- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
My parents had a porn blocker, and all it made me do was learn enough about computers to circumvent it. Even if they put age verification in front of every porn site in the world there’s still torrents and chat rooms and forums all over where you can find it, and kids will find it. Next thing they’ll mandate is putting toothpaste back in the tube.
Trying to stop people from doing something is a sure fire way to guarantee they will do that thing.
It’s not that. It’s that if you tell a horny teenager that there’s pictures of naked people somewhere they’ll move heaven and earth to get to it.
toothpaste back in the tube
Well now there’s an apt metaphor… :-P
I just think of it as a safety net to prevent (or at least reduce the risk) of young children accidently stumbling upon something nasty or graphic that they didn’t mean to.
This should also be done by proper parenting and supervision but as technology and internet devices are friggin everywhere I don’t think it’s a bad idea for parents to also have some decent filters on their internet connection.
Doesn’t stop someone who even knows half way what they are doing, but by that point hopeful parents will have talked and educated their children about things before there’s a concern about intention seeking stuff out.
Porn sites have had “Confirm you are over 18” since the dial up days. That’s about as much of a safety net as I think is necessary or practicable.
A decent filter on a network (think pi-hole and next dns and the like) helps block adverts, trackers, scam sites, shady pop ups as well as bog standard porn sites etc
Internet is full of things that it’s easy to accidentally stumble on that you wouldn’t want a young kid to see and I think it’s a reasonable step to have some basic levels of controls on your own network
The onus is on the parents to manage internet access in a way the feel best and shouldn’t be forced or assumed. definitely not to porn sites (or any other site!) to collect entirely unnecessary personal data which would inevitably get leaked.
I totally agree and I put in a good faith effort to block that stuff from my kids’ devices using a pihole and what’s available on their phones. But I remember being their age and getting away with things because I figured out the workarounds.
At the very least it’ll teach them a little about networking and computers which will serve them well in their careers.
Absolutely, that’s why I keep saying “accidentally” - anyone who thinks an internet filter will stop someone with any determination is kidding themselves.
Instead of the age confirmation dialog, they should implement an age-captcha, like “identify these musical artists” or “click on all the squares with physical storage media.”
At least those whippersnappers will learn a little history
What happens when the data in this “safety net” is breached and tons of peoples IDs get leaked? So safe.
I’m talking about network filters at the home level. Like a pinhole or nextdns. Ones the network owner is control of and can log or not log as they choose to. Parents can set up their own safety net if they choose.
I was Responding to the comment “my parents had a porn blocker” etc
I do not want some dodgy website to be collecting personal IDs that would be an obvious target and/or just get leaked accidebtly.
I am a parent and I have decided not to worry about this stuff. Teens will look at porn and that is just a fact about our existence. I don’t have to like it or approve of it or concern myself with it.
Teenagers will. Young children though may accidentally stumble upon something nasty which is far from age appropriate and something they aren’t ready for.
Having good network controls can help with that, but so does good supervision and education about internet safety.
Mine straight up used Spyware. I learned to make multiple copies of older sessions to cover up anything I wanted, then I replaced current sessions just like they did on security cameras in the movies lol.
Even if there was some secure, hardened way of verifying people’s ages without handing over PII to random websites, these age verification laws are still utterly ridiculous.
It’s not the government’s job to parent your kids on the internet. If you don’t want your kids visiting specific websites or viewing specific content, you take 15 minutes out of your goddamn day to do your job as a parent, and set up a content blocker on your home network.
Can’t you just use a VPN to get past a content block? Sounds exactly like a project a 14 year old me would research
Teaching the youth to protect their Internet identity feels like a win.
How’d you get your user name like that?
You can update your display name on your instance website.
So China is actually based?
Perhaps, but most of the good ones are paid, and I would try to set up some way to monitor the internet traffic if I really wanted to go that far.
you take 15 minutes out of your goddamn day to do your job as a parent, and set up a content blocker on your home network.
Or, I don’t know, talk to your kid?
Like the average person has a clue how to configure a content blocker. LOL
The sicko in me hopes they spend the next two weeks linking every policymaker in the state to their pornography habits and just dump the whole dataset online. Yeah, it would probably counterproductive and not great for democracy but I wouldn’t it be the sickest burn of all time?
Ironically it would be so much easier to do that if they actually implemented the law they’re suing over, which demands they record the ID of everyone who uses the site.
Hmm, the article is a little confusing, but it sounds like they’re mostly just complaining about the age verification, not really suing over that specifically. The real sticking point, and the one they actually stand a good chance of winning in court is about the warning they’re being required to display that’s both libelous and factually false. Texas for better or worse is within their rights to require age verification, even the very odious version of it being proposed that would require collecting state IDs, so it’s unlikely that they would actually win if that was their only issue with the law. Fortunately Texas (and others) massively overstepped by trying to slap a health and safety warning a la cigarette packages onto porn sites since they let a bunch of nutty politicians write the text of the message rather than actual medical professionals (probably because they couldn’t find any respectable medical professional that would endorse their wacky notions).
Not really. It does kind of tread on the first amendment. Like, imagine I wasn’t allowed to say something to you because the government doesn’t allow me to. What does that sound like? Like, you can’t put barriers on free speech.
deleted by creator
They restrict speech that violates the rights of others. And much of that is in civil court, not criminal. And a lot more of that is consumer protection in regards to how to legally sell something, not simple speech. You’re confusing a lot of things with speech that are absolutely falling under entirely different regulations. And to be clear, the lawsuit does claim both aspects are violating the constitution. It’s not just the warning that they’re complaining about.
