this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
904 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59590 readers
4957 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
[–] mojo@lemm.ee 208 points 1 year ago (18 children)

Jesus, at this point over half the country will ban porn because of religious extremists who hate freedom. Fascism and anti free speech.

[–] qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Age verification for pornography has something like a 70% approval rating. It’s not a religious extremism issue, it’s a “normies don’t want or care about their freedoms issue”.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago

I think there's a lot of vague support for keeping porn away from children that evaporates in the context of the actual issue at hand where porn sites are being mandated to collect and store the IDs of every visitor.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 35 points 1 year ago (14 children)

The concept is not terrible, the implementation is. Passing this law with no secure way of proving identity is where it’s clearly just a Christo-fascist power move.

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

And fuck sending your driver's license to random shady porn sites

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think there is a lot more to this that a secure way or protecting children.

It's the base idea that I have to prove who I am online at all. That I cannot lie. Lieing should be a fundamental right. Not identifying yourself should be a fundamental right. Giving a false name should be a fundamental right.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] whileloop@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's kinda tragic too. I do agree with the sentiment behind age verification, it is in the kids' best interest that they not be using porn at that age. But there's really no way to effectively enforce this without violating basic rights. There is no good solution. Given that dilemma, all we can do is try to better prepare parents to deal with this in their home.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is it really that bad if kids see a bit of porn? Like really? I grew up before the internet, but even in my day porn mags and VHS tapes got passed around when I was a teenager. Kids are always going to be curious.

Even so on the internet there are much worse things than porn that are harmful for the development of children. There are various groups of questionable morality like incels, or other mysogynistic groups, alt right stuff like neonazis, christofascists, climate deniers, ... If I had children, I would be much more concerned about them falling into one of those ideological traps than them seeing some titties. Hell, even TikTok is probably more harmful for giving them a dopamine addiction and an increasingly short attention span.

So to me, it seems a bit weird to single out porn. It feels like a convenient scapegoat for parents who don't want to spend time raising their kids and paying attention to what they are looking at on the internet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mojo@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

The simple "Are you over 18? Yes/No" prompt worked just fine. If a kid lies and presses yes, who fucking cares lol. They're not seeing it on accident at that point. We need to stop this puritan society, kids are going to explore this stuff. They always have and they always will.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

"Are you over 18: Yes/No"

Think nobody is arguing against that. I'd rather not give 1000 different private companies my government ID who get hacked all the time. The same people passing these laws had nude magazines growing up too.

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

70% approval rating but what's the base? If it only surveyed 10 people and 7 say yes, it is 70% but means nothing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The only porn left will be yiff, because sites struggle to classify it as porn (it even makes it past google's filters). And a new generation of furries will be born. Their ban will be their undoing, lmao.

"The elder scrolls told of their return. The defeat was merely a delay."

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 122 points 1 year ago (12 children)

My parents had a porn blocker, and all it made me do was learn enough about computers to circumvent it. Even if they put age verification in front of every porn site in the world there's still torrents and chat rooms and forums all over where you can find it, and kids will find it. Next thing they'll mandate is putting toothpaste back in the tube.

[–] Muddobbers@infosec.pub 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not only will they find it, they'll end up going to the sketchier sites that don't do the age verification because they're not well known enough and not following the laws and they'll likely get something infected on the computer/network or worse.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 1 year ago

Not only will they find it, they’ll end up going to the sketchier sites that don’t do the age verification because they’re not well known enough and not following the laws and they’ll likely get something infected on the computer/network or worse.

It's like that time we declared a war on drugs and then there were no drugs. Wait, actually that led to a massive black market and tons of violence.

Point being, you're not gonna stop it. You're just gonna make it less safe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Funny you should mention putting toothpaste back in a tube, because I actually helped someone do that last night. It's possible, but also a huge pain in the ass. That's not a commentary on anything besides literal toothpaste.

