Technology

59589 readers

2962 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

387

How the American war on porn could change the way you use the internet (www.bbc.com)

submitted 4 months ago by BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

laughs in californian

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Hahaha... why? You don't think they wouldn't pass a national ban if they could muster the votes?

[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

first, I think it is easily challenged on first amendment grounds

second, I'm not an idiot and I know how to pirate shit

third, if things continue to accelerate towards disaster I believe CA is the least shitty place to enjoy a normal life (that happens to include porn, for me)

[–] wrekone@lemmyf.uk 3 points 4 months ago

Oregon joins the chat...

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

They would. "States' rights" is bullshit that they start with only when they fail to regulate at the national level. Every time.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, we have to stop it! Literally pussy, tits and cocks power the Internet use. I wouldn't use it if it was just reading shit.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Why wouldn't they pass that in California? California loves monitoring people. Right now it's mostly with cars (license plate readers, and now digital license plates with tracking built-in), but I really don't see why they wouldn't do this. They're already starting with social media, I would assume porn would come soon after. Yeah, they have something akin to the GDPR, but that's not at odds with tracking people, it's just a nod so people don't notice what they're up to...

Screw California, they don't care about privacy at all.

[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Smells like a slippery slope fallacy to me

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yours sounds like a fallacy fallacy. Pointing out a logical error doesn't mean the conclusion is inherently wrong.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

No, it's a slippery slope argument. It's a fallacy if and only if the claim in unlikely to follow from the initial argument.

I'm demonstrating two examples of privacy-violating policy from California, where the excuse is to help in policing. If they can tie in policing to porn/social media, I think they'll do it. So yes, it's a slippery slope argument, but I don't think it's a fallacy.