There are a lot of GOP-controller legislatures in the USA pushing through so-called “child protection” laws, but there’s a toll in the form of impacting people’s rights and data privacy. Most of these bills involve requiring adults to upload a copy of their photo ID.
Considering these are Republican states, they’re just going to define Wikipedia articles about gender dysphoria as pornographic lol
Think carefully and double check before you ever agree with a Republican about anything.
This is literally the goal. They are using porn as a trojan horse because they know nobody is going to stand up and fight them on letting children see porn
Think carefully and double check before you ever agree with a
Republicanpolitician about anything.FTFY
I guess, but like, there’s only one party that wants me in a
concentrationconversion therapy camp for being trans.That doesn’t make the rest automatically trustworthy. Just not genocidal. Though I tend to agree with Progressives and Socialist Dems or Socialists more often than not. Regular, middle of the road Dems, not as much.
Not genocidal eh? Ask a Democrat how many people they think Earth can support long term, then subtract that from Earth’s current population. Your answer is how many people they, at some level, believe need to be gone.
Perhaps, but it was a bipartisan effort that led to requiring ID to buy music.
Requiring ID to buy music?? What is this?
Sure, and I’m not saying both parties don’t want to surveil and control the population, but as you might be able to understand I’m a bit more focused on the Party that has all but made extermination of people like me the Party platform.
I’ve never heard anyone call for the extermination of queer communists (or whatever category you’re referring to).
I’m trans. If they simply take away my access to gender affirming care they’re as good as murdering me, because I won’t last long.
Furthermore, they believe being trans is a mental illness and that we’re all groomers and rapists. It’s not much of a logical leap for them to then declare that they’re “hospitalizing us” because we present a threat to ourselves and to public safety. They already call gender affirming care “self mutilation” and they actually believe that it’s contagious and making their children trans. You’re blind if you can’t see where that’s going.
Me being a communist just gives them a reason to shoot me when we start WW3 with China lol
All politiicans should be listened to with scepticism, but the Republicans have gone to full on lies, alternative truths, fraud, grifting and fascism. It’s not a both sides issue.
This attempt of bothsidesing has failed.
deleted by creator
As an analogy, should governments allow children access to strip clubs and have parents handle it or should that be illegal and have kids banned from those physical spaces?
It’s interesting because I think banning kids from strip clubs is pretty popular, but the digital laws are not as popular. I don’t know of a way to enforce a ban in a digital space that doesn’t infringe on individual liberties though
The reason is a technical one. At a strip club, none of your information is being transmitted; it’s just the bouncer making sure you’re of age by looking at your ID.
Per the EFF:
Age verification systems are surveillance systems. Mandatory age verification, and with it, mandatory identity verification, is the wrong approach to protecting young people online. It would force websites to require visitors to prove their age by submitting information such as government-issued identification. This scheme would lead us further towards an internet where our private data is collected and sold by default. The tens of millions of Americans who do not have government-issued identification may lose access to much of the internet. And anonymous access to the web could cease to exist.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/age-verification-mandates-would-undermine-anonymity-online
Being forced to reveal identification before you’re allowed to view pornography is the equivalent of only being allowed to masturbate while your parents are in the room watching you.
I understand that completely, but if we’re saying kids shouldn’t see strippers, why should they be able to see far more graphic content?
I’m not saying I support these bills as written, basically for the reasons you’re saying. I do think watching extreme content online can damage children’s understanding of sex though. You have to go out of your way to find porn that looks like real sex.
I’m not of the opinion that we should just let kids see that stuff, though at the same time Im skeptical that it’s as bad as some people claim, but I just don’t see a way to actually stop them from seeing it that isn’t way worse than the status quo via restricting everyone else. If the cure is worse than the disease, then one isn’t advocating that the disease isn’t harmful by rejecting the cure, just stating that the trade-off is not worth it.
