Asklemmy

Considering these are Republican states, they're just going to define Wikipedia articles about gender dysphoria as pornographic lol

Think carefully and double check before you ever agree with a Republican about anything.

The government has way too much influence over children already. Governments could do so much for children that would actually benefit them (better education, free lunch at school, better public libraries, ensure no kids are starving because of poor parents, no wars in foreign countries, whatever) but instead they use children to increase their control over people.

I think it has nothing to do with children. It is about requiring ID registration for online services so that identities can be tracked. Every time authoritarians want to push another mechanism of control it's always "about the children".

Its not the governments job to make up for absent parenting.

If you dont want your kids seeing things or doing shit online, its your job to monitor them and talk to them about it.

Stop throwing your kids a tablet and expecting that to be the fuckin parent.

If I didn't want my kids looking at porn online, I already have plenty of things to prevent them from doing so.

Not giving them access to a device without supervision. Using firewall filters. Child-mode browser/OS settings.

We don't need more regulation for this. Parents just need to get off their ass and do their own parenting. But these bills aren't actually designed to protect children. They're designed to gain access to adults' personal info and will be used more for oppression than safety.

Some principles and things to note:

1. Adults' expression to one another must not be restrained to only what is suitable for children.
2. Sexuality is a normal thing that most people are interested in. It is not inherently illegitimate, deviant, or corrupting.
3. Children and adolescents who are kept in ignorance and fear of sexuality are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse by adults.
4. Anonymous and pseudonymous speech are necessary to the freedom of a free society.
5. The chief threat of sexual abuse to children does not come from anonymous or pseudonymous speakers on the Internet, but from family members and acquaintances — especially those with authority over the child. As such, if the question is "Who should be subject to greater scrutiny, to prevent child sexual abuse?" the answer will be "parents, guardians, teachers, youth pastors, etc." at a much higher priority than "anonymous and pseudonymous Internet users".
6. Identification requirements for speakers or audiences are a necessary step to violent and unlawful censorship, and are not necessary for legitimate purposes.

Given these principles and observations, I conclude that the expected effect of such regulations would be to increase sexual abuse of children, while also strongly harming the ability of a free society to discuss and educate about sexuality.

I like the idea of having a cleaner internet for under 12s but I hate the idea of giving the government more control of the internet. Ultimately I side with freedom. I grew up on the wildwest internet and turned out fine. These kids will also be fine.

Usually when politicians says "to protect children", it's not about children.

There's no way for a government to do it that wouldn't interfere with adults' privacy.

None of these politcians who push for all those "protect the children" laws actually gives a shit about child safety. The only thing that such laws mange to do is restrict freedom of speech and expression for everyone including children.

If you are a careless parent, then no law is going prevent your kids from watching porn.

I'm against heavy handed regulation because it pushes people into more dangerous spaces, if you're a teenager or unID'd adult who can't access real porn sites do you decide not to look at boobs or do you seek out unregulated communities on places like discord?

Would you like your kid seeing generic regulated porn or seeing the kinds of things people can't post on regulated porn sites? Plus not only is there the fact that the content on underground sites is by their nature the stuff not allowed on regulated sites but also do you want your kid taking to the creeps that hang out in porn sharing groups on discord?

It's the parents job to do that, not the government's. I have kids, when they were at the age I didn't want them seeing porn I made sure it was blocked, and I educated them on safe internet browsing. I don't need the government's help with that.

The GOP is also the party of the chronically ill and the criminally insane. They just don't want to admit that they want China's great firewall style world wide web after wasting millions of dollars going after TikTok.

It's almost like porn has been available, to varying degrees, to youth, for decades if not centuries. Even discounting all the good arguments like "small government" and "think of the kids is a dumb excuse to curtail privacy"... You have to ask, what's the goal?

Keeping kids away from porn? Why is that an important goal for the government? Is it one the government is even capable of doing? At what age is porn OK? 16? 18? 21? Never? Did you ever look at porn when you were in high school? Do you regret it?

Is there any real research that porn is corrosive to a 16 year old? I mean we can't even pass simple, popular gun legislation because the NRA swears up and down we don't know "for sure" if it will save more than a couple lives. We can't even have an EPA that enforces laws, while millions of people suffer from asthma and other stuff that kills them.

