this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026

689 points (98.2% liked)

memes

20850 readers

1321 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civil

No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politics

This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent reposts

Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No bots

No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop

No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

!tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
!linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
!comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website

689

Protection Ploy (startrek.website)

submitted 2 weeks ago by pEg@startrek.website to c/memes@lemmy.world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] FreshLight@sh.itjust.works 77 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Here's an alternative, so you don't have to use the groomer:

[–] Infernal_pizza@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 2 weeks ago

Kind of fits with the role of government though

[–] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 48 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

fighting pornography

Fuck off, prude.

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 weeks ago

For real, the fight for protecting kids against porn already won. Lazy ass parents are just too lazy in their asses to be bothered to understand how to use parental controls or have a conversation with their kids about porn.

Also, you're never going to keep teenagers from porn. They will always find a way.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 24 points 2 weeks ago

What do you mean "fighting pornography" is their whole excuse

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Fighting against pedophilia

How exactly is fighting against a mental illness going to solve anything? The majority of cases right now, Epstein, et all, are rapists not pedophiles in that context.

Pedophilia isn't going to magically dissapear, alas it should be less scrutinised such that those who are I'll are helped. Rape is a crime which should be fighted against, an illness is not a crime.

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 weeks ago

Let's not split hairs over rhetorics, we also call it "fight against cancer" and even though I'd love to see that bitch jailed it'll most likely never happen.

You're generally right of course, we have to choose the right way to fight different kinds of evil.

[–] trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Every fascist wants to 'protect the children' if he's not in power.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

EVERYONE TURN ON YOUR PORNOGRAPHS

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Using this meme template for this message is absolutely wild when drake is a groomer.

Edit: idk maybe it fits cause he is labeled as the ‘government’ and we all know what they’re up to.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's the same government trying to bring child labor back?

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 weeks ago

Only in the US, right?

…right?

[–] Draegur@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If politicians REALLY wanted to protect children,

They proceed to mix chlorine with bleach, stand up on a chair, put the rope around their own neck, aim the barrel up through the roof of their own mouth, and squeeze.

all in a room locked from the inside.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 weeks ago

fighting against pedophilia

You mean like gay conversion therapy?

[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

do not "fight against pornography", people should have freedom

It confuses me how viewing porn is 18+ rather than being restricted behind age of consent (or even a bit before it). Being allowed to fuck but not to watch a video of people doing it (or even just see a picture of genitals) is total bullshit.

[–] Skv@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Education costs money, and assumes majority of parents aren't complete dolts themselves.

[–] Buage_@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

That's so real..

[–] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

If you're in the US and need help with resources for your child, look for your local Cub Scout pack or similar organization.

[–] Kennystillalive@feddit.org -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Don't they just dwant to implement this survilance because they are too many bots and advertizers want prove their adds go to human, so meta & co are pushing for it in the guise of protecting kids?

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Uh....

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I read that somewhere too. It's also been suggested that SOME countries want to use it to actually do something about the Russian bots that interfere in their elections, but I don't know.

[+] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world -7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

When education and talking with kids actually seems to be accomplishing something, I'll agree that it's a good solution.

We're talking about ID verification because everything listed in the first part of this meme has failed (including, most importantly, depending on parental oversight) and we're now at a point where the consequences require immediate regulation.

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nah. We haven't even tried any of that stuff. We talked about trying that stuff and then didn't and skipped right to mass surveilance.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

That is factually incorrect.

It was exposed in 2014 that FB was running experiments on its users by tinkering with their news feeds, so culturally, conversations around this have been happening for at least twelve years, and tech addiction has been a known problem for at least a decade. These products are designed to be addictive, induce mental illness, and foment rage bait because it keeps eyes glued to ads, and the corporate media providers know this.

Now, we live in a world where it's causing widespread mental illness in young people, because its effects are more pronounced in developing brains. This is a public health issue, and it's not going to be solved with whoo whoo solutions like expecting parents to actually parent, because we can see from the last 5-10 years that this 'solution' is ineffective.

Regulation is necessary, whether it's ID verification, or banning cell phone sales to kids, or even limited solutions like disallowing cell phone use in schools.

[–] cJni5di01n@lemmy.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Regulation is necessary

I agree, but that regulation should be applied to the companies that are causing the harm, not to the public.

[–] BranBucket@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Why should the regulation allow for more surveillance of users and data collection instead of outlawing the practices and algorithms that lead to many of these issues on the first place?

They've been trying to tie devices to identities for years now, and doing so allows them greater leeway to fuck with people's heads, to spread propaganda more effectively, and to target dissent against themselves and their allies. This doesn't protect people from having their mental illnesses exacerbated, it just allows their disfunctions to be shaped in the direction tech billionaires want them to be.

In my opinion, anything that uses an algorithm to drive engagement by presenting material designed to play on the emotions of the user should be outlawed outright. Video ads and paid content should be identified with title cards at the begining and end. Images and posts should be marked with headers and footers that make it clear this is paid content.

If the user decides to subscribe or block certain content, that's the user's choice. But the timeline should always be based on time and date or activity and never influenced by paid advertisements or engagement.

And that's the bare minimum. I still consider that somewhat risky to interact with. If I had my druthers Facebook, Xitter, Reddit, and the rest would all be shuttered and taken offline next week.

[–] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Nice try with that "we need to do this to protect the kids" nonsense, but the baddies have already tipped their hands. They want this so they can mass surveil and track people they don't like, to put real names and faces to every social media post, every purchase, every chat message. They want the power to silence opposition before it can become organized. They want control. This has nothing to do with protecting children. It never does.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

They already have all of that.

They did when you adopted smart phone and smart home technology, same with everyone else. They have it for most people because most people knowingly use corporate social media sites like TikTok, Facebook. Twitter/X, Bluesky, Threads, Instagram, and the like, and those are collecting data too.

We know this objectively because the FBI just released footage in the Guthrie case that shouldn't exist, and definitely shouldn't be hanging out in a government database either.

You're not protecting yourself or anyone by allowing these systems to access kids without any regulation whatsoever. I appreciate that it makes you feel good to think that you are, though.

[–] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They already have all of that.

They have the beginnings of it. The foundation of it. They don't have it all yet though. They're never satisfied with the level of control they have at any given time. They will continue to pursue more sweeping, more draconian measures until they either destroy themselves or incite the oppressed to do it for them. It's like saying the ultra rich aren't going to fuck us over for more money because they already have so much money.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're wrong.

But that's okay. Thank you for the reply. I hope you a nice day.

[–] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're wrong.

Lol yikes. Well uhh, have a nice day as well I guess.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you.

[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Not all. Government-proof systems (Signal and other E2EE things, federated things, many open source projects, etc.) are (mostly) not illegal.