this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
387 points (94.5% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
2962 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 243 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

a survey of 1,000 young people concluded that pornography can normalise sexual violence and harmful attitudes among children.

That's irrelevant. This argument assumes that age verification laws will reduce children's consumption of porn. The war on drugs has shown us that prohibition of this kind of stuff doesn't reduce anything and only ever makes it worse. All that will happen is children (and adults) will now go to worse/less moderated websites which will on average have more CSAM and other real sexual abuse.

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 54 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

True. But the people advocating for these laws don't want to deal with nuance and compromise on what it would take to have a society where you educate people on sex in a healthy and positive way. These prohibitionists see the world as either bad or good - nothing in between. Good (how ever they decide to define it) must win no compromises, and the weapon that they use is unfounded fear of the bad and it works.

And the reason fear works is because it is easy and visceral and reality's complexity doesn't work for media's need for sound bites.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] skaffi@infosec.pub 30 points 4 months ago (4 children)

If you were a teenager, back when online porn were all pay sites, and so you were using Kazaa/Limewire instead, then you know.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 months ago

That's not Jenna. That's a snuff film.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sentientity@lemm.ee 11 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Pretty sure the normalization of sexual violence and harmful attitudes came from the adults in my life. If parents and teachers adequately teach kids to identify those things and know that they are unequivocally wrong, then teens who see unhealthy stuff in porn will notice and be critical of it. Probably indignant, too, since no one is more justice focused than a teen who has just learned something about the world.

The issue is backward ideas about relationships being reinforced by adults, either through active misogyny or just never talking about it. This argument boils my blood because the porn itself is not the problem. Awful attitudes about relationships and women start very early and they often come directly from parents themselves.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

The word "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. A lot of things "can" have negative effects.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works 119 points 4 months ago (13 children)

How could American politicians be so against pornography, when so many keep getting caught with prostitutes?

Typical. Rules for thee I guess.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 73 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They pander to the Christian nationalists for their votes. They just want power, they don’t actually hold those values.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 26 points 4 months ago

Because we live in a ravenous corrupt oligarchy barely able to keep the appearance of a functioning democracy.

[–] radivojevic@discuss.online 17 points 4 months ago
[–] Virkkunen@fedia.io 15 points 4 months ago

There's probably a name for this just like the "author's barely disguised fetish". Usually when you see politicians campaigning this hard on topics like those, it's probably because they themselves are doing it

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Doublethink is a core tenant

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PineRune@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They're against pornography, not prostitutes. There's a difference, I guess.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They are also against prostitutes. Sex work is work! Criminalizing it only serves to endanger those who are most at risk.

[–] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

And yet they love the man you cheated on his wife with a porn star.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Kiernian@lemmy.world 84 points 4 months ago (3 children)

For those wondering about the upswing here:

If the age verification movement goes unchecked, it's possible that you could be forced to tie your government ID to much of your online activity, Gillmor says. Some civil rights groups fear it could usher in a new era of state and corporate surveillance that would transform our online behaviour.

"This is the canary in the coalmine, it isn't just about porn," says Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights advocacy group. Greer says age verification laws are a thinly veiled ploy to impose censorship across the web. A host of campaigners warn that these measures could be used to limit access not just to pornography, but to art, literature and basic facts about sex education and LGBTQ+ life.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 34 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Yup, and this is exactly why I plan to use a VPN once my state starts enforcing this law. There's no way I'm going to show ID to any website unless they absolutely need it. There are very few websites where that's necessary, so I'll just use a VPN to a neighboring state (or even to Canada) instead of complying with that nonsense.

I already have to worry about identity theft, I don't want to make that even easier...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 61 points 4 months ago (5 children)

it's not a war on porn; it's a war on lgbtq people and content. the people pushing for these bills have straight up said that.

[–] BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 38 points 4 months ago

It's a war on both, but especially on LGBTQ people. The fundamentalists are anti-porn in the same way that they are anti-sex in other ways, like opposing sex education.

But it is absolutely part of their strategy to define anything LGBTQ-related as sexual or pornographic, and therefore to criminalize any public visibility of LGBTQ people.

[–] Persen@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's a war on any free speech, they don't like. They could just add more restrictions for certain people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.

If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 50 points 4 months ago

From my cold, dead, lubricated hands!

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 48 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Luckily we have lemmynsfw.com 🥳

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BlackLaZoR@kbin.run 46 points 4 months ago

Papers please: for millions of Americans, accessing online pornography now requires a government ID

And I imagine everyone wants a picture of your ID. Which is horrible on so many levels...

[–] boatsnhos931@lemmy.world 44 points 4 months ago (2 children)

MAKE PENIS AND VAGINA ILLEGAL!!!!!

[–] SidewaysHighways@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

MAKE POINTY FOODS ILLEGAL

(I think it was "penis shaped" in the original version)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 39 points 4 months ago

"If they removed porn from the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called 'bringbacktheporn.com.'"