As far as giving kids a dangerously wrong idea of what sex is goes, I do think that the best solution to this is better sex-ed than trying to hide things from them though. The thing about porn is that it isn’t really possible to stop, without getting insanely draconian. You might be able to stop most kids from being able to access popular websites for it, sure, but given all the stories I’ve heard from before the internet was popular about people as kids finding relatives nsfw magazines and video tapes, that won’t stop a curious kid, just make it slightly more difficult. Consider for a second that pretty much everyone carries a device with photo and video recording capacity everywhere that could be used to make and share porn, that someone with basic art skills can draw it if you remove the camera from the equation somehow, and that if you include smut in all this that even just being literate is enough to make some. Ultimately, porn is a form of information, and in the modern age restricting information is very difficult, let alone trying to restrict information that literally anyone can independently create, from being seen by children who are naturally curious because they have been forbidden from seeing something but doesn’t understand what or why.
I see what you’re asking, and I agree if we’re going to prevent physical access to strip clubs by minors, it makes logical sense to take steps to prevent minors from accessing prurient content online as well.
The question becomes the exact methodology used to achieve that. It’s the same basic premise of making encryption illegal: Are we willing to sacrifice our privacy in the name of “protecting the children”?
Come up with another way to restrict access that doesn’t further encroach on privacy. I don’t have the answer for what that is, and it may not need to involve the government, but allowing them to put bills like this in place sets dangerous precedent. Once we relinquish power to the government, it’s damn near impossible to get it back.
If they really wanted to block access to adult only material, and not be a surveillance state in the process, the correct solution would be that every home router and every cell phone plan would have a secondary password that had to be entered in order to access that data.
Then by default only the parents and the people deemed responsible enough to have access to that password would be able to view adult only content.
That is very secure, it would sweep the floor with a huge percentage of successes with a minimum amount of intervention into people’s daily life.
Sure, some kids will get the password one way or another and view adult only content, but at least they would know they had to go through the extra steps to do something they weren’t allowed to do.
While that technically may not be a surveillance state, it would be an authoritarian state which could decide worker’s rights or the history of slavery are “adult material” because what kid needs to know about them? Kids don’t work or own slaves, so it’s not suitable for them and they can’t access it.
This idea sounds absolutely unhinged to me.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
-Ben Franklin
which I think we all agree on. There are ways that we could enforce age verification (the best one so far is that the browser itself checks your age, then a website tells the browser that it must do an age check before loading, which then your ID is never transmitted or logged for these sites). But politicians don’t want to think about that, they love this because it plays into their surveillance state.
(the best one so far is that the browser itself checks your age
How? As a user I want to have total control over my browser and Internet is an open platform - any browser should be able to view any website even though google is trying to change that with their DRM.
I don’t know exactly but the two big things I’ve seen, and again I’m not the engineer of it or anything, but
- Your browser would have to implement some sort of 3rd party ID checker that the results could then be stored in a non-adaptable way (specifically parental controls I think would need to be set up), then when a site is loaded it reports to the browser the minimum age limit and the browser decides if you can see it or
- You could register your ID on a third party ID checker site that does not log data, only verifies that you are of age. Then on load websites could then check against this third party service to verify the user is 18+.
Know that yes this is a limitation of a browser, and that’s why it’s viewed as a compromise, a word that a lot of people have forgotten. None of us really want to have to prove it, but if there is a need to prevent children from accessing content (and tbh there is a need), then I’d rather have it be done in a privacy focused way.
So it’s not your browser that checks your age but a third party. This raises a few questions:
- What kind of IDs are accepted? Say I have one issued by Singapore…
- How often should it check that a person that uses my browser is still me?
the browser decides if you can see it or
Yea, no. I decide, not the browser.
Banning children from strip clubs in no way impacts the rights of other adults to enjoy strip clubs.
And, again, I am against the laws as written. But I’m asking more broadly about children accessing porn. I would never support a law that requires people to upload their ID, but there has to be some safe way to pull this off.