I'm out of the loop on this one, but it sounds like yet another attempt at SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act). Back in 2011, people had to fight hard because the US congress was attempting to gain control over the internet. The congress' reasoning was that they wanted to hinder piracy, but the implications of the bill was so much more.

I don't recall the full history of this, but I believe that as soon as SOPA was turned down, a new bill regarding preventing child pornography was proposed. And that bill had basically the same implications, but if you were against it this time, the congress had implied that you were supporting child pornography.

It seems like the state's attempt at gaining control of the internet is never ending, since they can propose new bills as soon as the previous bill is voted out. Basically the "throw enough shit at a wall and some of it will stick"-tactic.

as a zoomer who had access to porn at a young age, that shit was not good for me at all. i think it's pretty fair to suggest that people below the age of 13 should not be looking at porn - but i wouldn't even know how one could even go about actually regulating it

Exclusively used for fascism and propaganda. If it's "for the children" it's usually not and just propaganda to push more fascism. If kids want to lie and click the "I am 18" button despite not being 18, literally who cares lol. Before the internet, kids would steal nude magazines. Also that's how they discover things about themselves instead of being completely left in the dark until 18. Should definitely still keep the requirement of clicking that button, but more so for plausible deniability on the website's side. It's only religious extremists that consider this stuff bad.

We shouldn't let the government parent our kids. I know it's human nature to be lazy, but the government isn't the answer.

This isn't a government issue. This is a bad parent issue. How about instead forcing routers to have easy ways to block adult content?

Governments should never stop into the role of a parent.

I thought we already had a flawless system for this where you put in your birthday.

Where are all my Jan 1 1970 friends at?

It is still very shocking to us in Europe that the United States wants to control pornography before guns. I don't know many people who have killed themselves by masturbating.

I've started looking at porn on the internet at 8 or 9 years old, and nothing bad happened to me.

I understand why the law says that porn is for 18+ only, but that's it. The access shouldn't be restricted. It's the parents' role to stop kids from going on those websites, if any.

Anyone that thinks kids won't find a way around any and all blocks is an outright idiot

I oppose on principle any attempt to further restrict, marginalize, exclude, or otherwise other young people.

I also oppose on principle any attempt to worsen surveillance state overreach.

And I oppose out of sheer fucking common sense anything a Republican says.

For all these reasons and more, I oppose this entire concept and its execution.

Ahh I see the strategy. Put out this trafficking movie, hype dems as pedos (and commies) and stir up a whole terd of doo doo. Classic.

I'm not uploading my ID to shit.

Children get their own internet. If they get in adult internet, then they get juvenile detention and a criminal file, their parents are arrested for child endangerment and child services take over.

And anyone complaining about what is on the internet gets an helicopter ride to the deep sea from 10'000 feet.

Unpopular opinion, but I’d rather not allow kids on the regular internet.

I’m surprised these issues haven’t been fixed and that the only method I hear about fixing them are ones that break the internet as we know it. Why not think of like some type of sub internet designed for kids that separates them from the chaos of the regular internet…. If I’ve learned on thing living in America it’s that money is wore more than kids or kids futures so it’s hopeless anyway.

Like traffic from a device could be locked down until the users proper age is reached.

Or just try to build better communities where parents take care of their kids.

I don't need the government's help. Plus it's probably a front for keeping kids uninformed. I'm more concerned about Florida teaching that there was some benefit to slavery.

In the UK, The Online Safety Bill is almost about to become law. Without going into the full details, the government basically wants to monitor everyone's messages to stop child pornography and protect people (and other stuff too).

The problem is, they want companies to scan messages and photos as they are uploaded and to give themselves backdoor access to E2E encryption services.

It's very likely the UK will lose access to iMessage, Signal, WhatsApp etc as they would rather withdraw their services from the UK than break their promise to their users.

It's a well-intentioned goal that's impossible to implement without egregiously privacy violating measures.

It’s impossible. That makes it perfect for building an unlimited enforcement apparatus, which is the real goal.