It's a classic tactic, use a somewhat legitimate concern (Minors having access to pornography). And blow it far out of proportion, and use it as an excuse to crackdown on what you're really after. You will see people defending these bans because the "reasoning" they're being presented SEEMS rational, but unwittingly they're supporting a mass crackdown on their own rights.
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
303 points (97.8% liked)
News
36118 readers
3077 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
See also: The constant push by governments to take away our right to private (encrypted) communications.
load more comments
(1 replies)
somewhat legitimate concern (Minors having access to pornography).
Counterpoint: accessing pornography is part of growing up.
There's A LOT of unhealthy porn, especially for kids. Especially for kids with no sex education. It's also easier for them to get addicted.
You could also say alcohol is part of growing up, because for many it is.
Yeah, but the people banning porn are also banning sex Ed, so definitely seems more about control/abuse of power than concern for kids.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
So, to an extent sure, I don't think it's some horrible thing for simply moralistic reasons, everyone has to discover their sexuality one way or another. However, I do think maybe having an entire digital library of smut dumped in your lap the moment you have access to a smartphone and some private time is probably not good for your sexual development. Ideally we'd just have parents/guardians use some common sense and take advantage of parental controls to limit access. But, we both know that many are neglectful or simply busy with trying to make ends meet to constantly monitor these things. Is the right answer government intervention? I'm personally more than a little skeptical, but I can see why some people see it as a valid concern.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Right. "Protecting children". Meanwhile, lowering the age range for child workers...
"No beating off! You need to save your energy for the night shift."
https://clockify.me/learn/business-management/minimum-working-age-by-state/
While privacy-focused age verification methods exist
verification methods may 'exist', but there are exactly zero which can guarantee security and privacy.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Fascists view sexuality as a threat to their movements.
Fascists view knowledge as a threat. They use sexuality as another means of segregation.
load more comments
(3 replies)
"it's for the children" is always a red flag
classic fascist tactic. there's a reason half of the 14 words is about children
load more comments
(3 replies)
they keep saying its about trans people but then they keep blocking porn so i don't know what it is. i think christians and conservatives are stupid as fuck
it's mostly because the red hats love trans porn, and hate themselves for loving trans porn, and they just need a little help resisting temptation
Every time that a conservative equates the mere existence of trans people with sex, they're just outing their own kink.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
don't even for a second think this is in favour of you.
it's some weird christian idea that the human must be "purified" and watching porn stops that. it's about an ideology, not about you or your wellbeing.
We miss you, Larry Flynt. (Not really, he sucked in other ways a great deal, but he at least fought the good fight in this domain)
I loved it when he decided to get revenge on Republicans prosecuting Clinton for getting a blowjob by publishing and distributing a single-issue magazine filled with detailed information about prominent congressmen and their mistresses.
Like you said, he was a piece of shit in a lot of ways, but he did a few things I will happily remember him for.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So no one wants to talk about how maybe we should just be talking to our kids about sexuality? This is just the absence only crowd again. And of course it's taking the rest of our liberties with it but can we stop framing this has tech was of protecting children here? It's Trojan horse bullshit.
It’s the sex doesn’t exist if we don’t talk about it crowd. Just like they don’t like talking about the gays or the trans or CRT. Talking about any of these things means accommodation and mental effort has to be expended. Can’t have that.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There are thousands of porn sites. Blocking pornhub doesn’t even register. If someone wants to find porn it is no more difficult than it was the day before the ban, it just won’t be pornhub porn.
load more comments
(7 replies)
The most surprising thing to me is that PornHub is owned by a multinational Canada based private equity firm Aylo. I guess surprising might not be the right word, maybe morbidly reassuring that no one escapes from the slimy hands of late capitalism.
Yeah, let's get back to small business "mom and pop" pornography vendors!
"Another method, used in Germany, lets people show their ID card at a post office and get a unique ID to access adult sites. This could potentially be done without logging the person’s identity, but as CNIL points out such systems require much work to set up."
This exactly what I was thinking of while reading the article. It's just like going to a bar and getting carded. As long as no info is stored, I would be fine with this if were seriously looking for a solution for the kids
load more comments
(3 replies)
At the core of the debate is a genuinely thorny technical and legal question: how to verify someone’s age over the internet without exposing them to cyber theft or government surveillance.
Age verification providers are adamant that this is possible.
I agree that it is possible if you can guarantee absolutely zero corruption in the system. Which you cannot.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Mad conservative computer scientists: "Yes, using the fear that kids might see porno, we will soon require the implementation of the impossible device: Anonymous age verification! Since no one will be able to implement it, we will ban all pornography off the internet!"
Mad liberal computer scientists: : "Using generative AI, anyone can now produce any porno they want, even offline! And the interface is so easy that even a kid can use it!"
Porn companies: "We will have the computer take a picture of you and analyze your age to grant access."
Users: Uses generative AI to generate fake pictures to get access to real porn.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wasn't really a pornhub guy, think xvideos does the suggestions better and overall I'm more into pics as far as that goes but pissing off my home state gets brownie points off of me anyway.
"While privacy-focused age verification methods exist, regulatory clarity is lacking."
It's not lacking clarity. Privacy-focused age verification is simply not wanted by big tech and politically (because money from big tech) as they wouldn't be able to collect and make money with building profiles of what you do online.
view more: next ›