Oh well that’s even easier then. I don’t care what other people’s children do, in general.
deleted by creator
I think it has nothing to do with children. It is about requiring ID registration for online services so that identities can be tracked. Every time authoritarians want to push another mechanism of control it’s always “about the children”.
Ultimately, I agree with you and that’s why I’m against these laws, but I really do wish there was a good way to do it anonymously. Porn is not good for kids and it’s pretty much impossible to keep them away from it without drastic measures that are more harmful than porn.
Some principles and things to note:
- Adults’ expression to one another must not be restrained to only what is suitable for children.
- Sexuality is a normal thing that most people are interested in. It is not inherently illegitimate, deviant, or corrupting.
- Children and adolescents who are kept in ignorance and fear of sexuality are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse by adults.
- Anonymous and pseudonymous speech are necessary to the freedom of a free society.
- The chief threat of sexual abuse to children does not come from anonymous or pseudonymous speakers on the Internet, but from family members and acquaintances — especially those with authority over the child. As such, if the question is “Who should be subject to greater scrutiny, to prevent child sexual abuse?” the answer will be “parents, guardians, teachers, youth pastors, etc.” at a much higher priority than “anonymous and pseudonymous Internet users”.
- Identification requirements for speakers or audiences are a necessary step to violent and unlawful censorship, and are not necessary for legitimate purposes.
Given these principles and observations, I conclude that the expected effect of such regulations would be to increase sexual abuse of children, while also strongly harming the ability of a free society to discuss and educate about sexuality.
Very excellent points. While I agree kids shouldn’t be looking at porn, forcibly trying to keep all knowledge of sex and porn from them until they hit a magic age where now they can do anything they want isn’t the answer.
Children need to be educated so they can make wise decisions when the time comes. No matter how much people try to stop it, the time will often come before they reach the magic age set by laws, and unfortunately it’s sometimes through sexual assault or their naivety being taking advantage of.
I would combat that by saying I think most pornography is nowhere close to what sex is like. Anecdotally, I hear more stories about men who try to fuck someone like they’re in a porn film, which can result in physical pain to their partner.
I think teaching kids about sex and giving them access to porn that often displays non-consensual acts as normal are two totally different things.
But yes, I think 4 is a very strong point, which is why most of the bills that are being proposed are not being executed well.
I like the idea of having a cleaner internet for under 12s but I hate the idea of giving the government more control of the internet. Ultimately I side with freedom. I grew up on the wildwest internet and turned out fine. These kids will also be fine.
deleted by creator
Yup. If the government was concerned, they could educate and empower parents to do this kind of stuff.
There’s no way for a government to do it that wouldn’t interfere with adults’ privacy.
If the government really wanted to, it could provide citizens with a portal that would do oauth (or something similar) to authorize the porn access.
They could do some crypto crap to avoid storing anything about the citizen, so, unless the system is subborned, it doesn’t store anything about users.
EDIT: the point is that this kind of system can be implemented in a privacy-preserving manner. I’m ambivalent about the idea, but it has been enacted by a democratically elected government, so they should go about it in the most responsible manner possible.
No. Absofuckinglutely not.
If the service is open source, I could actually see this working.
No. Open Source does not make violations of freedom somehow okay.
I thought it was obvious, but I guess I’m gonna go step-by-step. So, what’s needed to verify if you’re 18? Exactly one thing - a flag telling the other system yes/no! Very privacy friendly, porn site doesn’t know anything else about you. And obviously the auth system shouldn’t log that you verified for a porn site. That’s why it should be open source, so you can trust it.
The auth system knows you verified for something. The only way to actually preserve privacy is total anonymity to everyone.
Nope, it doesn’t. Did you read what I wrote or did you just have a knee-jerk reaction?
If it’s private and secure and isn’t linked to your identity, we will share it and it will be useless because everyone who shares the same login is the same over-18 person.
