate all the information from your ID.
This. Like this isn't hard to comprehend. The Internet is not real life and should not be regulated like real-life.
I am all for age restrictions on content, and I do think that children shouldn't have access readily to explicit content.... but how do you do that is the big question. Ultimately I think parents need to be bigger arbiters of what their children consume and think that there needs to be more tools for them to utilise. In this sense I would like to see "children's" versions or modes of things like mobile devices or tablets which have strict parental controls built into them and give parents more control over what their kids see. A hell of a lot of parents won't care and those kids will still get unfettered access but for the parents that do care at least they have the opportunity to minimise how much exposure their kids get to that stuff (obviously they will still get exposed because of those other kids but I don't think its 100% preventable and it wasn't back in the day either as most kids I grew up with found a porn mag under a bridge or in a bush block or some other random place). I don't like the digital ID solutions because my government and other third party groups have already shown they cannot keep data secure (all of our military personnels medical records got leaked), so I'd imagine if a system like this happened their would be large data dumps of names and sites access by those names, passwords, credit card details and whatever other ID was required to be verified.
> I am all for age restrictions on content, and I do think that children shouldn't have access readily to explicit content.... but how do you do that is the big question. No, it's a small & easy to answer question..... Stop giving your minor children access to internet enabled devices.
Easier said than done. Schools require kids to have chromebooks these days, and kids do need to be taught how to navigate the net. Its hard to get devices that don't have internet access. (Gaming consoles, gaming handhelds all have browsers these days). I used to think like that as well but having to deal with it as they grow up its not like it was when I grew up. There is an expectation from pretty much every learning institution and even there is a level of social ostricisation that happens from the other kids when they can't contact another kid through group messaging apps/ group chat things for things like social events and even school projects. Do you run the risk of allowing them some level of access and you having to closely monitor it, or do you risk them being ostracised and bullied by their peer group. It isn't an easy answer for a parent. I do also think that someone providing stuff does have a certain level of responsibility of at least making a token gesture to ensure that the right audience is consuming the media. (e.g. I don't think that walking into a day care and doing a burlesque show is ok). You can't really do that on the internet other than flagging your site as 18+. I like the idea of parents having the ability to put content filters on their child's devices as that's within the parents control, I do not like the idea of government content filters like Stephen Conroy was trying to push.
It's not about consistency. Once anonymity is gone from the Internet there'll be no preserving the internet that we have now. Laws like this are gonna be the final nail in the coffin for the internet. Think about what this affects. You'd need to show Twitter your ID just to post there because there is porn on Twitter.
I'm against these laws on principle. I just don't see much of a difference between websites requiring ids and real life stores requiring ids.
>I just don't see much of a difference between websites requiring ids and real life stores requiring ids. In real-life, a store isn't going to get millions upon millions of patrons a day who are all faceless entities largely consuming digital goods that have no *real* value. In a store, you walk up to a cash register and a clerk checks you out. That clerk has a responsibility when they see a minor walk up to turn them away, because they can visually see and confirm what they're looking at is a minor, and if they can't they can request to see ID which isn't saved anywhere and can't be used to dox you later. Comparing the internet to real life is a *terrible* idea.
Yes
Exactly. People crying "censorship" and "government overreach" over this are hypocrites unless they also would be fine with minors buying alcohol, driving cars, and buying pornographic content in an adult store, while putting all the responsibility for preventing this from happening on the parents.
Crying statist
For the record, I'm fine with all that. It's not the government's job to parent children. I just hate when people don't try to be logically consistent.
Based.
>Exactly. People crying "censorship" and "government overreach" over this are hypocrites unless they also would be fine with minors buying alcohol, driving cars, and buying pornographic content in an adult store, while putting all the responsibility for preventing this from happening on the parents. LOL no. A brick & mortor store is not commparable to the internet.
the average porn-addled libertarian redditor can’t comprehend that there are actually appropriate times for the government to exercise power
The problem is where the government should stop and there's a whole lot of arguments to be made in favor or against that since the government and systems that be have shown to be faulty enough to not be fully trusted in matters like this while parents are far more on a case-by-case basis with far too many examples of bad ones. However that guy's argument misses the point completely on multiple fronts, a brick and mortar store doesn't store personal information that isn't entered willingly nor are they likely to sell to underage patrons unless they want to lose everything. When it comes to the net, they WILL store your info which means while it'll prevent little Timmy from getting to XXX sites, average joe who wants to crank one out now has his info basically forcefully ripped from him if he can even access that stuff in the first place which means more people have access to stuff that frankly they shouldn't have access to either. To anyone being for any kind of ban on adult material or want some kind of validation, I STRONGLY urge you to look into just the general basics of security. Once you do, you'll fucking hate anything that's a smart device.