- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@beehaw.org
You must log in or # to comment.
Does anyone else think that this is kind of a bad article? It doesn’t at all explain why the headline is true.
Does anyone else think that this is kind of a bad article? It doesn’t at all explain why the headline is true.
Its just an excuse. Its not about “protecting the children”. Its a war on free, open, anonymous internet. They want to be able to track, censor and remove any individual who leans their dirty secrets. No longer youll be able to read about, for example, all the illegal shit Trump did. You’d already be blacklisted, banned, censored or just jailed. That is the end goal, nothing else.
Yes, and to be fair, it doesn’t mean that protecting children is not a side effect of restrictions.
It doesn’t do that. None of this does that
Do you honestly believe that imposing actual age verification checks instead of just asking how old you are won’t reduce at least some children from accessing porn? Of course some can get around it but not all kids are gonna do that.
They’ll trade around magazines, go buy hentai from a shop that doesn’t care, or one of the ones with access will print and distribute it. My area had questionable internet circa 2014 and all of what I listed we did, I was the one directing the others to the shop with hentai.
Also who gives a damned if kids have porn, if they’re old enough to find it then the solution is to teach them responsibility. Better than pretending sex doesn’t exist and getting a bunch of pregnant teens because they’re instincts are still functional.
Just a strict reduction in the number of kids looking at porn is an extremely bad metric. Just one child out if the several million or so in the U.K. would technically be a reduction. And the kids going around it is precisely why this sort of regulation doesn’t work.
You have to ask what your goal is. Do you actually just want a strict reduction in the number of kids looking at pornography as if all pornography is created equal. Kids will just go to less moderated sites which will contain higher rates of child pornography, other rape depictions, etc.
These laws are generally supported by two types of people: ones who know how it will be abused to stifle free speech (see: ID required to see protestors arrested by police) and dinosaurs that think the internet works identically to the video rental store.
Edit: I think the reason your comment was downvoted was because of the first sentence. It doesn’t protect children. Not even the most ideal “just gives up immediately after the popup” child.
Children looking at pornography is insignificant compared to my right to free speech and freedom of expression, it is the job of parents to stop their children from looking at porn, not porn companies or me, or anyone else.
What I DO honestly believe is that people who are worried about children looking at pornography are creepy mother fuckers.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It can be bad for free speech and it can be restricting some kids from accessing porn.
Absolutely, I just refuse to debate people who are using this issue to make bad faith arguments trying to restrict free speech. People worried about kids viewing pornography are creepy weirdos in more than one way.