If it is in any way linked to your identity, the data is online and a target for breach which will expose said identity.
There is no realistic way to implement this which both actually does anything at all, AND does not require adding attack surface for breaches.Please reread what I wrote. And regarding attack surface, everything you use adds attack surface.
Yeah. It’s possible, but I’m guessing there isn’t a will or an understanding of available tools.
Your original post said the last can’t be implemented in a privacy preserving manner. It can.
It absolutely cannot.
I disagree. I could literally put some porn in this very comment. So the fediverse needs a porn barrier, and every file hoster, we can’t allow TOR, there is porn, and illegal porn as well. So please show us your id before entering TOR, pls.
It is an authoritarian move. It is undermining privacy. It is censoring the web.
It is parents and maybe schools responsabilty to teach kids how to interact with media, that porn exists and is not an actual representation of sex, and to restrict their access to pornography or media in general.
Furthermore, on planet earth, there are no perfect democracies, and the democratic system of the USA is flawed to a degree where it is at least questionable if your leaders are elected democratically.
If I didn’t want my kids looking at porn online, I already have plenty of things to prevent them from doing so.
Not giving them access to a device without supervision. Using firewall filters. Child-mode browser/OS settings.
We don’t need more regulation for this. Parents just need to get off their ass and do their own parenting. But these bills aren’t actually designed to protect children. They’re designed to gain access to adults’ personal info and will be used more for oppression than safety.
And from the party of “Small Government”, too!
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 come close.
Doesn’t parts of Europe have stricter laws against porn or is that just UK?
I believe that pornography is illegal in Bulgaria, while in other places, there are no strict laws. There’s a warning banner that you must check if you are over 18 years old. That’s it. On the other hand, we have many gun control laws. Priorities.
Even the UK isn’t this level of strict - the things that are outlawed are those involving lack of consent and those that are very likely to injure people.
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
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?
Technically pretty much every router does have built in porn blocking, the problem is is that it’s across the board.
With these routers it’s almost always All or nothing.
It’s also slightly complicated to set up in the first place, and the grand majority of people will not spend more than 10 seconds setting up any technology unless they absolutely have to.
Most people will not go through the process of finding out what the IP address of their router is, attempting to log into it with the default passwords available on the internet, navigating through the HTML 1.0 1993 interface to find the section that allows them to enable parental controls and then enabling them.
As a person who doesn’t have and chooses to not ever have children, it does my head in everytime a government tries to pass laws to stop children getting access to things, instead of making the parents, the people whose job it is to raise the children, take responsibility. I agree tho that router manufacturers should be forced to give easy access to parents to block unwanted sites.
They’re trying to ban vapes in Australia, not because of “health” reasons, but because kids are getting access to them, so instead of making adults accountable, they’re just trying to blanket ban, I’m sick of being punished because shitty parents can’t do their fucking job.
Raise your God damn kids yourself, stop relying on the government to do it for you.
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’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.
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.
That just moves the exact same question to a slightly different place. How do you verify someone accessing the real internet is an adult without destroying anonymity and therefore privacy?
Well now parents have a choice, only give their own children access to the KinterNet
Didn’t answer the question.
This was always the obvious solution to me. It feels like every other year YouTube is jumping through hoops to correct some situation involving children on the platform. Simply make YouTube 18 plus, require an ID upon sign up. Instantly fix everything, except they’d make less money.
deleted by creator
Anyone that thinks kids won’t find a way around any and all blocks is an outright idiot
Even before we had ubiquitous internet everywhere there was forest porn.
At some point between the ages of 11 and 14 every male child would be inexplicably drawn to a local wooded area where they would find hustlers and playboys and penthouse magazines wrapped in trash bags.
Maybe it was different in the city but if you lived in the suburbs that happened.
True. but since it’s not about ACTUALLY protecting children it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t protect children.
It’s a well-intentioned goal that’s impossible to implement without egregiously privacy violating measures.