[–] ColdWater@lemmy.ca 31 points 4 months ago (9 children)

So USA slowly becoming China now? What's next VPN users will face jail time?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Too many American corporations rely on VPNs for that to happen. The last thing politicians want is to piss off their corporate masters.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Why are they even in war against porn?

/j lust is just the second layer, try doing something about worse stuff like greed or gluttony

[–] Zier@fedia.io 24 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Because christians think they can make the rules for the rest of us. And they use scare tactics like, "protect the children", which they are molesting. Plus, they don't want anybody to be happy and have any fun. That's the point of christianity, to make everyone miserable, FOREVER.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago

3 boats of Puritans and we still all have to suffer.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

How the American war on porn could change the way you use the internet

looks slightly annoyed

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about such state laws, but the UK spent the last several years having committed to mandate age verification itself prior to eventually abandoning it, and I didn't see Voice of America trying to get people in the US riled up about British law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_UK_Internet_age_verification_system

With the passing of the Digital Economy Act 2017, the United Kingdom became the first country to pass a law containing a legal mandate on the provision of an Internet age verification system.

And if I recall, they had some follow-up effort, which I assume is what is briefly referenced in the article.

looks

Yeah.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/guidance-service-providers-pornographic-content/

Implementing the Online Safety Act: Protecting children from online pornography

This is the second of four major consultations that Ofcom, as the appointed online safety regulator, will publish as part of our work to establish the new regulations under the Online Safety Act (2023).

Currently, services publishing pornographic content online do not have sufficient measures in place to prevent children from accessing this content. Many grant children access to pornographic content without age checks, or by relying on checks that only require the user to confirm that they are over the age of 18.

The Online Safety Act is clear that service providers publishing pornographic content online must implement age assurance which is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not a user is a child to prevent children from normally encountering their online pornographic content.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 months ago

I didn’t see Voice of America trying to get people in the US riled up about British law.

Good. They're not supposed to.

The purpose of the VoA is to broadcast American news and perspectives to the rest of the world. Their programming is not intended for Americans and for most of its history the VoA was prohibited by law from intentionally broadcasting directly to American citizens. A lot of Americans aren't even aware the VoA exists because of this. This prohibition was eased somewhat in 2013 to make putting VoA content online easier and to allow Americans access to VoA content if we want it. ie I as an American citizen am allowed to hear what the VoA says but they're still not supposed to talk to me on purpose.

If you do hear the Voice of America trying to get people in the US riled up about anything, be sure to let us know so that we can make the responsible individuals be in trouble.

[–] MicrowavedTea@infosec.pub 8 points 4 months ago

Let alone Spain has already implemented a system for this which is part of a bigger EU effort. https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-builds-porn-passport-to-stop-kids-watching-smut/

Sadly, I don't think this is going away.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 4 months ago (8 children)

We had these kinds of debates when I myself was a minor (in the late 2000s). I would have thought it would be over by now and people would have realized that allowing teenagers to watch porn isn't actually very harmful to them at all. Seems not, humanity doesn't get smarter over time.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago

Idk, I think teenagers watching porn is harmful, but preventing them from watching it is more harmful. As a parent, you want your kids to come to you with any questions or problems, and locking down everything breaks every ounce of trust you might have with them.

My state is doing this crap, so I'm installing a VPN on my wifi to a state w/o these stupid laws so my kids can make their own choices.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Humanity is smart, those making such laws 1) want the information collected by identifying people, not to forbid porn, 2) just hate autistic people. Because non-autistic teenagers will find something. But then, TBH, autistic ones too.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Not Americans in the sense I see it. Flag pissing regressives is what they are. A minority that gerrymanders their way into power and pushes their childish backward thinking on the real Americans. Many the rot in their closets from which they only emerge every four years to crash grinder.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Eggyhead@lemmings.world 22 points 4 months ago (2 children)

A side thought: what would the world look like if you needed to be 18+ to make a social media account?

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

I assume practically the same in terms of child safety. Teens will find a way around or a more underground alternative to hang out with each other online.

To your question: More headaches and invasion of privacy for everyone due to enforcement. How do you enforce it other than state issued ID? It would also exclude a lot of people who either don't have that ID or don't have access to it. Then there's the whole question if whether you want the government to know what media you're interacting with. For legal reasons the social media company would need to keep evidence on file of your identification, if not report it. Keeping is regardless of whether it's part of that law, CYA and all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If I was a teenager, I would find a way.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

probably just need a VPN. Or a website not hosted in the US lol

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] schlegelt1@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

First they came for the porn.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This should give the dems all they need.

“You do what you need to do in that voting booth, we don’t judge”.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 13 points 4 months ago

No doubt this is all BigVPN's fault!

~/s~

load more comments
view more: next ›