You’re misunderstanding in your explanation shows you are less well versed in this aspect than I am.
Edit: it’s also one of the first claims being made in the lawsuit. So. There’s that.
Double edit: government can’t pass laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” it does not limit it to criticism at all
There is no absolute right to free speech as has been ruled again and again and again. Restricting access to pornography to adults is one of the areas that has been ruled as an allowable restriction, or more accurately there are laws against providing children with pornography, just like there are laws restricting access to alcohol and tobacco. The interesting argument in this case is, can the state require a specific mechanism of restriction be employed. Looked at another way, would the case hold up if instead of porn we were talking about alcohol? If Texas required a site selling wine for instance to maintain a database of customers state IDs would that be legal? I suspect the answer would be yes, but it’s debatable, so it’s risky to bring a lawsuit with that as its sole basis.
The warning on the other hand, that’s a MUCH stronger argument. More so even than censoring speech, compelling speech is looked down on far more severely. The law is asserting as facts, things that at best are debatable, and at worst are just downright lies, and forcing sites to repeat those dubious “facts” is really not going to go over well. They are so bad in fact as to verge in libel. Focusing on the warning label is a pretty easy slam dunk in their case, while going after the ID portion is much more iffy. I don’t think they’ll be successful in getting the law overturned on the basis of the ID collection, but I do think they’ll succeed on the basis of the required warning label.
Government has curtailed free speech only when the burden is justified by it’s benefit. Here they’re saying it fails, not because they’re prescribing a specific method but because it’s curtailing free speech beyond what is beneficial to the payout. It’s high burden, but low effectiveness in its states goal. Hence why they’re saying it’s being used to curtail speech they simply don’t like.
Edit: and no, a database being kept fails scrutiny as it doesn’t serve the stated benefit.
Exactly. Malicious compliance, while reminding people exactly why they shouldn’t be so quick to give up their anonymity on the internet.
I see what you’re saying about it not being good for democracy…we shouldn’t have politicians making decisions based on their personal use, and trying to avoid scrutiny of that use…but at the same time, we have that anyway. Honestly, at this point, burn it all down. Make the entire apparatus of government so transparent that the shitheels currently in office can’t justify staying on. Make it to where the only people who can function in elected positions are political monks.
I strongly support this and would activly do it if I had the means
Get them and Grindr to do a collab.
Not all heros wear capes
Some wear strap ons
“You show me some lazy prick who’s laying around all day watching game shows and stroking his penis and I’ll show you someone who’s not causing any fucking trouble”
-George Carlin
Republicans really believe shit like this and banning abortion will be successful at restoring the nuclear family… at gunpoint.
What it will really do is increase sexual assault, suicide, violence in general…
Of course that will be everyone else’s fault for not submitting to their attempts at coercion correctly. Republicans insist on personal responsibility, exclusively for their many enemies and explicitly not for themselves.
The funniest bit is, they are the reason for the death of the nuclear family and the reason it won’t be restored. If you give the owner class all the money out of the asses of the working citizens that would have kids, herp derp they won’t have kids.
If they really wanted the “traditional American family” to come back, they need only restore tax levels to pre-reagan levels, and actually enforce them. Instead they’d rather threaten everyone for masturbating instead of making new wage slaves they can’t afford to raise so Republicans can also get that dopamine hit of schadenfreude by calling them irresponsible for having kids they can’t afford.
You want to restore the nuclear family? Make it financially viable for us to have one.
One of the main reasons I don’t have children is because it’s too goddamn expensive.
Also I’m sterile. But there’s nothing anyone can do about that.
Fertility issues are also massively on the rise, probably just another side effect of all the pollution we let oligarchs inflict for private profit.
And
NeroBezos/Walton/Buffet/Koch/etc counted while humanity burned.None of my 4 kids, ages 16 - 23, want to or plan on having children.
Porn hub should make a VPN and offer it for free to people in texas They could call it VaginaPenisNards
Republican states really want everyone to be as miserable as possible.
If everyone is miserable and all vices are banned, there will be nowhere else to turn to but religion and that’s exactly what they want. Religion is authoritarian by default and the main message of it is comply or else which fits right into the Republican’s plan for us all.
From reading about the law it sounds like they are trying to take a page from CA’s overreaching prop 65 law that effectively labels everything a potential carcinogen. Based on the data the main beneficiary of this are a handful of law firms. I wouldn’t be surprised if this law is backed by a few law firms who smell easy money.
The irony of this lol 🤣
Let them go back to jerking off to the underwear catalogue then.
Has any site actually tried implement this bullshit?
Here in Lousy-ana, pornhub has a popup a id verification page.
I think the mormon cultist state has that too now.
Any other sites? Sounds like pornhub is the only one since they are so well know.
So far its pornhub and their partner sites like Redtube, youporn,and xhamster.
Ha, so one company is complying. Did the others just IP ban the state or not care?
I thought they just blocked it in Louisiana and just had some sort of video telling you to call your rep to fix it. I’m too lazy to find a VPN endpoint in Louisiana to confirm though. So the article I read may be out of date.
fuck porn
Many states have been doing this.
Removed by mod
Porn isn’t bad, but the porn industry certainly is. Pornhub didn’t give a shit about child porn existing on their site until it became a bigger story, and then they only deleted it to save their own ass. I know that these laws don’t really tackle the real issues, but at the end, i feel like what’s really suffering, is the porn industy, and i honsetly couldn’t care less about it. Porn is very driven by greed, so i don’t know how well something decentralized like the fediverse would work for it, or a government owned porn site… idk.
