See the problem is that they're going to do it anyway. So if the "don't fucking do it" is off the table, which I hate to tell you but it pretty much is, then wouldn't it be at least good to have a privacy based approach?

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Here's an analogy.

You don't eat your shit, right?
But what if you put a lot of sugar on it? Doesn't it sound much better? At least it has some good flavor that way, and with enough sugar you won't even see the brown parts of it. This way it doesn't seem that bad.

Of course, not eating shit is off the table. You'll eat it, and you will be happy if you've got sugar.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right, I'm saying that's not an anology, because it's coming whether you like it or not. There is no "choice" you have here to just not eat it, unless you count not viewing porn as the choice here.

[–] ondoyant@beehaw.org 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

if you think bills like this aren't at their core designed to erode user privacy, you're fooling yourself. there is no "privacy based approach" to destroying user privacy, and the ultimatum you're proposing is not real. stupid laws fail all the time. the fact that people are trying to make ID verification a thing doesn't make it inevitable it will become a thing, and in fact, opposing it is the best chance we have at making it fail.

your argument to the inevitability of shit-eating just makes you an advocate for the legislators who want us to eat shit.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

That was my point though, I even said it in my original comment? That there are valid privacy-focused ways to solve the problem, I gave an example, and then said "That's not the point though, they want to spy on us." So, I don't know what you're trying to convince me of? The point I was trying to make?

My only difference is that I think it's coming whether we like it or not. In the US it has bipartisan support and even though we call our congressmen they don't listen.

If it was truly to support the children and it was safe, secure, and private to prove I'm over 18 to access sites, I'd even be in support of the bills - but it's not so I'm not.

[–] ondoyant@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

there isn't a problem to solve. the fact legislators want to do this is the problem. quibbling about how exactly they're gonna implement the torment nexus is secondary to the goal of resisting the torment nexus.

like, if your whole thing is "this is happening, its self-evidently about surveillance, and we can do nothing to stop it" and you start proposing ways for us to be surveilled "safely, securely, and privately", you are pro-surveillance. you are supporting the bills, right now, with the rhetoric you're using. like, imagine doing this about any other political issue.

"i don't support the death penalty, but we can't stop the government from implementing it, so here's the way I'd murder prisoners."

"we can't stop them from banning abortion, and I hate that, but I'll suggest we put the limit at 10 weeks. that seems reasonable, right?"

your idea for "solving the problem" involves doing the thing that both restricts what information people can access, and tracks their legal identity, but in a way that is maybe marginally less stupid than tech illiterate legislators can manage. the fact that you would be fine with the bills if the intent was just to ensure kids can't access "pornography" in a private way kind of reveals your biases here. it would not be a good idea even then.

what counts as pornography is socially defined. a tool which allows the selective restriction of pornography is also by definition a tool that encourages the redefinition of pornography to encompass whatever it is governments don't want people to learn about. especially in the US, it would become a tool for the censorship of minorities, the banning of books, and the removal of queer people from the internet. that's why these laws are being proposed. its not ambiguous at all. like, even if it is inevitable it will pass, the priority doesn't then become "how do we make this bad idea more efficient?", it becomes "how do we subvert this unethical restriction on our communications?". assuming that we can do nothing to stop this ensures that we won't. its a good thing nobody's buying your bullshit.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 2 points 9 months ago

I'd prefer an unmitigated disaster.