[–] salient_one@lemmy.villa-straylight.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would like to hear the rest of the story, please.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When my wife insisted I put a porn blocker on the internet, I did some simple DNS tinkering, then told my son not to let his mother catch him bypassing the "blocker" I put on.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When I was growing up we had the ultimate porn blocker.

Dial up internet was far too slow to load more than about half an image per hour.

[–] solstice@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It would loan line by precious line. Should I look now and enjoy the suspense or wait ten minutes and see the whole pic in all of its glory? Usually I would be weak and sit there enjoying the anticipation..one line at a time..then finally, when you were so horny you just couldn't take it anymore..you see her penis :/

Kids today don't know how good they got it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Polar@lemmy.ca 117 points 1 year ago (1 children)

America is such garbage lol. You guys should really focus on the important stuff.

[–] TheRobotFrog@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We're trying, but our government won't let us.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stephfinitely@artemis.camp 111 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Religious zealots shouldn't be dictating what I watch, read or do.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Especially when they're watching this stuff too

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] poshKibosh@sh.itjust.works 100 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Even if there was some secure, hardened way of verifying people’s ages without handing over PII to random websites, these age verification laws are still utterly ridiculous.

It’s not the government’s job to parent your kids on the internet. If you don’t want your kids visiting specific websites or viewing specific content, you take 15 minutes out of your goddamn day to do your job as a parent, and set up a content blocker on your home network.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Can't you just use a VPN to get past a content block? Sounds exactly like a project a 14 year old me would research

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Teaching the youth to protect their Internet identity feels like a win.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works 84 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The sicko in me hopes they spend the next two weeks linking every policymaker in the state to their pornography habits and just dump the whole dataset online. Yeah, it would probably counterproductive and not great for democracy but I wouldn’t it be the sickest burn of all time?

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Ironically it would be so much easier to do that if they actually implemented the law they're suing over, which demands they record the ID of everyone who uses the site.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wheresmypillow@lemmy.one 49 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I think a lot of these states are going about this wrong. We should be helping parents restrict access for their children rather than trying to verify identities of adults who likely want to remain anonymous.

[–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am pretty sure these laws have nothing to do with "protecting children"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Yeah I think that's the proper route. Parents who want to restrict what their children see need to take responsibility for doing so and not try to make the government do it for them at the expense of everyone else's privacy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"You show me some lazy prick who's laying around all day watching game shows and stroking his penis and I'll show you someone who's not causing any fucking trouble"

-George Carlin

Republicans really believe shit like this and banning abortion will be successful at restoring the nuclear family... at gunpoint.

What it will really do is increase sexual assault, suicide, violence in general...

Of course that will be everyone else's fault for not submitting to their attempts at coercion correctly. Republicans insist on personal responsibility, exclusively for their many enemies and explicitly not for themselves.

The funniest bit is, they are the reason for the death of the nuclear family and the reason it won't be restored. If you give the owner class all the money out of the asses of the working citizens that would have kids, herp derp they won't have kids.

If they really wanted the "traditional American family" to come back, they need only restore tax levels to pre-reagan levels, and actually enforce them. Instead they'd rather threaten everyone for masturbating instead of making new wage slaves they can't afford to raise so Republicans can also get that dopamine hit of schadenfreude by calling them irresponsible.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 year ago

Guess a state with a big enough user base finally tried this horse shit lol.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

From reading about the law it sounds like they are trying to take a page from CA's overreaching prop 65 law that effectively labels everything a potential carcinogen. Based on the data the main beneficiary of this are a handful of law firms. I wouldn't be surprised if this law is backed by a few law firms who smell easy money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Porn hub should make a VPN and offer it for free to people in texas They could call it VaginaPenisNards

[–] jannis@feddit.de 19 points 1 year ago

They offer a VPN called VPNhub

[–] diggit@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Let them go back to jerking off to the underwear catalogue then.

load more comments
view more: next ›